Just to play devil's advocate, something along the lines of these suspects don't fall under the "We the people of the United States..." ergo have no protection under said Constitution. Just a thought Entirely immaterial. The Constitution makes a distinction between "citizens" and "people". Quoth the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is an open-and-shut case. Scalia is toeing the neoconservative line, and those of us who are truly conservative should be ashamed. I know I am.
An end run around the law (which is what the RIAA lawyers are doing) justifies Beckerman sending a letter to both judges. And I am sure neither will be upset by his action.
This letter should go as well to the bar associations to which these lawyers belong. This is a serious breach of ethics. (Yes, lawyers do in fact have a code of ethics; they are officers of the court first and foremost and their duty to their client comes second.)
He's distracting the enemies of the RIAA away from what they should be doing - which is building a viable alternative. Uhm, there is no way to effectively compete with this kind of monopoly anyway. When they are able to demand royalties for music producers who are not even members of the RIAA, how do you expect to get a foothold?
Up here in Maine at least, profit margins are about as razor-thin as it gets in a lot of these rural mom-and-pop stores. They have to accept credit cards because tourists want to use them and often won't shop if a store doesn't accept them (locals rarely use them), but credit card companies are expensive as all hell and shoot their profits down. They can't raise prices--the locals will go elsewhere. They can't refuse credit cards--the tourists will go elsewhere. In order to maintain a profit, they essentially have to bend the credit card rules.
Somehow, I have a hard time believing a site called "The Centrist" would have a line on what Conservatives are thinking. The site is centrist in aggregate, but writers may (gasp!) think for themselves. I am aa conservative and that essay is written from the standpoint of a conservative. But that's okay, totally ignore the point and attack the domain name.
A quick review of the political spectrum:
Conservative * * * *Centrist * * * *Liberal Laughably simpleminded of you, but given your "hurf durf look at the domain name!" attempt above, I expected no less. Neoconservatism is huge-government and assholish foreign policy. That's not conservatism, but it's what Bush and others like him espouse. (I find it funny that they call themselves "Reagan Republicans"; personally I'd think that being a Goldwater Republican would be something of value, not some pejorative like "Reagan Republican".)
Neocon ? Isn't that a perjorative typically used by the Left ? No. Your intense lack of a clue is astounding.
Bottom line: it does appear that many on the Right may well sit this one out. It has nothing to do with Obama being an African-American. Really? How many *Democrats* said that "race was a factor" in deciding their vote in the primary? And you're going to tell me that *Republicans* will somehow be "above" that? Get real.
It has everything to do with Obama having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to the National Journal [nationaljournal.com] and McCain ignoring or going against conservatives on issues dear to them, like Immigration and Global Warming.. Conservatives would be in favor of curbing global warming, because they understand that "conservatism" involves conserving the environment, too. But that's okay--neoconservatives like yourself can keep saying you're the Righteous Right now and keep on drooling.
You're funny. I'm glad people like you exist--you make it very easy for normal people to go "See? This is the kind of person who accepts bullshit because it's 'not that bad'."
I will ignore your "points" (which is a very generous term for them) because anyone with half a brain can see that they're preposterous justifications for getting selectively angry and accepting "smaller" wrongdoings as acceptable.
I don't know, how do you feel every day when you wake up? Glad I'm not some retard like you.
Seriously, no rational comparison between the two puts them equal. None. Let me quote from upthread: Not irrational at all. Kosovo and Iraq both involved a rejection of diplomatic options that were far from exhausted, in order to launch a military attack that had gruesome consequences for civilian populations.
You tried the partisan angle, and it is a failure. I think that just reveals your own reasoning on the issue though. Too bad I'm registered as an independent, that just shoots a hole in the "partisan" theory. All the parties and all their politicians suck, just for different reasons.
There are a LOT of conservatives planning to sit this one out. No. Conservatives are lining up to vote for him. There are a lot of neoconservative fuckwits planning to sit this one out. There is a difference.
And they'll vote for him because the neocons can't get their heads around the idea of a black guy in the White House. It'll happen.
Teachers have no choice. If they are going to be a teacher in public schools, they legally have to pay union dues and be a part of that union. A union which has done absolutely jack shit. Sounds like a great argument for government intervention (something I generally hate, but still) to forcibly dissolve that union!:D
Her students, which are in 3rd grade, barely have the mental capacity at their age to count to 20, spell their name, or even say they have to go to the bathroom. Yet, they take the EXACT SAME tests that the "normal" and "advanced" students take, and their scores are factored into the school's overall average. While the special-ed issues are peripheral, I'll address it anyway. My heart really goes out to those kids, honestly. My head wonders whether they should be in school at all. This is something I don't like saying, but is important to ask: how many of the kids with cerebral palsy and Down syndrome are going to be effective, useful members of society? (The numbers of eventually-functional kids are of course higher for autistic kids, but the argument is still there for severe autism.) School shouldn't be free child care while a parent goes to work.
Special ed is an even worse proposition when you realize that they're gutting gifted-and-talented programs to pay for special ed. Gah.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily fix it, that is true...but there comes a point where money DOES affect things. Fix the bad policies, get rid of the career teachers, and start showing some results, and then we can talk about money. I look at it as an investment: we don't throw good money after bad when buying and selling companies. We shouldn't reward bad behavior here either.
Citation needed? Really? So...you are saying you WEREN'T aware that McCain didn't vote in favour of the GI bill that would increase college funding given to recruits because it was, in his words, "too generous"? I've heard this claim. Isn't this the bill that rewards one-term-and-out soldiers? It would reward behavior that is counter to the nation's interests. I can't fault him for that stance, especially in a time where finances are pretty strapped and the military is having a hard time recruiting as it is.
I care, and so should you. Tell me, what would you rather be said by your POTUS:
"We are going to work with [insert country here] to combat this issue, because it is of major importance not just to the US but to the entirety of humanity."
OR
"Bring it on." I don't care how they speak, I care what they say. What Obama says is a pile of feel-good shit that is tailored to generate warm and fuzzies. Nothing more.
But at the moment, they're tolerating him. They'll vote for him regardless, at this point.
What I envision is McCain popping the clutch and shifting the Republican Party in a direction they won't like--but doing it too late for them to even consider not voting for him.
I could be wrong about the timing. He might wait until he's in the White House (I still think Obama's going to flame out) and do it there, when they can't do anything about it. But I'm 100% sure it'll happen.
Report them to your bank/card issuer! Nobody will stop doing it if we let them get away with it. Why? I don't use credit cards there, and I understand why they do it--below $3.00, they lose money on the transaction.
It's a bad rule that shouldn't exist, IMO, and serves only to force business owners to make a tradeoff: take a loss or have a sign there that gets a customer to buy a pack of gum?
Maybe, but it's the congressional Republicans that are completely out of control. Even if McCain in the back of his mind wants to apply the brakes, I highly doubt he will stand up against his own party's pork spending. And he certainly won't reign in military spending. And I'm a big fan of a strong military, but we simply can't afford the mountains of money we're spending. The thing is...this is what the people want. We just had a Congressional primary here in Maine. One candidate campaigned on what amounts to a moderate platform in all ways--raise taxes (which I strongly disagree with), social liberties (which I don't disagree with), and other might-as-well-be-a-Democrat platform planks. The other campaigned on strong fiscal conservatism (and right-to-life, which I don't really care about, myself).
The might-as-well-be-a-Democrat won the Republican primary by twenty percent.
Extending tax cuts for wealthy buisnesses? That money goes right back into the economy. The US economy grew 35% between 2004 and 2007, largely attributed by most economists to the Bush tax cuts.
Keeping the war going while refusing to extend extra benefits to those who go and fight? [citation needed]
Having an OK message but using words in such a way that make it sound like they are a bumbling fool? Who fucking cares? Are you really that shallow?
That's against the terms of the merchant agreement to require a lower limit. I know. But up here at least, it still happens.
What you might be thinking of is the similar "Minimum $3 charge if using credit card". Your quote implies that if you buy a $1 item, you can't pay by credit card. My quote says if you want to buy a $1 item, you will be charged $3 for it instead if you use a credit card. That would also be against the rules of the CC companies. And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm quite literally talking about a hand-lettered sign on the register saying "Your transaction must be at least $3.00 to use a credit card here, sorry for the inconvenience."
Merchants are not allowed to set minimum or maximum amounts for transactions on Visa. I'm too lazy to find it, but I know Mastercard has a similar rule. Right, but that doesn't mean that they don't do it. Here in Maine, I would say that more stores have minimums than don't.
I don't disagree with you on the methods sucking. But I know far too many teachers who got into teaching because they couldn't do anything else.
There are some cases (your fiance, for example) where a professional teacher is necessary. But high pay for teaching ignores the fact that teaching in the modern American system was not intended to be a career, but a position for someone who's made their money in the real world before going to teach for a few years. We want the best of the best teaching our children, not people going through degree programs that are trivially easy in comparison to, say, a mathematics degree.
I would say that any teacher teaching sixth grade or higher should have spent fifteen to twenty years in a career before going to teach. A generation of career teachers slurping at the public trough doesn't help kids.
I graduated high school two years ago. The best three teachers I ever had were a Gulf War vet who went into business for himself afterwards, a Korea and Vietnam Navy vet who went into teaching after his twenty years were up, and a carpenter who taught Algebra II during the winter when his business was slow. I firmly believe that we cannot afford this "professional teacher" bullshit, and paying them to be complicit in the damage of American children is unacceptable.
Saying "the methods constrain" them is fine. Obviously that's part of the problem. But these teachers need to spearhead the charge to explain the need to change the methods. Be active in the community. Grow popular support in favor of changing the bad laws.
I see no reason to pay them more while they remain complicit with the rules they say are so bad.
Slashdot Mirror
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is an open-and-shut case. Scalia is toeing the neoconservative line, and those of us who are truly conservative should be ashamed. I know I am.
Oh. Yeah. And he's the defense counsel. Tee-hee. :D
An end run around the law (which is what the RIAA lawyers are doing) justifies Beckerman sending a letter to both judges. And I am sure neither will be upset by his action.
This letter should go as well to the bar associations to which these lawyers belong. This is a serious breach of ethics. (Yes, lawyers do in fact have a code of ethics; they are officers of the court first and foremost and their duty to their client comes second.)
Up here in Maine at least, profit margins are about as razor-thin as it gets in a lot of these rural mom-and-pop stores. They have to accept credit cards because tourists want to use them and often won't shop if a store doesn't accept them (locals rarely use them), but credit card companies are expensive as all hell and shoot their profits down. They can't raise prices--the locals will go elsewhere. They can't refuse credit cards--the tourists will go elsewhere. In order to maintain a profit, they essentially have to bend the credit card rules.
Conservative * * * *Centrist * * * *Liberal Laughably simpleminded of you, but given your "hurf durf look at the domain name!" attempt above, I expected no less. Neoconservatism is huge-government and assholish foreign policy. That's not conservatism, but it's what Bush and others like him espouse. (I find it funny that they call themselves "Reagan Republicans"; personally I'd think that being a Goldwater Republican would be something of value, not some pejorative like "Reagan Republican".) Neocon ? Isn't that a perjorative typically used by the Left ? No. Your intense lack of a clue is astounding. Bottom line: it does appear that many on the Right may well sit this one out. It has nothing to do with Obama being an African-American. Really? How many *Democrats* said that "race was a factor" in deciding their vote in the primary? And you're going to tell me that *Republicans* will somehow be "above" that? Get real. It has everything to do with Obama having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to the National Journal [nationaljournal.com] and McCain ignoring or going against conservatives on issues dear to them, like Immigration and Global Warming.
I wasn't referring to Bush; I was referring to the people who voted for him.
You're funny. I'm glad people like you exist--you make it very easy for normal people to go "See? This is the kind of person who accepts bullshit because it's 'not that bad'."
I will ignore your "points" (which is a very generous term for them) because anyone with half a brain can see that they're preposterous justifications for getting selectively angry and accepting "smaller" wrongdoings as acceptable.
Well put. Although in my area, there are a lot of mom-and-pop stores left. Oh, the "benefits" of being in hicksville.
And they'll vote for him because the neocons can't get their heads around the idea of a black guy in the White House. It'll happen.
I get the feeling that you've never lived in a rural area. The situation is considerably more complex than you assume.
Teachers have no choice. If they are going to be a teacher in public schools, they legally have to pay union dues and be a part of that union. A union which has done absolutely jack shit. Sounds like a great argument for government intervention (something I generally hate, but still) to forcibly dissolve that union!
Special ed is an even worse proposition when you realize that they're gutting gifted-and-talented programs to pay for special ed. Gah. Throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily fix it, that is true...but there comes a point where money DOES affect things. Fix the bad policies, get rid of the career teachers, and start showing some results, and then we can talk about money. I look at it as an investment: we don't throw good money after bad when buying and selling companies. We shouldn't reward bad behavior here either.
No, it won't. The people who are more capable are the people who get jobs in the real world, where we want them.
Look at the sibling post's reply from me. We want teachers who have succeeded in the real world to teach our children, not "professional teachers."
"We are going to work with [insert country here] to combat this issue, because it is of major importance not just to the US but to the entirety of humanity."
OR
"Bring it on." I don't care how they speak, I care what they say. What Obama says is a pile of feel-good shit that is tailored to generate warm and fuzzies. Nothing more.
But at the moment, they're tolerating him. They'll vote for him regardless, at this point.
What I envision is McCain popping the clutch and shifting the Republican Party in a direction they won't like--but doing it too late for them to even consider not voting for him.
I could be wrong about the timing. He might wait until he's in the White House (I still think Obama's going to flame out) and do it there, when they can't do anything about it. But I'm 100% sure it'll happen.
It's a bad rule that shouldn't exist, IMO, and serves only to force business owners to make a tradeoff: take a loss or have a sign there that gets a customer to buy a pack of gum?
How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?
Never said McCain was perfect, just that Obama is more clueless than he is. ;-)
The might-as-well-be-a-Democrat won the Republican primary by twenty percent.
Building up a head of steam from the right is my guess.
I don't disagree with you on the methods sucking. But I know far too many teachers who got into teaching because they couldn't do anything else.
There are some cases (your fiance, for example) where a professional teacher is necessary. But high pay for teaching ignores the fact that teaching in the modern American system was not intended to be a career, but a position for someone who's made their money in the real world before going to teach for a few years. We want the best of the best teaching our children, not people going through degree programs that are trivially easy in comparison to, say, a mathematics degree.
I would say that any teacher teaching sixth grade or higher should have spent fifteen to twenty years in a career before going to teach. A generation of career teachers slurping at the public trough doesn't help kids.
I graduated high school two years ago. The best three teachers I ever had were a Gulf War vet who went into business for himself afterwards, a Korea and Vietnam Navy vet who went into teaching after his twenty years were up, and a carpenter who taught Algebra II during the winter when his business was slow. I firmly believe that we cannot afford this "professional teacher" bullshit, and paying them to be complicit in the damage of American children is unacceptable.
Saying "the methods constrain" them is fine. Obviously that's part of the problem. But these teachers need to spearhead the charge to explain the need to change the methods. Be active in the community. Grow popular support in favor of changing the bad laws.
I see no reason to pay them more while they remain complicit with the rules they say are so bad.