The average cost is not that meaningful because it is an average, and there are trailing and leading edges to the data that make up that figure. The question is, if a couple that adopted a kid finds it needs welfare, how is that different from an art. insemination couple which later finds it needs welfare?
So when I look at forums where people say that the government only looks at their paystubs and unconfirmed self-report of expenses, that it doesn't look at debt to income ratios, savings, etc., or websites that say your disability payments can be used to show income for adoption, it seems clear that on the outside edge of that $30k average, are people who are adopting kids even though there is a likelihood that they will need welfare because they are one lost paycheck away from crisis.
Given that, it seems to be a distinction without a difference to say that this guy should be responsible, when had the same couple adopted his kid, he would not.
What are the financial requirements (if any) to adopt a child in care? The acceptable income level varies widely depending on each unique situation. Income will be addressed as part of the home study to ensure that an adoptive parent is currently financially stable and able to provide for the basic needs of a child. Potential adoptive parents will never be disqualified based on income alone.
According to the posts in this forum, people adopting foster kids need only turn in a couple paystubs and self-report their monthly expenses -- no credit checks, investigation, or anything else. Obviously the state must know this will be abused.
Many different people can be successful parents. You don't have to own your own home or meet a pre-determined income level to be eligible. Your income may come from employment, a pension or disability payments. Both members of a couple may work.
Maybe, and it's sort of hard to google this issue because the search terms don't come naturally to my mind, but at least in Ohio, if you can't afford to adopt the state will help you out with a loan up to $3000. Honestly, if a person can't come up with $3000 for an adoption, he or she can't be in an awesome financial situation, and yet the state is going out of its way to cause that adoption to occur. It seems reasonable to think that adoptive parents in such situations are at a high risk for ending up on public assistance.
A prospective adoptive parent may apply to the department of job and family services for a loan from the state adoption assistance loan fund created under section 5101.143 of the Revised Code. Subject to available funds, the department may approve a state adoption assistance loan application, in whole or in part, or deny the application. In reviewing a loan application submitted to the department, the department shall consider the financial need of the prospective adoptive parent in determining whether to approve a loan application, in whole or in part, or deny the application. If the department approves a loan application, in whole or in part, and the child being adopted resides in Ohio, the department shall loan a prospective adoptive parent not more than three thousand dollars from the state adoption assistance loan fund. If the department approves a loan application, in whole or in part, and the child being adopted does not reside in Ohio, the department shall loan a prospective adoptive parent not more than two thousand dollars from the state adoption assistance loan fund.
You've skipped addressing the adoption analogy. In an adoption the same termination of parental rights and duties occurs yet people who give up a kid for adoption don't face this. What is so distinguishable to make it acceptable to bill bio-parent Here?
Require intent to break the law. The old "ignorance is no excuse" becomes a catch 22 when no person can know all the laws, i.e., everyone is ignorant. The law instead becomes nothing but a means of oppression against people the government dislikes -- a tool of despotism.
As for the lobsters -- are you serious? She ordered some lobsters -- they came in plastic bags rather than the usual cardboard boxes. She pays for them and spends two years in prison. Are you fucking joking? You're supposed to think that if a supplier changes their packaging you're going to spend years in prison for it?
Real-life example: Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi graduate student in Idaho, was reportedly the first person to be indicted under the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the notion of "material support" for terrorism to include those who render "expert advice or assistance" to the terrorists and their cause. The feds alleged that al-Hussayen, in his role as Webmaster for a Muslim charity website, was providing such assistance. The charity sites focused on normal religious training, but the indictment asserted that if a user followed enough links off his site, he would find violent, anti-American comments on other sites. Such was the elasticity provided by Patriot Act provisions. A properly instructed jury acquitted, but the set of anti-terrorism laws leave little reason to believe that prosecutors will not infringe on important civil liberties in their pursuit of terrorist suspects, as indeed they have in various parts of the nation. In fact, an upcoming Supreme Court case -- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project -- challenges the vagueness of this federal statute.
I see, the system is so awesome -- a webmaster was subjected to immense financial strain and had to put his life on the craps table called a jury which could have sent off forever if enough fundy christians were on it by chance. But because this time the dice came up in his favor, all is well and right in the world. That's not some kind of fantasy about government abuse -- that's the actuality of it. A prosecution because something you link to links to something that links to something the Feds hate? That's a really bushy tree of links you have to follow for posting something innocent to ensure you don't spend years in trial with at best a 50/50 chance of going free, to say nothing of the financial ruin if you hit that freedom lotto number.
Yes -- and then there is the fact that federal code base of crimes is so vast, vague, and its implementation left up to so many agencies, that even the ABA can't count all of the crimes one can commit, most of which have no element of intent.
Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.
"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."
Also, sometimes in a voting situation, "abstain" is actually a valid option.
Recently, I vote a straight "Any 3d Party" ticket and if no 3d Party is available, for my cat.
I feel that not voting would make me indistinguishable from the apathetic, so I submit a protest vote rather than abstain, although in one respect I do abstain -- I totally abstain from voting for the DNC or GOP, their candidates being essentially fungible.
Democrats have assumed the term "progressive" and until they relinquish it, at least in America, the term cannot be seen to represent "rebels and traitors" toward the establishment. Indeed, if there is anything Democrats excel at, it is entrenching the rightward push of the GOP as the new normal. It is, for example, Democrats who have taken concepts that only a decade ago were considered radical, like due process free detention, and not only entrenched that practice, but expanded it to include due process free execution.
I think it is a bit different. He's interested in N. Korea because human experimentation has been happening, and sees an opportunity to get data that would be otherwise unavailable, even unethical. His acquiring the data however, is not the cause of that unethical treatment and if he abandoned his studies, that treatment would continue unabated.
In a similar way, medical scientists study the effects of people's habits, for example, what happens to people who smoke, who run, who work in coal mines, who eat only vegetables, etc. etc. The scientists aren't the ones inducing people to engage in any particular behavior, but they see an opportunity to gather data by looking at various groupings. So while it would be one thing to set up an apparatus that made a person breathe coal dust for a decade, it is another thing altogether to acquire data from people who for some other reason unrelated to the scientist or the study, breathed coal dust for a decade.
Everyone draws a line on the spectrum, whether consciously or unconsciously, what they are comfortable with. Some people are fine eating fish and chicken, but not pigs and cows.
I'm here -- I chose to draw that line at only eating animals not having a neo-cortex, although I do give octopi honorary mammal status. It's somewhat arbitrary of course, but eating other mammals feels sort of broadly cannibalistic.
I've been eating this way for about nine or ten years and I don't miss anything about eating mammals. I've basically forgotten what they taste like -- I think it was about one or two years into this that I lost all cravings for mammal meat. I do however continue to drink milk and eat cheese and butter on the pretense that all the milk cows I see seem pretty happy out in their fields, though I do recognize there is ancillary cruelty wreaked upon male calves. I've thought of getting my own cow, but we had one for a while when I was a kid and there is just no way to deal with 5 or 6 gallons of milk per day -- even after making butter, giving away all we could, as a family of 5 we still ended up pouring most of it out in the garden. So we sold the cow. Some mini-cows produce only 2-3 gallons but still, I like milk and all, but 15 gallons/wk is way too much, so I've chosen to ignore the guilt I should feel about dairy.
There are tons of instances where people selling stolen goods have been the subject of search warrants. It would be interesting to see what specific set of details made your anecdote unique enough to avoid a warrant -- but I can't find it.
Given that the phone is actually in the possession of the person who owns it, and the police have no way of knowing of what on that phone is held by a third party, nor are the requesting any information from those third parties, I have trouble seeing the third party doctrine as applying to the phone itself.
But then, I have trouble seeing how any of the recent masspionage is constitutional -- I get the strained and overreaching arguments rooted in massive over-application of Smith v. Maryland, I'm just amazed they aren't immediately recognized as strained and overreaching and laughed out of court. Soooo... I'm not holding my breath here.
Look at the Verizon order. The only calls it doesn't apply to are those that start and end in a foreign country. It is patently ludicrous to believe that there is probable cause to think that every call that starts, ends, or is wholly contained within the US borders, involves illegal behavior, nor is there any specificity about the evidence sought.
Any court that would approve such an order in light of the 4th Amendment, is one made up of backbirths like yourself. That's really the heart of it, no matter how many voluminous pages of BS get generated.
I get the sarcasm, but sadly, there are people who will believe that as fact despite evidence such as that general warrant known as the Verizon Order. It's important to ask, if the Verizon Order was in the rubber stamp pile -- what the hell was in those 11 that got rejected?
The plan is to put TJ Max in charge of storing the data. Of course once they've been breached and the data is out in the wild, the Feds can do what they please with it.
You're reading is FAIL --- has Gitmo ended(1)? Is Afghanistan over(2)? Did Iraq linger and linger(3)? A passing familiarity with recent events makes it sarcasm as obvious as a cement truck barreling down the freeway.
(1) Obama did have a plan to close the Gitmo facility, and transfer its practices to the Thomson SuperMax in Illinois, aka Gitmo North. Anyone who can't see the how Obama used the word "close" there in a deceptive manner needs to take some reading comprehension courses. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/
The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):
From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government, according to annual Justice Department reports to Congress.
Plainly you're just more interested in making jokes about insubstantial things like sexting, which sadly appears to be much more damaging to one's career than shredding the US Constitution or committing perjury in Congress.
Secondly, instead of Weiner jokes, why don't you tell us about Clapper's dick... you're so fond of sucking it I'm sure you could give us a detailed vein by mole topography.
Slashdot Mirror
The average cost is not that meaningful because it is an average, and there are trailing and leading edges to the data that make up that figure. The question is, if a couple that adopted a kid finds it needs welfare, how is that different from an art. insemination couple which later finds it needs welfare?
So when I look at forums where people say that the government only looks at their paystubs and unconfirmed self-report of expenses, that it doesn't look at debt to income ratios, savings, etc., or websites that say your disability payments can be used to show income for adoption, it seems clear that on the outside edge of that $30k average, are people who are adopting kids even though there is a likelihood that they will need welfare because they are one lost paycheck away from crisis.
Given that, it seems to be a distinction without a difference to say that this guy should be responsible, when had the same couple adopted his kid, he would not.
There's this from FL:
http://www.adoptflorida.org/fa...
----
According to the posts in this forum, people adopting foster kids need only turn in a couple paystubs and self-report their monthly expenses -- no credit checks, investigation, or anything else. Obviously the state must know this will be abused.
http://forums.adoption.com/tex...
-----
or this:
http://www.adopt.org/who-can-a...
Maybe, and it's sort of hard to google this issue because the search terms don't come naturally to my mind, but at least in Ohio, if you can't afford to adopt the state will help you out with a loan up to $3000. Honestly, if a person can't come up with $3000 for an adoption, he or she can't be in an awesome financial situation, and yet the state is going out of its way to cause that adoption to occur. It seems reasonable to think that adoptive parents in such situations are at a high risk for ending up on public assistance.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3107...
You've skipped addressing the adoption analogy. In an adoption the same termination of parental rights and duties occurs yet people who give up a kid for adoption don't face this. What is so distinguishable to make it acceptable to bill bio-parent Here?
Require intent to break the law. The old "ignorance is no excuse" becomes a catch 22 when no person can know all the laws, i.e., everyone is ignorant. The law instead becomes nothing but a means of oppression against people the government dislikes -- a tool of despotism.
Make intent matter. That's an easy fix.
As for the lobsters -- are you serious? She ordered some lobsters -- they came in plastic bags rather than the usual cardboard boxes. She pays for them and spends two years in prison. Are you fucking joking? You're supposed to think that if a supplier changes their packaging you're going to spend years in prison for it?
I see, the system is so awesome -- a webmaster was subjected to immense financial strain and had to put his life on the craps table called a jury which could have sent off forever if enough fundy christians were on it by chance. But because this time the dice came up in his favor, all is well and right in the world. That's not some kind of fantasy about government abuse -- that's the actuality of it. A prosecution because something you link to links to something that links to something the Feds hate? That's a really bushy tree of links you have to follow for posting something innocent to ensure you don't spend years in trial with at best a 50/50 chance of going free, to say nothing of the financial ruin if you hit that freedom lotto number.
Yes -- and then there is the fact that federal code base of crimes is so vast, vague, and its implementation left up to so many agencies, that even the ABA can't count all of the crimes one can commit, most of which have no element of intent.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
See also: Three Felonies a Day: http://www.threefeloniesaday.c...
So what would you call it when there is criminal framework that is unknowable and that punishes you even if you have no ill intent? Despotic?
Recently, I vote a straight "Any 3d Party" ticket and if no 3d Party is available, for my cat.
I feel that not voting would make me indistinguishable from the apathetic, so I submit a protest vote rather than abstain, although in one respect I do abstain -- I totally abstain from voting for the DNC or GOP, their candidates being essentially fungible.
Very well said.
Democrats have assumed the term "progressive" and until they relinquish it, at least in America, the term cannot be seen to represent "rebels and traitors" toward the establishment. Indeed, if there is anything Democrats excel at, it is entrenching the rightward push of the GOP as the new normal. It is, for example, Democrats who have taken concepts that only a decade ago were considered radical, like due process free detention, and not only entrenched that practice, but expanded it to include due process free execution.
One good thing about 10% inflation -- your mortgage payment quickly becomes laughably light.
I'm going to quibble.
Suburbia is a desert pock marked with strip malls. There's no hope.
Cities offer a great many human made stimuli that can be very rewarding and intellectually stimulating for the right person.
Rural areas offer a great many non-human made stimuli that can be very rewarding and intellectually stimulating for the right person.
I think it is a bit different. He's interested in N. Korea because human experimentation has been happening, and sees an opportunity to get data that would be otherwise unavailable, even unethical. His acquiring the data however, is not the cause of that unethical treatment and if he abandoned his studies, that treatment would continue unabated.
In a similar way, medical scientists study the effects of people's habits, for example, what happens to people who smoke, who run, who work in coal mines, who eat only vegetables, etc. etc. The scientists aren't the ones inducing people to engage in any particular behavior, but they see an opportunity to gather data by looking at various groupings. So while it would be one thing to set up an apparatus that made a person breathe coal dust for a decade, it is another thing altogether to acquire data from people who for some other reason unrelated to the scientist or the study, breathed coal dust for a decade.
I've been thinking about that actually.
I'm here -- I chose to draw that line at only eating animals not having a neo-cortex, although I do give octopi honorary mammal status. It's somewhat arbitrary of course, but eating other mammals feels sort of broadly cannibalistic.
I've been eating this way for about nine or ten years and I don't miss anything about eating mammals. I've basically forgotten what they taste like -- I think it was about one or two years into this that I lost all cravings for mammal meat. I do however continue to drink milk and eat cheese and butter on the pretense that all the milk cows I see seem pretty happy out in their fields, though I do recognize there is ancillary cruelty wreaked upon male calves. I've thought of getting my own cow, but we had one for a while when I was a kid and there is just no way to deal with 5 or 6 gallons of milk per day -- even after making butter, giving away all we could, as a family of 5 we still ended up pouring most of it out in the garden. So we sold the cow. Some mini-cows produce only 2-3 gallons but still, I like milk and all, but 15 gallons/wk is way too much, so I've chosen to ignore the guilt I should feel about dairy.
You got a citation?
I used this search:
craigslist tv warrant stolen goods
I found this story, police got warrant:
http://www.krem.com/news/regional/spokane-county/Local-man-tracks-down-stolen-goods-using-Craigslist--228170651.html
warrant issued: http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/Plover-Man-Accuse-of-Selling-Stolen-Property-on-Craigslist-234155941.html
warrant issued: http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Guns-and-robbery-kits-Craigslist-stolen-items-bust-192359201.html
warrant issued: http://www.abcnews4.com/story/22806385/craigslist-posting-leads-to-recovery-of-stolen-property
warrant issued:
http://www.ksat.com/news/craigslist-post-leads-to-thousands-of-dollars-of-stolen-property/-/478452/20969968/-/8tktj8z/-/index.html
There are tons of instances where people selling stolen goods have been the subject of search warrants. It would be interesting to see what specific set of details made your anecdote unique enough to avoid a warrant -- but I can't find it.
Given that the phone is actually in the possession of the person who owns it, and the police have no way of knowing of what on that phone is held by a third party, nor are the requesting any information from those third parties, I have trouble seeing the third party doctrine as applying to the phone itself.
But then, I have trouble seeing how any of the recent masspionage is constitutional -- I get the strained and overreaching arguments rooted in massive over-application of Smith v. Maryland, I'm just amazed they aren't immediately recognized as strained and overreaching and laughed out of court. Soooo ... I'm not holding my breath here.
Blah blah bootlicking blah.
Look at the Verizon order. The only calls it doesn't apply to are those that start and end in a foreign country. It is patently ludicrous to believe that there is probable cause to think that every call that starts, ends, or is wholly contained within the US borders, involves illegal behavior, nor is there any specificity about the evidence sought.
Any court that would approve such an order in light of the 4th Amendment, is one made up of backbirths like yourself. That's really the heart of it, no matter how many voluminous pages of BS get generated.
virtual +1 insightful
yep. ;-) It never fails does it?
I get the sarcasm, but sadly, there are people who will believe that as fact despite evidence such as that general warrant known as the Verizon Order. It's important to ask, if the Verizon Order was in the rubber stamp pile -- what the hell was in those 11 that got rejected?
The plan is to put TJ Max in charge of storing the data. Of course once they've been breached and the data is out in the wild, the Feds can do what they please with it.
You're reading is FAIL --- has Gitmo ended(1)? Is Afghanistan over(2)? Did Iraq linger and linger(3)? A passing familiarity with recent events makes it sarcasm as obvious as a cement truck barreling down the freeway.
(1) Obama did have a plan to close the Gitmo facility, and transfer its practices to the Thomson SuperMax in Illinois, aka Gitmo North. Anyone who can't see the how Obama used the word "close" there in a deceptive manner needs to take some reading comprehension courses. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/
(2) Obama at one point tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over GWB's numbers. That's the opposite of ending it. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/
(3) Obama quit Iraq only when the Iraqi government wouldn't extend SOFA. SOFA prevents US soldiers from being tried for crimes committed in Iraq, in Iraqi courts. When Iraq wouldn't extend it and thereby extend the official troop presence, Obama pulled out and everyone gave him credit for peace, when really, he merely failed to make more war.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/23/obamas-revisionist-history-on-ending-the-iraq-war-a-lesson-from-the-3rd-presidential-debate/
The FISA court has been a whitewash since the Church Committee days. FISA rejects about one warrant per 3 year period (or 1 in 3000):
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616
You can't rationally call rubber stamping like that "oversight."
Plainly you're just more interested in making jokes about insubstantial things like sexting, which sadly appears to be much more damaging to one's career than shredding the US Constitution or committing perjury in Congress.
Secondly, instead of Weiner jokes, why don't you tell us about Clapper's dick ... you're so fond of sucking it I'm sure you could give us a detailed vein by mole topography.