He should have been a story writer for the Onion. Seriously, this guy is like a walking-talking Mad Lib generator. Some of the weirdest shit comes out of his mouth. Someone should whip together a Trump headline generator that puts out the most over-the-top senseless crap and and auto-post the results to free press release sites. The general press is bound to be fooled by a few of them (Hell, Trump may even adopt a few for himself as campaign positions).
The police don't have to prove that anyone thought it was a bomb. They only have to show that there was probable cause to believe that Ahmed intended for the device to be perceived as a bomb. Given that his sister had been suspended for threatening to blow up the school and Ahmed had been suspended just two days prior at another school and the fact that the clock was not his design and clearly not intended to function as a clock (as the housing, which looked like a briefcase, would keep one from reading the clock face), they should have little to no problem to show probable cause (which under the law is not 51% probability, just a substantial possibility).
I don't believe the demand is made in earnest. No one, particularly the law firm representing him, believes that the demand has even a remote relationship to the damages (if any) he may have been perceived to have suffered. It's a publicity stunt - it provides free publicity to a small Texas law firm who may be angling to acquire more Muslim clients and it's a few more minutes of notoriety for Amhed's family (who will probably start another online fundraising efforts to fund the lawsuit).
This kid was sheltered from scrutiny by his family and his parents refused to permit the school to tell its side of the story. Now, the school and the police will be able to get their sides of the story on the record. Plus, I don't think little Ahmed would hold up well in a lengthy deposition or cross-examination by a competent lawyer.
If the school doesn't pay something in "hush money" then the family will eventually dismiss the suit to "spare Ahmed from being re-victimized." Can anyone imagine getting jurors to agree that this wasn't a hoax?
It's often said that "Hard cases make bad laws", but our narrow rules pertaining to standing to challenge an unconstitutional law make sure that only hard cases will be heard. Evidence obtained from illegally intercepting communications under FISA won't be used against the average Joe or even against the low level criminal (we have Parallel Construction for that. In the end, the truly bad laws can only be challenged by the most despised people - terrorists, crime lords, drug kingpins, etc. When that happens the judge will be thinking two things - 1. I can't let this scumbag get off on a technicality and 2. If I follow the constitution and this guy walks then I'll never be appointed to a higher court or find a job in the private sector if I ever decide to leave the bench.
The narrow rules on standing present a structural obstacle to challenging bad laws and all three branches of the government like it that way.
Many police forces conduct a form of intelligence testing as part of the hiring process. If you are too intelligent then you will be booted because they think that police work will be too boring for you and you'll quit. The police departments across the land provide much of the "talent" pool for the FBI, DOJ, DEA and other three letter agencies which naturally leads to the three letter agencies brimming with fools.
It would be more accurate to say that you read about the New London, Connecticut police department and extrapolated from that one case to "many".
In truth, I had heard of this from HR personnel and officers in the LAPD, Sacramento and Seattle PD as well as from corrections departments as far back as the early 90s when I applied. Additionally, the written tests included very obvious personality and IQ testing. The New London case merely brought it out in the public light.
Many police forces conduct a form of intelligence testing as part of the hiring process. If you are too intelligent then you will be booted because they think that police work will be too boring for you and you'll quit. The police departments across the land provide much of the "talent" pool for the FBI, DOJ, DEA and other three letter agencies which naturally leads to the three letter agencies brimming with fools.
Were they manufactured here or did they cross the border illegally? We can't have all of that cheap illegal robotic labor driving down wages for robot citizens manufactured here!
Ok, so Cyrix was bought by National Semiconductor, which in turn sold Cyrix to VIA. I wonder how much of Cyrix ended up going into VIA's line of C7/Nano processors. . . Did anyone on here actually own a Cyrix machine?
Precisely how does it discriminate against children to limit marriage status to heterosexuals? Children can still inherit from their parents. Children can still be loved by them. Frankly, the state has no purpose - no skin in the game, if marriage is just about romantic feelings or sexual acts. Everything that the state has an interest in pertaining to whether a couple stays together or not (and thereby incentivizing it through the promotion of marital status) has to do with the offspring of that couple. There is no scientifically sound evidence that homosexuals raising children do not harm those children. The only studies that conclude otherwise have been convenience samples, snowball samples or a combination of both and those studies are subject to a number of biases that render them unreliable and likely invalid - social desirability bias, ascertainment (sampling) bias - including self-selection bias, pre-screening bias and geographic sampling bias (for instance, including only subjects in a small urban area).
Everything that we know about child rearing and homosexual relationships (particularly male-male relationships) stand against the concept that children are just as well off being raised by homosexuals. Homosexual relationships are less stable (both MSM and FSF) which is a huge factor for the mental health of children, homosexual relationships are often if not usually polyamorous, they lack role models of the opposite sex, children raised by same-sex couples are FAR more likely to choose that lifestyle for themselves (which itself lends one to think that homosexuality is more culture than biology) and if those children become homosexual they will be far more likely to engage in risky sexual practices, abuse drugs, be at risk of suicide and other psychological issues, have STDs and have a shortened lifespan (for instance, when you include the various risk factors - suicide, drug use, STDs, depression and anxiety, etc, the average lifespan of the male homosexual is reduced by about 20 years as compared with lifespan of a heterosexual (which is roughly equivalent to the years lost from being BOTH a lifelong smoker (10 years lost) and being morbidly obese with a BMI >45 (8-13 years lost)).
We need to look at the actual science - not just go blindly into making a dramatic societal change without knowing the consequences.
If marriage is only about the romantic feelings or sexual acts between two consenting adults then why the hell is the government involved in it at all? If it is about providing stability for child rearing, then (setting aside no-fault divorce for the moment) there's an argument to be had to limiting marriage to a man and a woman as they are the only pair that can naturally produce children and there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that homosexuals provide parenting on par with that of heterosexual couples.
Then one may say "What about people who are infertile? People too old to reproduce? etc." The answer to that is that the law doesn't have to have a perfect fit - only a rational one.
Of course the argument has been made that homosexual couples are fine parents, but in every single instance where there has been a study of homosexual parenting, the study was based on a convenience sample (where the researcher advertised in homosexual advocacy media or with advocacy groups for his study sample) or it was a snow-ball sample (where participants in the study recruited more participants) or a combination of the two. Why? Because it is nearly impossible to obtain a statistically significant sample size of stable homosexual relationships with children using a random population study because there simply aren't enough of that sub-group available for sampling purposes (Less than 1% of US households are homosexual couples, only 1/5 of those have children in them, and obviously, a smaller percentage have been together for the life of the child, like a stable marriage relationship). Since only 0.18% of US households are led by homosexual couples with children, it is inherently difficult and cost prohibitive to conduct a randomized population study that uses objective criterion to evaluate the effects of being raised by homosexual parents and instead what we see is studies conducted by self-proclaimed gay activists using methodologies that will inherently bias their studies in the direction they prefer.
What's wrong with convenience or snow-ball sampling? They're inherently biased and the bias cannot be corrected for. For instance, in a couple of studies on homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins, the convenience samples found rates of concordance between 47-52% for homosexuality among monozygotic twins. However, when researchers did a random population study based on the Australian Twin Registry, they found a concordance rate of 11% among monozygotic twins and 6% for dizygotic twins (interestingly, adopted siblings, who shared no genetic material also had 6% concordance rate for homosexuality). The previous researcher's reliance on a convenience sample create the likelihood of “ascertainment bias”. In the words of the researchers, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate”. The study participants knew what population group was being studied, knew what was being studied and had an interest in the findings of the study but somehow were expected to be completely unbiased in coming forward for the study and and objective in providing information to the researchers (as opposed to engaging in social desirability bias (when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible) - it's absolute folly to think that the studies on child rearing by homosexuals reflect anything other than the bias of the researchers and their subjects. There is no sound science showing otherwise.
So what we are left with is making a fundamental shift in society based on no real information - just a vague sense that society should somehow have some role in recognizing the romantic feelings or sexual acts of two people - something that the law determined years ago was an entirely private matter (See Griswold v. Conn.).
I don't see how either of the articles you point to say that the claims made in the Washington Times article are debunked - they support what was claimed. The second article you cite explains very clearly that the City Attorney stated that if the pastor refused to perform a same-sex marriage that he would be in violation of the ordinance - violation of the ordinance is a criminal misdemeanor with up to 6 months of jail time for each offense and up to a $1,000.00 fine for each offense. That someone wants to earn a living through the performance of a religious act does not strip the act of its religious nature.
Catholics, for instance, view marriage as a sacrament and The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacraments as "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."
The apostle Paul wrote about earning a living through the spreading the gospel:
"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? . . . Don't you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:7,13-14 - for the larger context see 9:1-14)
You should really actually read the article you cite to prove that the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA are so radically different. The author, Josh Blackman, states at the end:
"There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA."
On an additional note, you might want to actually read the article you cite to prove that the Federal RFRA and the Indiana RFRA are so radically different. The author, Josh Blackman, states at the end:
"There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA."
The reason why these laws have been coming down is because people are concerned, rightly, that they will be compelled to engage in forced expression in favor of something that they find morally wrong. Whether you believe it is morally wrong is besides the point - no one should be compelled to engage in any form of expressive activity in favor of something they find morally repugnant. The first amendment enshrines our freedom of speech and the 13th states that no form of involuntary servitude is to be permitted in the United States - and trust me, if you're forced to make the choice between (1) being fined into eternal indebtedness to the state (as these fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy) or having your livelihood cut off or (2) engaging in conduct you find wrong: it's involuntary. Why are people concerned about this? Bakers have been put out of business because they refused to use their artistic talents (which express themselves) to make wedding cakes for homosexual unions. At least one photographer was handed down ruinous fines for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. A florist was shut down for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a homosexual wedding. Each of these people believe that their actions would be tantamount to approving the homosexual wedding and such actions would be in violation of their deeply held religious belief (see, i.e. Romans 1:32 - the conduct itself is condemned, but even those who approve of such conduct are condemned). Frankly, I don't think that the gays who asked for these services did so in good faith - they did it to cause problems for those people because they loathe them. They want to drive religious expression completely from the public square and keep it confined to a two hour slot on Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be).
You do realize, don't you, that the federal courts have, with the exception of two circuits (and the Supreme Court smacked down the reasoning used by Judge Posner in the 7th circuit - so it really means only one circuit is an exception), found that using the courts in a private suit constitutes government action because the judiciary is part of the government. In other words, the Federal RFRA would be applied in the same exact way as the Indiana RFRA would - as a defense raised before the court because the court could not rule on the case because it would involve government action in contravention of a person's sincerely held religious beliefs? The Indiana version merely codifies this rule. So no real difference here. This one issue swallows both of your "differences" because 1.) The government becomes an actor once it comes to court and 2.) The Federal RFRA becomes essentially an affirmative defense because of #1.
Concealed carry is legal in most California counties only if you have an in (read: large contribution) with the Sheriff because whether or not a license is issued is entirely discretionary with the Sheriff. Most counties have not followed the Peruta case because there was a question as to whether the 9th circuit would be taking it up en banc (it decided to do so yesterday). So, no, we don't really have concealed carry in California.
Slashdot Mirror
He should have been a story writer for the Onion. Seriously, this guy is like a walking-talking Mad Lib generator. Some of the weirdest shit comes out of his mouth. Someone should whip together a Trump headline generator that puts out the most over-the-top senseless crap and and auto-post the results to free press release sites. The general press is bound to be fooled by a few of them (Hell, Trump may even adopt a few for himself as campaign positions).
Of course, the school and police will logically counter that threats can be conveyed by means other than words.
The police don't have to prove that anyone thought it was a bomb. They only have to show that there was probable cause to believe that Ahmed intended for the device to be perceived as a bomb. Given that his sister had been suspended for threatening to blow up the school and Ahmed had been suspended just two days prior at another school and the fact that the clock was not his design and clearly not intended to function as a clock (as the housing, which looked like a briefcase, would keep one from reading the clock face), they should have little to no problem to show probable cause (which under the law is not 51% probability, just a substantial possibility).
He was arrested by the Irving, Texas Police Department but ultimately not charged.
I don't believe the demand is made in earnest. No one, particularly the law firm representing him, believes that the demand has even a remote relationship to the damages (if any) he may have been perceived to have suffered. It's a publicity stunt - it provides free publicity to a small Texas law firm who may be angling to acquire more Muslim clients and it's a few more minutes of notoriety for Amhed's family (who will probably start another online fundraising efforts to fund the lawsuit).
This kid was sheltered from scrutiny by his family and his parents refused to permit the school to tell its side of the story. Now, the school and the police will be able to get their sides of the story on the record. Plus, I don't think little Ahmed would hold up well in a lengthy deposition or cross-examination by a competent lawyer.
If the school doesn't pay something in "hush money" then the family will eventually dismiss the suit to "spare Ahmed from being re-victimized." Can anyone imagine getting jurors to agree that this wasn't a hoax?
It's often said that "Hard cases make bad laws", but our narrow rules pertaining to standing to challenge an unconstitutional law make sure that only hard cases will be heard. Evidence obtained from illegally intercepting communications under FISA won't be used against the average Joe or even against the low level criminal (we have Parallel Construction for that. In the end, the truly bad laws can only be challenged by the most despised people - terrorists, crime lords, drug kingpins, etc. When that happens the judge will be thinking two things - 1. I can't let this scumbag get off on a technicality and 2. If I follow the constitution and this guy walks then I'll never be appointed to a higher court or find a job in the private sector if I ever decide to leave the bench.
The narrow rules on standing present a structural obstacle to challenging bad laws and all three branches of the government like it that way.
There's a desperate need for a public service hacking and document dump to occur.
Many police forces conduct a form of intelligence testing as part of the hiring process. If you are too intelligent then you will be booted because they think that police work will be too boring for you and you'll quit. The police departments across the land provide much of the "talent" pool for the FBI, DOJ, DEA and other three letter agencies which naturally leads to the three letter agencies brimming with fools.
It would be more accurate to say that you read about the New London, Connecticut police department and extrapolated from that one case to "many".
In truth, I had heard of this from HR personnel and officers in the LAPD, Sacramento and Seattle PD as well as from corrections departments as far back as the early 90s when I applied. Additionally, the written tests included very obvious personality and IQ testing. The New London case merely brought it out in the public light.
Don't sell it - post your work on Instructables.com and let others benefit from your wisdom and ingenuity.
Many police forces conduct a form of intelligence testing as part of the hiring process. If you are too intelligent then you will be booted because they think that police work will be too boring for you and you'll quit. The police departments across the land provide much of the "talent" pool for the FBI, DOJ, DEA and other three letter agencies which naturally leads to the three letter agencies brimming with fools.
Yep, we have to learn to "check our privilege."
Were they manufactured here or did they cross the border illegally? We can't have all of that cheap illegal robotic labor driving down wages for robot citizens manufactured here!
I gather you didn't catch the sarcasm I intended . . .
Ok, so Cyrix was bought by National Semiconductor, which in turn sold Cyrix to VIA. I wonder how much of Cyrix ended up going into VIA's line of C7/Nano processors. . . Did anyone on here actually own a Cyrix machine?
Next time they tell you that you'll set your computer on fire if you overclock, you better believe them.
Precisely how does it discriminate against children to limit marriage status to heterosexuals? Children can still inherit from their parents. Children can still be loved by them. Frankly, the state has no purpose - no skin in the game, if marriage is just about romantic feelings or sexual acts. Everything that the state has an interest in pertaining to whether a couple stays together or not (and thereby incentivizing it through the promotion of marital status) has to do with the offspring of that couple. There is no scientifically sound evidence that homosexuals raising children do not harm those children. The only studies that conclude otherwise have been convenience samples, snowball samples or a combination of both and those studies are subject to a number of biases that render them unreliable and likely invalid - social desirability bias, ascertainment (sampling) bias - including self-selection bias, pre-screening bias and geographic sampling bias (for instance, including only subjects in a small urban area).
Everything that we know about child rearing and homosexual relationships (particularly male-male relationships) stand against the concept that children are just as well off being raised by homosexuals. Homosexual relationships are less stable (both MSM and FSF) which is a huge factor for the mental health of children, homosexual relationships are often if not usually polyamorous, they lack role models of the opposite sex, children raised by same-sex couples are FAR more likely to choose that lifestyle for themselves (which itself lends one to think that homosexuality is more culture than biology) and if those children become homosexual they will be far more likely to engage in risky sexual practices, abuse drugs, be at risk of suicide and other psychological issues, have STDs and have a shortened lifespan (for instance, when you include the various risk factors - suicide, drug use, STDs, depression and anxiety, etc, the average lifespan of the male homosexual is reduced by about 20 years as compared with lifespan of a heterosexual (which is roughly equivalent to the years lost from being BOTH a lifelong smoker (10 years lost) and being morbidly obese with a BMI >45 (8-13 years lost)).
We need to look at the actual science - not just go blindly into making a dramatic societal change without knowing the consequences.
If marriage is only about the romantic feelings or sexual acts between two consenting adults then why the hell is the government involved in it at all? If it is about providing stability for child rearing, then (setting aside no-fault divorce for the moment) there's an argument to be had to limiting marriage to a man and a woman as they are the only pair that can naturally produce children and there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that homosexuals provide parenting on par with that of heterosexual couples.
Then one may say "What about people who are infertile? People too old to reproduce? etc." The answer to that is that the law doesn't have to have a perfect fit - only a rational one.
Of course the argument has been made that homosexual couples are fine parents, but in every single instance where there has been a study of homosexual parenting, the study was based on a convenience sample (where the researcher advertised in homosexual advocacy media or with advocacy groups for his study sample) or it was a snow-ball sample (where participants in the study recruited more participants) or a combination of the two. Why? Because it is nearly impossible to obtain a statistically significant sample size of stable homosexual relationships with children using a random population study because there simply aren't enough of that sub-group available for sampling purposes (Less than 1% of US households are homosexual couples, only 1/5 of those have children in them, and obviously, a smaller percentage have been together for the life of the child, like a stable marriage relationship). Since only 0.18% of US households are led by homosexual couples with children, it is inherently difficult and cost prohibitive to conduct a randomized population study that uses objective criterion to evaluate the effects of being raised by homosexual parents and instead what we see is studies conducted by self-proclaimed gay activists using methodologies that will inherently bias their studies in the direction they prefer.
What's wrong with convenience or snow-ball sampling? They're inherently biased and the bias cannot be corrected for. For instance, in a couple of studies on homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins, the convenience samples found rates of concordance between 47-52% for homosexuality among monozygotic twins. However, when researchers did a random population study based on the Australian Twin Registry, they found a concordance rate of 11% among monozygotic twins and 6% for dizygotic twins (interestingly, adopted siblings, who shared no genetic material also had 6% concordance rate for homosexuality). The previous researcher's reliance on a convenience sample create the likelihood of “ascertainment bias”. In the words of the researchers, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate”. The study participants knew what population group was being studied, knew what was being studied and had an interest in the findings of the study but somehow were expected to be completely unbiased in coming forward for the study and and objective in providing information to the researchers (as opposed to engaging in social desirability bias (when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible) - it's absolute folly to think that the studies on child rearing by homosexuals reflect anything other than the bias of the researchers and their subjects. There is no sound science showing otherwise.
So what we are left with is making a fundamental shift in society based on no real information - just a vague sense that society should somehow have some role in recognizing the romantic feelings or sexual acts of two people - something that the law determined years ago was an entirely private matter (See Griswold v. Conn.).
I don't see how either of the articles you point to say that the claims made in the Washington Times article are debunked - they support what was claimed. The second article you cite explains very clearly that the City Attorney stated that if the pastor refused to perform a same-sex marriage that he would be in violation of the ordinance - violation of the ordinance is a criminal misdemeanor with up to 6 months of jail time for each offense and up to a $1,000.00 fine for each offense. That someone wants to earn a living through the performance of a religious act does not strip the act of its religious nature.
Catholics, for instance, view marriage as a sacrament and The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacraments as "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."
The apostle Paul wrote about earning a living through the spreading the gospel:
"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? . . . Don't you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. " (1 Corinthians 9:7,13-14 - for the larger context see 9:1-14)
"There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA."
"There here we have it. Indiana, as well as Arizona’s RFRAs are very similar to the Federal RFRA."
The reason why these laws have been coming down is because people are concerned, rightly, that they will be compelled to engage in forced expression in favor of something that they find morally wrong. Whether you believe it is morally wrong is besides the point - no one should be compelled to engage in any form of expressive activity in favor of something they find morally repugnant. The first amendment enshrines our freedom of speech and the 13th states that no form of involuntary servitude is to be permitted in the United States - and trust me, if you're forced to make the choice between (1) being fined into eternal indebtedness to the state (as these fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy) or having your livelihood cut off or (2) engaging in conduct you find wrong: it's involuntary. Why are people concerned about this? Bakers have been put out of business because they refused to use their artistic talents (which express themselves) to make wedding cakes for homosexual unions. At least one photographer was handed down ruinous fines for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. A florist was shut down for refusing to make a floral arrangement for a homosexual wedding. Each of these people believe that their actions would be tantamount to approving the homosexual wedding and such actions would be in violation of their deeply held religious belief (see, i.e. Romans 1:32 - the conduct itself is condemned, but even those who approve of such conduct are condemned). Frankly, I don't think that the gays who asked for these services did so in good faith - they did it to cause problems for those people because they loathe them. They want to drive religious expression completely from the public square and keep it confined to a two hour slot on Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be).
You do realize, don't you, that the federal courts have, with the exception of two circuits (and the Supreme Court smacked down the reasoning used by Judge Posner in the 7th circuit - so it really means only one circuit is an exception), found that using the courts in a private suit constitutes government action because the judiciary is part of the government. In other words, the Federal RFRA would be applied in the same exact way as the Indiana RFRA would - as a defense raised before the court because the court could not rule on the case because it would involve government action in contravention of a person's sincerely held religious beliefs? The Indiana version merely codifies this rule. So no real difference here. This one issue swallows both of your "differences" because 1.) The government becomes an actor once it comes to court and 2.) The Federal RFRA becomes essentially an affirmative defense because of #1.
Concealed carry is legal in most California counties only if you have an in (read: large contribution) with the Sheriff because whether or not a license is issued is entirely discretionary with the Sheriff. Most counties have not followed the Peruta case because there was a question as to whether the 9th circuit would be taking it up en banc (it decided to do so yesterday). So, no, we don't really have concealed carry in California.
Good we don't want any tea-baggy cry babies here anyway
And the rest of the country doesn't want you so-called "progressive" ideological bigots and fascists either.
Calvin Bambi eyes. . .