GeorgiaDon

I'm not surprised, just ticked off. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Andy, The guy showed up to pay his ticket because he had to in order to reclaim his dog, which had been impounded as it was running loose (a violation of county ordinances) and had bitten a kid who was waiting for his school bus. As the dog had no rabies vaccination (a violation of a state law) the kid is looking at several thousand dollars worth of post-exposure rabies shots. I'd say there's something wrong with that picture. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, at the risk of getting the discussion back on track I've got a couple of comments. Here in Georgia we are seeing a lot of "undocumented immigrants", it's estimated there are over 400,000 in the state now. It's become very common that, when required to produce ID, these people are producing an ID card issued by the Mexican consulate, which they seem to think absolves them of the need to obtain a Georgia driver's license and somehow makes them "legitimate". It seems to me that by issuing these bogus IDs the Mexican government is actively encouraging illegal immigration, and the Federal Government should demand that they stop, or else close the consulate offices. A couple of weeks ago a guy came in to pay a ticket for an ordinance violation. All he had was one of these consulate cards, and when he was told that wasn't acceptable ID and he needed a Georgia drivers license (since he was claiming to be a resident of the County) he said he didn't have or need one because he had this card from his government. Well my wife called the police to report that the guy was driving without a license, and the police said they couldn't come out because they hadn't witnessed him driving. My wife said she would be happy to be a witness, as would another woman in the office with her, and they also had surveillance video of the guy driving into and out of the parking lot. The police still would not take a complaint. That's a problem. Perhaps the issue is that our local county jail is already overcrowded and the county is under a court order to build more space (which will cost us 80 million we don't have), so there isn't any place to warehouse a lot of illegals while the county waits for USCIS to take them. Just as egregious (or even more so) was the guy whose "ID" sort of looked like a drivers license, except at the bottom it said "see other side". When my wife turned it over, it said in big letters "You have no right to question the holder of this card. If you have questions you must contact the law office of... (a local immigration law firm)". So these guys are actively aiding and abetting illegals. Of course the card has no legal force, it's just designed to intimidate people. We are starting to see more and more problems with gang violence here too, plus if you get in a car accident there's a very good chance it will be with an "undocumented immigrant" with no license or insurance, so it's not a trivial issue. It does bother me how the Mexican government and some local entities (such as the law firm) are actively promoting illegal immigation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey! I think I saw your picture in the paper! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Absolutely! How about supporting significant penalties for employers who fail to make reasonable efforts to check employee's social security numbers? Maybe a significant number of contractors or chicken plant CEOs serving long jail sentences after being bankrupted by fines would send a message. If there were no jobs for illegals, there wouldn't be nearly as many people trying to come here. No need to throw US citizens and legal immigrants in jail for forgetting to carry their "papers" when running out to pick up a 6-pack. It would also help if we stopped undercutting Mexican farmers by subsidizing American farmers to sell overseas at less than the cost of production. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder what "proof of citizenship" US citizens are supposed to carry at all times that will satisfy the Arizona law. A birth certificate, especially the "short form", is ludicrously easy to fake; just ask the birthers about that. Does anyone believe that illegals who can get fraudulent social security card and driver's licenses will be stymied by a birth certificate? For those of us who are naturalized citizens, the naturalization certificate is a 9 x 11 inch paper with attached photo, seals and embossments. It isn't designed to be folded up, to fit in a wallet you would have to crease the seals and photos, and a damaged certificate is not legally acceptable proof of citizenship, for example for a passport application. The government does not issue a wallet-sized card version of the document. Perhaps Arizona politicians expect that naturalized citizens will wear around their necks one of those clear plastic-fronted holders for documents, the kind airlines stick on unaccompanied minors? How ridiculous and demeaning is that. Maybe they expect that all US citizens will obtain and carry at all times a passport? That would be perfect proof of citizenship, but it would be a government mandate for everyone to spend their money on a passport even if they don't plan to travel abroad; if such mandates are objectionable when the Federal government does it (health care) why is is OK here? Because it isn't explicit, but only implied by the legislation? How many Americans will be happy to have to make sure to take proof of citizenship with them every single time they leave the house? I expect the law will end up being ruled unconstitutional, as it clearly violates the fourth amendment. Failing that, it will eventually be repealed as hundreds or thousands of US citizens are fined $500 for failing to carry proof of citizenship. For anyone planning to visit Eloy from outside Arizona, be aware that to get there from Phoenix Airport you have to go through Sheriff Arpaio's jurisdiction, and no-one is as aggressive about rounding up so-called "illegals" as he is. Want to run into Phoenix for an evening's entertainment, and you leave your "papers" back at the bunkhouse? Be prepared to spend six months in the sheriff's "hotel". The accommodations are not luxurious, except perhaps by Somalian refugee camp standards. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not that you know about, eh! The stealth invasion is still on. All your base are ours! _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

+1 I review grant proposals for NIH and NSF, as well as some private agencies. I have never once been told to slant my reviews to fit any "government policy". The only criteria we consider is the importance of the research problem and the quality of the experimental plan. I also kind of resent the insinuation that scientists or "the government" have to fabricate problems like Malaria and West Nile so we can have an excuse to suck at the public teat or somehow expand my "power" over the public or whatever. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure you (or someone) will correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the military have a very large degree of control over how they decide to use the $$$$$$ they are allocated? Why not cut some of the extremely expensive weapons systems even the military says they don't need, but politicians push because it brings pork to their districts (Georgia, where I live, is one of the worst for this)? And as far as the mission is concerned, why not exercise some restraint and use our troops to defend legitimate national security interests, and not for adventurism to support politician,s dreams of empire building? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm going to have to bookmark that, just so I can pull it up in 7 years. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Pirana, I'm curious about how this could work. It seems to me that if every person is considered completely on their own, instead of being considered as part of a large group, the premiums would have to cover: expected costs of medical care administrative costs of the plan (including huge salaries for the CEOs), and profit margin for shareholders (for publicly traded companies) So, on average an individual purchaser will be worse off buying insurance than they would be just paying out of pocket for medical care. Insurance works by spreading the risk; for a group of people (as in an employer-sponsored group plan) there will be some young, healthy people and some older folks with pre-existing conditions. The insurance company can still make money as long as there are enough healthy young people in the plan to cover the relatively higher expenses associated with the less healthy. If I, as one of those older people facing the increased likelihood of medical problems as I age (not to mention some issues in my family history that increase my risk, and that I can't do anything about because I can't change my genetics), go as an individual to buy health insurance, it seems to me they are under no obligation at all to sell it to me for any less than a premium that would include expected payout, administrative costs, and profit. Basically, taking group coverage out of the picture would only make it really easy for the insurance companies to cherry pick the young and healthy, and exclude everyone else, including practitioners of risky sports such as skydiving. I know you work in this area, so I hope you can explain to me what I am missing here. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, he did say he can't afford a house right now. Considering that medical bills for a bad accident can easily top what you'd pay for a starter house, that's not an unreasonable assumption. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That may well be true. I just think it's interesting that federally mandated caps on compensation will conflict with constitutional rights in many states, which brings up 10th Amendment issues. Personally I think tort reform is needed, but just putting arbitrary caps on compensation that do not take into account harm done is overly simplistic, historically have been shown to have little or no effect on malpractice premiums, and now have been found to be unconstitutional in many states. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No problem, as long as they don't deny 50% more claims.

Tort reform, in particular caps on malpractice awards, are advocated by many, and especially by conservatives, as a solution to escalating health care costs. Most states have already placed caps on non-economic damages (pain and suffering); California did so in 1975 ($250,000 cap under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA). MICRA was then taken as a model by several other states. Unfortunately MICRA failed entirely to prevent the continuous increases in malpractice insurance premiums. The caps do, however, place severe barriers in the way of low-income patients (for example young people at the start of their careers, or retired people), as economic damages are largely assessed in terms of lost earnings. Now there is a new problem: in Georgia the State Supreme Court today ruled unanimously (7-0!) that malpractice caps are unconstitutional. They ruled that caps infringe on the right to a jury trial (by restricting the ability of the jury to decide the appropriate remedy for the injury), on the separation of powers, and on the right to equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled the same way last month, and now caps have been ruled unconstitutional in 12 states (and they have been upheld in 16 others, the difference being in the details of each State's constitution). So here is a dilemma for those of you who have been arguing that the 10th Amendment renders the Federal Health Reform bill ("ObamaCare") unconstitutional: Federal tort reform would infringe on State's rights and be in direct conflict with the constitution of many States. If you support "State's Rights", you can't at the same time support Federal imposition of tort reform on the states, or if you do you're being blatantly hypocritical. What to do? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What bill are you talking about? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Now there's a faith-based comment! On what objective grounds could you possibly assert that it is impossible that humans could affect climate even if they deliberately tried? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A little, old, Jewish tailor is crossing a street in Brooklyn when he's hit by a car. While the ambulance is on its way, a passerby folds up his coat, puts it under the old man's head. While he's doing this the tailor does the "sign of the cross" and blesses himself. The passerby says "Hey I thought you were Jewish, what's with the sign of the cross? The tailor says "What sign of the cross? I'm just checking: spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch!" _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That puts the "talk to the hand" comment in a whole different light. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I was thinking in terms of an idealized extreme of "free speech" in which the press would have full access to all information regardless of source, without any constraints at all. Of course we don't have (or really want) that degree of "freedom", because that would necessitate the complete lack of privacy, and that would interfere with our ability to enjoy other freedoms. However, any limitation on the ability of the press to obtain and publish information (however good the reason) can be seen as a limitation of free speech. There will always be a conflict between privacy rights and free speech (or a free press), and the issue here is where to draw the line to balance those two important rights in a reasonable manner. I think it's reasonable to restrict the publication of photos that show a crime victim in a state where she is nude, headless, and in a state of decay, but then again it's beyond me why anyone would want to publish or see such pictures in the first place. Similarly, existing law in Georgia restricts the publication of autopsy photos; this situation doesn't seem to be very different. On the other hand, the proposed law would seem to prevent the press from publishing images that show a bloody nose or black eye, and I think that goes too far. Crime scenes are one thing, but the law could also ban images of war, terrorist attacks, or even earthquake victims being rescued from collapsed buildings. Surely there is a compelling public interest in those images, as wars, terrorist attacks, and earthquakes are all legitimate news stories. Think of the Vietnam War era photo of the little girl who had been burned in a napalm attack; that one image really brought home the horror of that war, and under the proposed law its publication would be illegal. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree the first response of almost everyone who has a shred of decency would be to do what you suggest, and put themselves in the position of the parents of this unfortunate girl. However, I think that should be something the editors and reporters at Hustler should be asking themselves; instead they seem to be more concerned about using the victims unfortunate demise to make money. I tend to agree with FreeflyChile that personalizing things in this manner makes for poor law; if we constrained the press to only publish things that we would be happy to see made public regarding our own immediate family, virtually everything would be off limits and "free speech" would mean nothing. Not every act that is disrespectful, mean-spirited, immoral, or unethical need be illegal. I do wish Hustler would do the right thing and publish the story without the photos. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hustler magazine recently requested crime scene photos for use (i.e. publication) in an upcoming story. The pictures show the nude decapitated body of a 24-year-old woman, Meredeth Emerson, who was killed while hiking in the North Georgia mountains. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation declined to release the photos, a judge issued an injunction barring release of the photos (at the request of Emerson's family), and the state legislature is certain to pass House Bill 1322, "The Meredith Emerson Memorial Privacy Act," which would "prevent the release of photographs of the bodies of crime victims that are "nude, bruised, bloodied or in a broken state with open wounds, a state of dismemberment or decapitation." The bill will allow credentialed journalists, lawyers and law enforcement to view such photographs at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's headquarters, but not make copies of them. Hustler is "considering its legal options". Story (from CNN) here. So, I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand anyone who would actually want to see such pictures are (IMHO) beyond "sick and twisted", and publication of the photos will be emotionally devastating to the victim's family and friends (even if they don't look at the photos themselves, just knowing that many people are seeing [and perhaps enjoying seeing] their daughter/sister/friend in that condition). The confessed killer is behind bars, and his guilt is beyond question as he led police to her body in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table, so it's hard to make an argument that publication of the photos will lead to any new information on the case from the public. On the other hand, denying the "press" (even Hustler) the right to publish such photos is a limitation on free speach. So, do the dead have any right to "privacy"? Is it reasonable to restrict publication of such images (note the magazine can still print the story, including descriptions of the crime scene, just not graphic photos)? Or should Hustler (and by extension anybody) have the right to make a buck, regardless of harm to the victim's family, by publishing such photos (presumably to exploit their "shock value"). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder if you were involved in one of the faith-based organizations that got federal funding under the last (and maybe this) administration? Any organization that got those grants had to be careful to use the money only to deliver services, not to preach. Crossing that line would mean that federal tax dollars would be used to promote a religion, which is of course unconstitutional. You may disagree that it should be unconstitutional, but I think the separation of church and state is a master stroke of the Founding Fathers that has guaranteed religious freedom in this country, including the freedom to prefer Bronze Age mythology over science. Anyway them's the rules, if you take the federal grants you can't use the money to preach. Don't like the rules? Don't take the money. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you believe everything Michael Moore puts in his movies? Or do you believe that he uses leading questions and skillful editing to create misleading (or outright false) impressions? I use Moore as an example, as conservatives almost universally dismiss his work as lies motivated by a liberal bias. Why wouldn't a conservative film-maker be equally capable of such tricks? Without the original tapes, somehow confirmed to be unaltered, there is no way to know what really happened in those Acorn offices. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Done. But the poll is heavily going the other way (84% for the city manager) at this point. Good luck! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)