Why the hell would they recommend counseling for a non-violent and non-criminal act?
By recommending something vaguely punitive (and "magnanimously" forgoing billing the childs family for the expense), the authorities are attempting to prevent blame from shifting from the child and his family to the place that it actually belongs: the authorities
recommending counseling is an attempt to maintain the appearance that the child actually did something wrong.
The constitutionality of the thing is important here because Minnesota is acting AFAICT beyond it's authority. Governments acting beyond their authority is a bad thing even if what they are trying to acomplish is laudable necessary and just. I have no authority to charge a toll on people walking past my home without entering my property. If I try to do so, I am either a criminal (if I use force in demanding the toll), or liable under civil law for fraud/whatever (if I do not use force). When a government acts beyond its authority (as delegated to it by its constitution) to act, it has become lawless. Lawless governments are (IMO extremely interesting, if not places that I would choose to live.
As to what Minnesota could do to accomplish its goal, Minnesota could cut the power transmission lines from states that fail to regulate electricity generation in ways that Minnesota likes (assuming the power transmission lines are the property of the state of Minnesota; cutting federally owned power transmission lines might carry certain... complications, shall we say?) or they could tax Minnesota residents for using power that is not certified to be green. How that certification (of out of state electricity sources) would be managed without falling foul of constitutional limitations is yet another interesting discussion (IMO, naturally). Neither option would be nearly as popular with the residents of Minnesota as a tax on all those wuffians on the far side of the Minnesota border... which kinda suggests why the Minnesota government chose the route it has taken. It also suggests why allowing states to impose tariffs on trade with other states might be a bad idea.
While I don't doubt that everything else in your post is correct, as it coincides with my own prejudices regarding police, according to a google image search I just did, Jean Charles de Menezes is not brown.
Within 100 years it seems far from unlikely (though not actually certain) that there will be few non failed state nations which do not either possess nukes or the ability to acquire the technology in short order. The more technological progress we see, the simpler it will become to build such devices given the resources of a government.
The biggest drawback of nuclear weapons is that they are zero sum or worse: nuke: get nuked. badness ensues. Unless you can arrange for the finger to be pointed at some third party; preferably someone you don't like or someone whose real world presence is so diffuse as to render retaliatory nuclear strikes out of the question.
A terrorist organization fits the bill nicely. Find a terrorist group who hates your target suffciently (preferably one without any presence in your own nation: this strategy is not exactly without its risks), fund them, give them a nuke and watch the fireworks. regardless of what right wing voters might want, western politicians (both left and right) are either unable or unwilling to prevent the movement of people and goods across their borders, so delivering the nuke is a fairly simple matter.
A certainty? no. Likely? ummm dunno. Possible? I believe it is. Scary? Yeah, I'd say so.
And there we have it. You are fundamentally incompatible with basic American values.
One thing that both Americans and citizens of developed western nations often don't realize is that basic American values are fundamentally incompatible with those of many other developed western nations. As a young person, I lived in the US for 3 years and absorbed numerous lessons about the value of freedom and liberty, only to find on my return to Australia that freedom and liberty are always trumped by "if it saves just one life" or "why can't somebody just think of the children or "but what if people don't make the right choices?!?!?"
Given a choice between freedom and authority (for our own good) most Australians instinctively choose authority whereas most Americans will instinctively choose freedom. Which is why so many Australians (and, most likely, Europeans) find the healthcare debate in the US so incomprehensible: just go ahead and hand over your freedom; it's for your own good. This sounds perfectly reasonable to non American ears, not so much in the US.
So in addition to $50 out of the $200 at which he is being billed, he's getting security as well? If someone provides me with security, doesn't that have value?
If the money and the security you're getting from an employer isn't sufficient return on your labor, maybe it's time to give up the security and take a chance. The worst that can happen is you have to start from scratch if you fail. If the job is so crappy, what's the difference really?
Did someone put a gun to their head when they took on the financial obligation? If someone freely enters into a contract and fails to fulfill their obligations under that contract the other party is entirely justified in recovering their property.
No right can exist which involves the initiation of the use of force. It is absurd to propose that I have the right to initiate the use of force against you: obviously, there is no right of those around you to murder you.
Or put another way, my right to wave my fist ends where your nose begins.
If the officers had the leisure to ignore this mysterious "situation" long enough to beat the guy up, I'm pretty sure that the "situation" wasn't all that urgent or threatening.
Slashdot assumption of Watts innocents all the while going on the usual OMG FACISIM rant reminds me of how the the whole Hans Reisen fiasco unfolded.
I'm with you, I want to hear the whole story here.
If everyone assumes that all is as it should be or everyone just passively waits for all the facts to be presented to the public, how likely is it that all the facts will ever find their way into the public domain? The only way to compel authority to justify their actions is to assume authority was abused, get angry and demand an explanation.
And if they stole the e-mails, who is to say that things weren't added that weren't in them initially?
The people whose names are in the headers of the email surely. We're still waiting for those individuals, or the University of East Anglia, to denounce the emails as fake or doctored.
Continued employment depends on the results of their studies.
Then that also goes for all other scientific fields, but you single out climate science ?
What other fields are telling me my electricity bill has to go up by >50% over the next 12 months?
What other fields are pushing for reductions in carbon output of >25%, with all the associated economic costs?
In what other field are the practitioners either unable or unwilling to produce the raw data from which they derive conclusions that require me to radically reduce my standard of living?
It's worse than that. One trick that the IRA used to use (not sure if it originated with them or not) is to have sequenced bombings: Determine where people fleeing the first bomb will go then set off a second bomb (or bombs) at the logical escape routes. People fleeing danger tend to get densely packed at choke points.
Uh huh. What's he supposed to do? hit her back? Go ahead and tell us you wouldn't immediately start dialling your local emergency number? Hitting her back is an immediate ticket to the slammer in any state which employs the "primary aggressor doctrine" to determine who to arrest in a domestic violence situation, which would be most American states: some of the factors considered under this pernicious doctrine are:
Age, height & weight of the parties
Presence of fear
Strength and skill
911 reporting party
Who is fearful of whom?
Who in the relationship poses the most
danger to the other?
Who is at most risk of future harm?
Taken together these instructions to police might as well be phrased "grope both parties and arrest the one with lumpy genitals." None are particularly relevant to determining who did what but they're great for identifying males without actually coming right out and saying "arrest the man you stupid pigs!"
In public places in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia knives are illegal, and I quote from my original post "Without a reasonable excuse". You may own one, but leave it at home at all times unless you can prove to the satisfaction of a court that you had a lawful excuse for carrying it (good luck with that, the onus is on you).
Since we're talking about australia, knives are illegal most places without a "reasonable excuse" I remember an article in the local newspaper recently which had lurid descriptions of a "weapons cache" for which a man is facing court containing (gasp) a sword and (horrors) hunting knives. In his own home no less. That evil bastard. Someone needs to shoot people like that. Someone not me, cause, you know, I'm just a citizen... not someone who can be trusted with firearms, swords or knives.
Slashdot Mirror
but when was the last time you saw the back eroticised?
on NCIS ?
Why the hell would they recommend counseling for a non-violent and non-criminal act?
By recommending something vaguely punitive (and "magnanimously" forgoing billing the childs family for the expense), the authorities are attempting to prevent blame from shifting from the child and his family to the place that it actually belongs: the authorities
recommending counseling is an attempt to maintain the appearance that the child actually did something wrong.
The constitutionality of the thing is important here because Minnesota is acting AFAICT beyond it's authority. Governments acting beyond their authority is a bad thing even if what they are trying to acomplish is laudable necessary and just . I have no authority to charge a toll on people walking past my home without entering my property. If I try to do so, I am either a criminal (if I use force in demanding the toll), or liable under civil law for fraud/whatever (if I do not use force). When a government acts beyond its authority (as delegated to it by its constitution) to act, it has become lawless. Lawless governments are (IMO extremely interesting, if not places that I would choose to live.
As to what Minnesota could do to accomplish its goal, Minnesota could cut the power transmission lines from states that fail to regulate electricity generation in ways that Minnesota likes (assuming the power transmission lines are the property of the state of Minnesota; cutting federally owned power transmission lines might carry certain... complications, shall we say?) or they could tax Minnesota residents for using power that is not certified to be green. How that certification (of out of state electricity sources) would be managed without falling foul of constitutional limitations is yet another interesting discussion (IMO, naturally). Neither option would be nearly as popular with the residents of Minnesota as a tax on all those wuffians on the far side of the Minnesota border... which kinda suggests why the Minnesota government chose the route it has taken. It also suggests why allowing states to impose tariffs on trade with other states might be a bad idea.
While I don't doubt that everything else in your post is correct, as it coincides with my own prejudices regarding police, according to a google image search I just did, Jean Charles de Menezes is not brown.
Forgive me asking, but what is a "summer sausage"?
I assume they're sausages that don't go off... errrr, spoil, when they're not refrigerated.
Within 100 years it seems far from unlikely (though not actually certain) that there will be few non failed state nations which do not either possess nukes or the ability to acquire the technology in short order. The more technological progress we see, the simpler it will become to build such devices given the resources of a government.
The biggest drawback of nuclear weapons is that they are zero sum or worse: nuke: get nuked. badness ensues. Unless you can arrange for the finger to be pointed at some third party; preferably someone you don't like or someone whose real world presence is so diffuse as to render retaliatory nuclear strikes out of the question.
A terrorist organization fits the bill nicely. Find a terrorist group who hates your target suffciently (preferably one without any presence in your own nation: this strategy is not exactly without its risks), fund them, give them a nuke and watch the fireworks. regardless of what right wing voters might want, western politicians (both left and right) are either unable or unwilling to prevent the movement of people and goods across their borders, so delivering the nuke is a fairly simple matter.
A certainty? no. Likely? ummm dunno. Possible? I believe it is. Scary? Yeah, I'd say so.
And there we have it. You are fundamentally incompatible with basic American values.
One thing that both Americans and citizens of developed western nations often don't realize is that basic American values are fundamentally incompatible with those of many other developed western nations. As a young person, I lived in the US for 3 years and absorbed numerous lessons about the value of freedom and liberty, only to find on my return to Australia that freedom and liberty are always trumped by "if it saves just one life" or "why can't somebody just think of the children or "but what if people don't make the right choices?!?!?"
Given a choice between freedom and authority (for our own good) most Australians instinctively choose authority whereas most Americans will instinctively choose freedom. Which is why so many Australians (and, most likely, Europeans) find the healthcare debate in the US so incomprehensible: just go ahead and hand over your freedom; it's for your own good. This sounds perfectly reasonable to non American ears, not so much in the US.
compared to 9 million? close enough for government work.
Australian internet isn't censored (yet; give Conroy and the ALP^W^W his bitches time)
Did you stop reading right there? I don't know how else you could come to the conclusion that "size" refers to area and not population.
Canada's population is 33,311,389
Swedens population is 9,220,986
So in addition to $50 out of the $200 at which he is being billed, he's getting security as well? If someone provides me with security, doesn't that have value?
If the money and the security you're getting from an employer isn't sufficient return on your labor, maybe it's time to give up the security and take a chance. The worst that can happen is you have to start from scratch if you fail. If the job is so crappy, what's the difference really?
Did someone put a gun to their head when they took on the financial obligation? If someone freely enters into a contract and fails to fulfill their obligations under that contract the other party is entirely justified in recovering their property.
No right can exist which involves the initiation of the use of force. It is absurd to propose that I have the right to initiate the use of force against you: obviously, there is no right of those around you to murder you.
Or put another way, my right to wave my fist ends where your nose begins.
If the officers had the leisure to ignore this mysterious "situation" long enough to beat the guy up, I'm pretty sure that the "situation" wasn't all that urgent or threatening.
Slashdot assumption of Watts innocents all the while going on the usual OMG FACISIM rant reminds me of how the the whole Hans Reisen fiasco unfolded. I'm with you, I want to hear the whole story here.
If everyone assumes that all is as it should be or everyone just passively waits for all the facts to be presented to the public, how likely is it that all the facts will ever find their way into the public domain? The only way to compel authority to justify their actions is to assume authority was abused, get angry and demand an explanation.
Including the part where the heretic gets fired?
And if they stole the e-mails, who is to say that things weren't added that weren't in them initially?
The people whose names are in the headers of the email surely. We're still waiting for those individuals, or the University of East Anglia, to denounce the emails as fake or doctored.
Continued employment depends on the results of their studies.
Then that also goes for all other scientific fields, but you single out climate science ?
What other fields are telling me my electricity bill has to go up by >50% over the next 12 months?
What other fields are pushing for reductions in carbon output of >25%, with all the associated economic costs?
In what other field are the practitioners either unable or unwilling to produce the raw data from which they derive conclusions that require me to radically reduce my standard of living?
There's an advertisement with the same theme
It's worse than that. One trick that the IRA used to use (not sure if it originated with them or not) is to have sequenced bombings: Determine where people fleeing the first bomb will go then set off a second bomb (or bombs) at the logical escape routes. People fleeing danger tend to get densely packed at choke points.
The document doesn't specify, but the general gist is that the party capable of doing the most damage is to be held responsible and arrested.
Age, height & weight of the parties
Presence of fear
Strength and skill
911 reporting party
Who is fearful of whom?
Who in the relationship poses the most danger to the other?
Who is at most risk of future harm?
Taken together these instructions to police might as well be phrased "grope both parties and arrest the one with lumpy genitals." None are particularly relevant to determining who did what but they're great for identifying males without actually coming right out and saying "arrest the man you stupid pigs!"
Despite the fact that spousal abusers are just as likely to be women and that the abused are just as likely to be men
Citation needed.
One citation
TWO! Two citations ha ha ha haaaa!
THREE! THREE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CITATIONS! ha ha ha haaaa [looks around as thunder rumbles and lightning flashes]
Lots more citations as well as discussion of the work done by Murray Strauss, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles can be found at the domestic violence wiki
In public places in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia knives are illegal, and I quote from my original post "Without a reasonable excuse". You may own one, but leave it at home at all times unless you can prove to the satisfaction of a court that you had a lawful excuse for carrying it (good luck with that, the onus is on you).
Since we're talking about australia, knives are illegal most places without a "reasonable excuse" I remember an article in the local newspaper recently which had lurid descriptions of a "weapons cache" for which a man is facing court containing (gasp) a sword and (horrors) hunting knives. In his own home no less. That evil bastard. Someone needs to shoot people like that. Someone not me, cause, you know, I'm just a citizen... not someone who can be trusted with firearms, swords or knives.