If the First Amendment is broken, and commonly abused to create a government alienated from the needs and wishes of the people, then it needs to be fixed. I can never comprehend the US trend of continuing to allow the letter of laws pervert their intent.
Being that this is likely the single most important right we have here in the US, I'm prone to be extremely hesitant to monkey with it.
That being said...what would you propose for changes to this? Please enumerate the perceived consequences of each change you make too....
Louisiana had the highest murder rate of any state in 2010 (11.2 murders per 100,000) which marked the 22nd consecutive year (1989â"2010) that Louisiana has posted the highest per-capita murder rate of any U.S. state. Louisiana is also the only state with an average per capita murder rate (14.5 per 100,000) at least twice as high as the U.S. average (6.9 per 100,000) during that period according to Bureau of Justice Statistics from FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The Chicago Tribune reports that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the United States.[75]
Well, truth be known....
As long as you aren't in the projects buying crack, you're likely to be pretty safe.
I've lived in New Orleans almost a couple of decades now, and I don't have any worries.
And, while I don't know what corruption and murder rates have to do with each other....we've definitely been cleaning up the corruption in a BIG way, especially since Katrina. We've been putting away politicians that abuse power (most recently Jefferson Parish President during Katrina Aaron Broussard, remember the guy that cried about his Mom being in trouble on national tv and turned out to be a lie?).
There has been,, in the last year or so, a couple of disturbing trends where shooting crimes have occurred in the more public areas (Quarter, etc), like on the past Halloween night.
But overall, especially considering how we have so many events going on year round with hundreds of thousands in crowds (Mardi Gras, French Quarter Fest, JazzFest, etc, etc, etc) which usually all involve a great deal of booze flowing, we get along amazingly well with amazingly little violence.
In other cities, when they win a super bowl or have some type of huge gathering (and they don't allow open alcohol containers there like we do here)...you often see riots, and people setting cars on fire, etc.
We just party and get along for the most part.
Katrina did the city a big favor by flushing out a lot of the trash...some of it is coming back and hence the violence increase, but overall, we replaced a lot of lost population (elderly and criminal types), with a much younger and more educated demographic, and it really shows in the city and area here with the jobs market and real estate numers we've seen since the storm.
The NOLA area actually has been largely shielded from the recession that most other parts of the country have experience the past years.
You know...I've never really understood the dealership model at all...at least, not in this day in age.
Why don't manufacturers just set up their own storefronts, with a few models to try, and let you just do build to order. Seems like this model would save them money on inventory, etc...?
I understand the dealership model in years gone by...but with todays tech and internet savvy mkt, why haven't they abandoned this in favor of a more streamlined, direct to consumer marketing/sales strategy?
Well, except for provide roads, school systems, emergency medicine, justice systems, police protection, fire protection, civil defense, national defense, libraries, research subsidies...
The majority of what you mentioned, is taken care of by my LOCAL taxes I pay to city and state, and no problem there...but the IRS has precious little to do with that since it is at the federal level.
If the Feds stuck to only collecting for the things they are constitutionally mandated to (a few things like defense) I'd not gripe nearly as much since they'd not try to take nearly as much of my money as they do now.
The govt is in our pockets way too much...and well, now that we're seeing that the IRS themselves are picking winners and losers based on political affiliation, well, I just lost more respect for them, which until now, I didn't think was possible.
I don;t think it's Obama's fault for the division.
No, Obama didn't start the fire, so to speak...
But I believe he and his administration have pushed it as far as they possibly can, and have become one of the main polarizing factors we have in govt and society today.
When he was running, there was quite a lot of talk of him bringing people together, reaching across aisles, being a govt. of openness, etc.
That just goes against what his real ideology is IMHO.
I see him and the current administration as being more devicive (sp?) than any other previous administration going back like to Nixon.
All the while shielding his personal fortune from the IRS through a non-profit organization and endless tax exemptions.
Better for a man to decide how to spend his own money than a faceless, leeching govt. entity that did nothing at all to earn that money to begin with....
"The Gates Foundation has invested more than $400 million in oil firms in the Niger Delta which are responsible for pollution that many blame for respiratory problems among the local population
Well, killing them off is certainly ONE way to help eradicate hunger in those areas.....
You see the same thing among lawyers... they may be bitter rivals in court, but then go out for drinks and have a few laughs afterwards. You have to figure two people in direct competition will probably have more in common with each other than with another random person. Just because they are professional rivals doesn't mean they can't have a great personal relationship.
Actually, years back, we used to have this type of thing with our lawmakers in Washington, DC.
I think it was Tip O'Neal and Reagan, that would fight tooth and nail over political issues, but at the EOD, they were known to have a drink together as friends.
Unfortunately our "great unifier" hasn't turned out to be one, and things are as polarized as they can get these days.
If he gets any cross pollination from other farmers using monsanto seeds, he'll get sued again. And he will lose. Farmers always lose these lawsuits where their fields got cross-pollinated by patented genes.
Have any farmer groups tried turning the tables, and suing MONSANTO for putting a product out, that infects a farmers non-gmo plants? Shouldn't Monsanto be required to make sure their products self terminate, and can't spread to 'infect' regular crops?
Then college did you no good. You could have spent no money going to college, taught yourself SQL and gone off to be a DBA and got where you are now far faster.
It did do him good.
Without a college degree in most 'anything', you're not going to even get your foot in the door for any of the jobs he just described.
You have to have a degree these days to get most any decent job.
College isn't for everyone. It is a place to learn and discourse.
More that than, it is the method by which you get your foot in the door for a job.
Today, a Bachelors degree is roughly the equivalent of the high school diploma of about 3-4 decades ago.
Employers for any job above the level of janitor aren't going to (in general) to even consider you for a job if you don't have a degree of some kind.
Much as one would like to think of college as an ideal place for broadening your mind, and it can do that too...but in the US, it is primarily there as the next step from HS to getting a decent paying job.
I have an engineering degree (BS, AOE) from an in-state university. At this point, 20 years down the road, having lived frugally the whole time, I own a mobile home that is older than I am, on a rented lot, no retirement 401k, medical care plan is over 1/3 of my income, and no significant savings or money to send my 14 year old to college in 4 years. No land, either.
You're doing it wrong....
Most people I know with those or even lessor credentials, are doing much better in life.
Not trying to sound callous, but sounds like you don't know how to negotiate for salary or move to where the better jobs are...?
Come on, that ways likes heretical thinking about the wisdom of affirmative action of any kind.
Personally? I think we've reached the place in time, to do totally away with any type of affirmative action. No quotas for anything anymore. Everyone on their merit.
I think the goal for many is to have a color blind world. Well, let's start with being color/sex blind on picking anyone for anything.
Let's say a good high school school sends 100 students to a university and a really bad one sends 5. Who would you rather have - student 101 from the top high school or the 6th best student from the other ?
That's easy.
Pick the one that best qualifies (SAT scores, academic record, best answer on the essay parts of the application, etc).
Use the metrics that you'd use to accept ANY student...the most qualified gets in no matter which school they came from.
You are making the error-prone assumption that the same amount of effort (aside from external influence) will result in someone from a low-income household ending up in the same place as someone from a high-income household.
I absolutely do not.
Re-read what I said. I said everyone starts from different starting blocks in life..is dealt a different set of cards, some have real advantages and it is easy, others, have VERY difficult starting places.
I've known many who started out in bad neighborhoods, bad parents, low income...and they saw the value of an education and work fucking HARD to get where they were. I've known people that had to work while quite young to help support families where parents were missing or just not interested, and yet they still worked to educate themselves and get out of that environment.
It is possible. It happens. I applaude that. I would be all for programs and money that promoted that ideal and helped young kids to want to educate themselves. But if they won't do it, or just fuck up one too many times, well....life is tough.
The problem is and always will be "are the right people going to college and are the right people ABLE to go to college".
I'd say we are doing fine so far. Are we in a situation where we're seriously having difficulty finding academically qualified applicants to fill every US college we currently have? Are we needing to step out and dig further to help those that aren't quite there just to fill the ranks of our schools currently?
Given that it is a specially designed, five-year, program, with the first year for remedial purposes, it obviously isn't targeting people with good high school educations.
While this sounds quite nice and humane....
My question is, will these people be taking up spots in college that could be readily filled by already qualified students trying to get in??
Is it fair to displace people already qualified to go that school in order to just grasp at those who had bad luck or for whatever other reason were deal a bad starting hand. If so...why? What makes those people more deserving of getting in than the others?
In a word: maybe. In more than one word: it will displace students who have it way too fucking easy, with wealthy parents to glide them through their life ensuring that by the time they reach 18 they have mastered exactly one thing: relying on mom and dad (and maybe stepdad).
Well, first...I think most people that are going to be dependent on Mom and Dad (let's take only the super wealthy ones you are implying), aren't really going to need to be working terribly hard to make good grades to be qualified for college.
I'm talking strictly about academically qualified students, regardless of class of upbringing. Sure, everyone in life starts at different levels of life, different levels of caring parents, fiscal issues, regions of country,and just plain old luck in life.
Everyone is born with a different set of cards both by living standards and genetics. Fact of life, nothing can be done about that. Some people have to work MUCH harder than other to achieve the same goals.
If someone is either unlucky, or didn't see fit to embrace and actually fight for a good education, should they be given precedence over the luckier student that did work and learn and earn good academic credentials?
Does everyone deserve a college education? Does everyone need one? Is it true that the world needs ditch diggers too?
I don't know all the answers, but I do pose the questions. I do often have difficulty believing and accepting that just because someone has a worst starting spot in life, and didn't make the extra effort to make up for it, they should be given an exception or have standards lowered for competition for any position, academic or otherwise.
I think it boils down to life is tough, and you have to do the best with the cards you are dealt with in life.
Why are they sending all these low-income youngsters to die at Uni?
LOL...yeah, that was my first thought with the red shirt mention.
But seriously, isn't this just another euphemism for trying to get more under-qualified students into college? Will this displace other students that worked hard during school, and are more academically qualified for these spots?
So, it is illegal if a machine, but legal if a human?
I mean, if I go to a teller or cashier, and they miscount and give me too much change back for a transaction and I keep it, it isn't illegal is it?
If I know that said cashier/teller miscounts almost every time you give them a $20...and keep the change, are you saying that I could be arrested for taking advantage over someone elses stupidity?
This case is similar to the situation where they were trying to basically charge that older lady that taunted a girl so badly that the girl committed suicide, with basically computer hacking, since she technically broke the TOS of the social networking sites she used to do that.
A reprehensible act, sure, but not computer hacking like they were trying to charge her with...
That's why I'm adament about looking very closely at new laws as they come out and always look for how the authorities *might* abuse it in the future.
So, far, I've not really ever seen a law that authorities didn't try to extend way beyond the original intent to try to prosecute someone for something where no law currently exists, or other reasons.
And in the early history days...well, everyone where they currently are, took that land from someone. Time to stop beating that old drum. And yes, slavery falls into that category too, neither topic is really relative to the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Being that this is likely the single most important right we have here in the US, I'm prone to be extremely hesitant to monkey with it.
That being said...what would you propose for changes to this? Please enumerate the perceived consequences of each change you make too....
Well, truth be known....
As long as you aren't in the projects buying crack, you're likely to be pretty safe.
I've lived in New Orleans almost a couple of decades now, and I don't have any worries.
And, while I don't know what corruption and murder rates have to do with each other....we've definitely been cleaning up the corruption in a BIG way, especially since Katrina. We've been putting away politicians that abuse power (most recently Jefferson Parish President during Katrina Aaron Broussard, remember the guy that cried about his Mom being in trouble on national tv and turned out to be a lie?).
There has been,, in the last year or so, a couple of disturbing trends where shooting crimes have occurred in the more public areas (Quarter, etc), like on the past Halloween night.
But overall, especially considering how we have so many events going on year round with hundreds of thousands in crowds (Mardi Gras, French Quarter Fest, JazzFest, etc, etc, etc) which usually all involve a great deal of booze flowing, we get along amazingly well with amazingly little violence.
In other cities, when they win a super bowl or have some type of huge gathering (and they don't allow open alcohol containers there like we do here)...you often see riots, and people setting cars on fire, etc.
We just party and get along for the most part.
Katrina did the city a big favor by flushing out a lot of the trash...some of it is coming back and hence the violence increase, but overall, we replaced a lot of lost population (elderly and criminal types), with a much younger and more educated demographic, and it really shows in the city and area here with the jobs market and real estate numers we've seen since the storm.
The NOLA area actually has been largely shielded from the recession that most other parts of the country have experience the past years.
Why don't manufacturers just set up their own storefronts, with a few models to try, and let you just do build to order. Seems like this model would save them money on inventory, etc...?
I understand the dealership model in years gone by...but with todays tech and internet savvy mkt, why haven't they abandoned this in favor of a more streamlined, direct to consumer marketing/sales strategy?
The majority of what you mentioned, is taken care of by my LOCAL taxes I pay to city and state, and no problem there...but the IRS has precious little to do with that since it is at the federal level.
If the Feds stuck to only collecting for the things they are constitutionally mandated to (a few things like defense) I'd not gripe nearly as much since they'd not try to take nearly as much of my money as they do now.
The govt is in our pockets way too much...and well, now that we're seeing that the IRS themselves are picking winners and losers based on political affiliation, well, I just lost more respect for them, which until now, I didn't think was possible.
No, Obama didn't start the fire, so to speak...
But I believe he and his administration have pushed it as far as they possibly can, and have become one of the main polarizing factors we have in govt and society today.
When he was running, there was quite a lot of talk of him bringing people together, reaching across aisles, being a govt. of openness, etc.
That just goes against what his real ideology is IMHO.
I see him and the current administration as being more devicive (sp?) than any other previous administration going back like to Nixon.
Better for a man to decide how to spend his own money than a faceless, leeching govt. entity that did nothing at all to earn that money to begin with....
Well, killing them off is certainly ONE way to help eradicate hunger in those areas.....
Actually, years back, we used to have this type of thing with our lawmakers in Washington, DC.
I think it was Tip O'Neal and Reagan, that would fight tooth and nail over political issues, but at the EOD, they were known to have a drink together as friends.
Unfortunately our "great unifier" hasn't turned out to be one, and things are as polarized as they can get these days.
Have any farmer groups tried turning the tables, and suing MONSANTO for putting a product out, that infects a farmers non-gmo plants? Shouldn't Monsanto be required to make sure their products self terminate, and can't spread to 'infect' regular crops?
But in this case...the product replicates ITSELF.
That's the difference.
If Monsanto doesn't like it..why don't they make their genetically modified crops self-terminating?
I wonder how soon we'll start to hear problems with GMO grasshoppers and other insects?
It did do him good.
Without a college degree in most 'anything', you're not going to even get your foot in the door for any of the jobs he just described.
You have to have a degree these days to get most any decent job.
More that than, it is the method by which you get your foot in the door for a job.
Today, a Bachelors degree is roughly the equivalent of the high school diploma of about 3-4 decades ago.
Employers for any job above the level of janitor aren't going to (in general) to even consider you for a job if you don't have a degree of some kind.
Much as one would like to think of college as an ideal place for broadening your mind, and it can do that too...but in the US, it is primarily there as the next step from HS to getting a decent paying job.
You're doing it wrong....
Most people I know with those or even lessor credentials, are doing much better in life.
Not trying to sound callous, but sounds like you don't know how to negotiate for salary or move to where the better jobs are...?
Personally? I think we've reached the place in time, to do totally away with any type of affirmative action. No quotas for anything anymore. Everyone on their merit.
I think the goal for many is to have a color blind world. Well, let's start with being color/sex blind on picking anyone for anything.
That's easy.
Pick the one that best qualifies (SAT scores, academic record, best answer on the essay parts of the application, etc).
Use the metrics that you'd use to accept ANY student...the most qualified gets in no matter which school they came from.
I absolutely do not.
Re-read what I said. I said everyone starts from different starting blocks in life..is dealt a different set of cards, some have real advantages and it is easy, others, have VERY difficult starting places.
I've known many who started out in bad neighborhoods, bad parents, low income...and they saw the value of an education and work fucking HARD to get where they were. I've known people that had to work while quite young to help support families where parents were missing or just not interested, and yet they still worked to educate themselves and get out of that environment.
It is possible. It happens. I applaude that. I would be all for programs and money that promoted that ideal and helped young kids to want to educate themselves. But if they won't do it, or just fuck up one too many times, well....life is tough.
I'd say we are doing fine so far. Are we in a situation where we're seriously having difficulty finding academically qualified applicants to fill every US college we currently have? Are we needing to step out and dig further to help those that aren't quite there just to fill the ranks of our schools currently?
No?
If not...then I don't think your argument holds.
While this sounds quite nice and humane....
My question is, will these people be taking up spots in college that could be readily filled by already qualified students trying to get in??
Is it fair to displace people already qualified to go that school in order to just grasp at those who had bad luck or for whatever other reason were deal a bad starting hand. If so...why? What makes those people more deserving of getting in than the others?
Well, first...I think most people that are going to be dependent on Mom and Dad (let's take only the super wealthy ones you are implying), aren't really going to need to be working terribly hard to make good grades to be qualified for college.
I'm talking strictly about academically qualified students, regardless of class of upbringing. Sure, everyone in life starts at different levels of life, different levels of caring parents, fiscal issues, regions of country ,and just plain old luck in life.
Everyone is born with a different set of cards both by living standards and genetics. Fact of life, nothing can be done about that. Some people have to work MUCH harder than other to achieve the same goals.
If someone is either unlucky, or didn't see fit to embrace and actually fight for a good education, should they be given precedence over the luckier student that did work and learn and earn good academic credentials?
Does everyone deserve a college education? Does everyone need one? Is it true that the world needs ditch diggers too?
I don't know all the answers, but I do pose the questions. I do often have difficulty believing and accepting that just because someone has a worst starting spot in life, and didn't make the extra effort to make up for it, they should be given an exception or have standards lowered for competition for any position, academic or otherwise.
I think it boils down to life is tough, and you have to do the best with the cards you are dealt with in life.
LOL...yeah, that was my first thought with the red shirt mention.
But seriously, isn't this just another euphemism for trying to get more under-qualified students into college? Will this displace other students that worked hard during school, and are more academically qualified for these spots?
I tawt I taw a Puddy Thai....
I DID...I DID...I DID tee a Puddy Thai!!!
I dunno, maybe it is natures way of cleaning the gene pool a bit?
I mean, if I go to a teller or cashier, and they miscount and give me too much change back for a transaction and I keep it, it isn't illegal is it?
If I know that said cashier/teller miscounts almost every time you give them a $20...and keep the change, are you saying that I could be arrested for taking advantage over someone elses stupidity?
A reprehensible act, sure, but not computer hacking like they were trying to charge her with...
That's why I'm adament about looking very closely at new laws as they come out and always look for how the authorities *might* abuse it in the future.
So, far, I've not really ever seen a law that authorities didn't try to extend way beyond the original intent to try to prosecute someone for something where no law currently exists, or other reasons.
And in the early history days...well, everyone where they currently are, took that land from someone. Time to stop beating that old drum. And yes, slavery falls into that category too, neither topic is really relative to the conversation.