Where I used to live, the local college offered an evening class that cost something like $42 for the book and $100 for the instructor, plus so much an hour for in-the-air time, if you stayed with it that far.
I took "Aviation Science" in high school, over 40 years ago. We did everything up to the actual flying part (theory, handling, controls, atmospheric conditions, navigation, etc, etc.) Essentially got us to where if the pilot croaked, we'd have a fighting chance to land the plane, even without a coach. One fundamental concept was: Take it easy. The plane isn't going to do anything weird all by itself. You've got plenty of time (unless you're headed straight for a mountain), so think before you act.
An AC speculates, "Or it shows that conservatives are more likely to claim such donations, and use them for tax advantage purposes."
Considering that at such levels, most donors of any political bent are going to hire tax accountants who've been trained to take full advantage of the tax code, I doubt the donor claiming it or not has any real impact.
In which case, similarly self-serving statements by the police (including anything they insinuate to get you to make a defensive statement) should be admissible.
Seems to me between that and the plea bargain system, the whole thing is loaded against the innocent. It's supposed to be loaded the other way, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't cutting it anymore.
1. The police officer has the legal authority to act on behalf of the government. 1a. The paid guard has authority to act on behalf of the people.
2. The police officer has the right to do things that citizens do not. 2a. Citizen's arrest, anyone?
3. The average police officer has considerably more training than your average security guard. 3a. If the average security guard is in fact an off-duty cop, what does this say about his training?
4. The police officer is supposed to protect and serve anyone and everyone. 4a. Wrong. Generally he is not allowed to act in an official capacity outside of his jurisdiction -- the people who 'hired' him. [I personally know of LEOs who were fired for being outside their jurisdiction while on duty.]
5. The police officer that covers your neighborhood coordinates his/her efforts with other police officers and other police departments in a way that armed neighborhood watchman simply can't do. 5a. Erm, that's what walkie talkies are for, not to mention actually calling the neighboring district's LE or security guard force. Which is pretty much all the police department would do.
And all the Dems care about is making sure the Reps lose. If that fucks over We The People, well, so long as the Dems win and the Reps lose, they don't care.
I think this attitude has a lot to do with the Reps now wanting to stick it to the Dems.
They are up and running. From what I saw at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/sitemap.shtm, the whole site is still there, just on a global redirect to the "no one home" page.
If anything, I suspect this makes 'em more attractive targets cuz it may be a while before anyone notices if they get hacked.
The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they're only here to help.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought electricity production fell under "critical infrastructure".
Why don't we send home all the damned bureaucrats instead??
Where I used to live, the local college offered an evening class that cost something like $42 for the book and $100 for the instructor, plus so much an hour for in-the-air time, if you stayed with it that far.
I want to die peacefully in my bed like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
I took "Aviation Science" in high school, over 40 years ago. We did everything up to the actual flying part (theory, handling, controls, atmospheric conditions, navigation, etc, etc.) Essentially got us to where if the pilot croaked, we'd have a fighting chance to land the plane, even without a coach. One fundamental concept was: Take it easy. The plane isn't going to do anything weird all by itself. You've got plenty of time (unless you're headed straight for a mountain), so think before you act.
The power companies would love it if everyone would buy a remote-controllable thermostat.
An AC speculates, "Or it shows that conservatives are more likely to claim such donations, and use them for tax advantage purposes."
Considering that at such levels, most donors of any political bent are going to hire tax accountants who've been trained to take full advantage of the tax code, I doubt the donor claiming it or not has any real impact.
In which case, similarly self-serving statements by the police (including anything they insinuate to get you to make a defensive statement) should be admissible.
Seems to me between that and the plea bargain system, the whole thing is loaded against the innocent. It's supposed to be loaded the other way, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't cutting it anymore.
The trouble with that statement is that today's cops don't regard ANYONE as innocent. They're *taught* that EVERYONE is a potential perp.
What I don't get is why it's hearsay if I say that I said it, but it's not hearsay if the LEO says that I said it.
That's precisely what I concluded from reading the article. :( Goes to show how the very concept of rights itself has eroded.
"Officer Bruch gave multiple real-life examples from his own career of people who helped themselves by talking to the police."
But it seems to me that Officer Bruch points them out as exceptions, not as typical examples.
Some rebuttals that come to mind:
1. The police officer has the legal authority to act on behalf of the government.
1a. The paid guard has authority to act on behalf of the people.
2. The police officer has the right to do things that citizens do not.
2a. Citizen's arrest, anyone?
3. The average police officer has considerably more training than your average security guard.
3a. If the average security guard is in fact an off-duty cop, what does this say about his training?
4. The police officer is supposed to protect and serve anyone and everyone.
4a. Wrong. Generally he is not allowed to act in an official capacity outside of his jurisdiction -- the people who 'hired' him. [I personally know of LEOs who were fired for being outside their jurisdiction while on duty.]
5. The police officer that covers your neighborhood coordinates his/her efforts with other police officers and other police departments in a way that armed neighborhood watchman simply can't do.
5a. Erm, that's what walkie talkies are for, not to mention actually calling the neighboring district's LE or security guard force. Which is pretty much all the police department would do.
This is rather like being able to earmark your taxes (and by the same token, to *not* fund activities you don't want).
Thanks to the plea bargain system, there IS no functional difference between being accused and being convicted.
Hmmm... so, if they keep your mugshot up, they should have to pay you for it. Great idea!
Bingo... ...and goes right along with how (per the last numbers I saw) wealthy conservs donate ~5x as much to charity as do equally-wealthy libs.
The reason it's inefficient is that if you have $3 for charity, the gov't spends $2 of that on overhead and returns $1 to the public.
By coincidence, I just recently started watching Blake's 7 for the first time. Looks straight outta 1950, for sure.
I don't know when this stopped being the case, but in the early days, the daily soaps were broadcast live; there were no tapes.
And all the Dems care about is making sure the Reps lose. If that fucks over We The People, well, so long as the Dems win and the Reps lose, they don't care.
I think this attitude has a lot to do with the Reps now wanting to stick it to the Dems.
Same suit, different tie.
Check out http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/sitemap.shtm and let me know if it's been powered down. ;)
They are up and running. From what I saw at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/sitemap.shtm, the whole site is still there, just on a global redirect to the "no one home" page.
If anything, I suspect this makes 'em more attractive targets cuz it may be a while before anyone notices if they get hacked.
If they stay at home and don't work, why should they be retroactively paid for doing nothing? They're free to take another job elsewhere, yes?
And if the central gov't hadn't tried to enforce a way of life on all the states, would the civil war have happened? I doubt it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh100413.php3
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden100413.php3
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100413.php3
The most interesting bit, from Pruden:
The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they're only here to help.