GeorgiaDon

I recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over. Don And the examples of lawyers who argued that the innocent people should stay in jail because the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the guilt deniers should be paid no heed.I'm afraid I don't follow the message of your response. I was referring to your often-stated perspective that scientists should shut up and avoid "sounding the alarm", even if they strongly believe their data indicates an evolving danger to the public. They should publish their research in obscure journals and then just trust that politicians, business leaders, etc will read those papers, understand the implications of the findings, and take appropriate action. Most scientists I know have more of a social conscience than that. Indeed, most people I know in my own area of research got into research because they want to do something useful to alleviate the burden of disease. When I teach undergrads about malaria, should I just stick to dry scientific facts and parasite life cycles? Am I wrong to talk about the economic and social impact of a disease that kills somebodies child every minute of every day? Do I need to recruit a social activist to come into my classroom to talk about that side of the subject? When I was a grad student I had friends who got into law specifically because of their concern about environmental and civil rights issues. They believed that the law gave them the best avenue to take action on those issues. So, I am aware that there are lawyers who do have a social conscience. However, it seems to me that there is much about the profession that is all about winning and losing, without regard for the social costs. In that context, I mentioned the case of an innocent person, who was known to be innocent by the presiding judge at the trial, who was allowed to spend 37 years in jail. I suggested the possibility that a mindset that would knowingly allow an innocent person to spend their entire adult life in jail, to conform with a set of rules, would also be comfortable with the idea that scientists who become aware of a great danger should avoid raising any sort of public alarm. In a larger sense, it seems to me the law is about following rules, regardless of whether or not the result is "justice". Consistency and process is valued over "truth". Science is about figuring out the truth. Science often is more messy than the law, because there can be a lot of debate, and a lot of experiments have to get done before some issues are settled. I don't know if people choose one profession or the other because they already think one way or the other, or if they become trained to think one way or the other as they learn the profession. 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 recall a news story or two about lawyers who kept their mouths shut while innocent people rotted in jail for decades. So maybe lawyers are more comfortable than most scientists about keeping mum while people get fucked over. 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)

If the state were to limit voting registration to gun owning white male property owners at least 65 years old (which would be a Republican wet dream), should the feds have to comply with that? Dan, I'm pretty sure they do not realize we're talking about voter registration, not the polling booth on election day. I thought it was already a requirement to have to show ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote, at least that has always been my personal experience. 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)

Fixed.She should be. Otherwise, she'll probably reproduce. 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 will counter that to say that higher education is more accessible to lower income persons via scholarships, grants, and student loans. "More accessible" compared to what? Compared to the way it used to be? Absolutely. Compared to children from wealthy families? Hardly. A major reason why even motivated people do not finish is that they were not adequately prepared for college by their high school education. This gets back to structural issues built into our society that impede upward mobility, often by impeding education. The great majority of school districts are funded through local property taxes. Poor people tend to live in areas where property values are lower, and as a rule those are areas where local schools have very meager budgets. The result is larger class sizes (relative to richer school districts), which often results in teachers spending more time dealing with recalcitrant/unmotivated/troublemaking students, leaving the better learners to fend for themselves. Such schools have limited access to technology, and frequently cannot afford to offer the interest courses (music, art, theater, astronomy, marine biology, etc) that can make school fun and engaging. No doubt the most motivated kids will still succeed in an environment where they are disconnected from the teachers (who are occupied with less able students), have little course choice beyond the essentials, where the room freezes in winter and is stifling hot the rest of the year, where mold grows on the walls and rats and roaches rule the halls at night. However, I doubt anyone would argue those kids have, on average, the same chance at a decent preparation for college that the kid from the school in the upscale neighborhood has. Adding to the tide many poor kids have to swim against is the circumstance that, too often, their parent/parents have no personal experience with the rewards of a decent education, and so fail to provide the appropriate home environment for academic success. My anecdotal observation is that, far too often, such families see the route to success as going through professional sports, a path that ends up excluding 99.999% of kids. There is no easy fix for this; such parents often have to personally experience the benefits of a quality education for themselves before they will demand it for their children. Loans, scholarships, grants, etc all have their place in improving access to education for children of poor families. However, their impact will be reduced until we as a society decide to fix fundamental inequities in pre-college education. Every high school should be able to provide their students with the tools needed for success in college, or any other career path they choose. 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'd argue that giving law enforcement the power to seize property and money based on only a suspicion of drug involvement, without any need to even file charges, much less prove a drug connection in court, is an affront to American values. If you add in the fact that police are allowed to keep much of the money and use it for equipment, cars, travel to "training" seminars, bonuses, DA pay, etc you have a strong motive to abuse the system. Here is a very good article that describes the epidemic of abuse of drug forfeiture laws across the country. In some jurisdictions, such as Tenaha, Texas, authorities set up what amount to shake down operations, using laughable pretexts (such as "driving too close to the white line") to stop vehicles passing through on a major highway and seizing money, valuables including jewelry off women's fingers, cell phones from kids, but never filing charges for anything. Money was seized from hundreds of innocent people, including a family on their way to pick up a used car they had bought, and a restaurant owner on his way to an auction to buy equipment for a new restaurant he was trying to set up. It is very clear that drug forfeiture has turned into a big business that funnels large amounts of money, some from actual drug dealers but a lot from innocent people, into the law enforcement/"war on drugs" machine. Here in Georgia, a county DA has been found using forfeiture money to buy a SUV for the personal use of his office manager, to pay her $90,000 (in addition to her actual salary) to transcribe a few court documents (a rate vastly over what actual court stenographers charge), and to take her along on dubious business trips to Hawaii. The case was exposed by a local reporter, because there is no official oversight on how forfeiture money is spent. The system is inherently corrupting, and stinks to high heaven. 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 everyone would appreciate the dry humor of a "No gays or blacks" sign with equally ironic intentions.Not unless "gays or blacks" seized control of the legislature and tried to pass laws discriminating against heterosexual whites. If that were to happen, I'm sure some would understand the intent and message of such a sign. 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)

Interesting link, thanks. I looked up one particular case from Atlanta to see what was reported. Here's what was linked to the map: "Title: Kathryn Johnston Type: Death of an innocent. State: GA Description: Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, police conduct a no-knock raid on the home of 88 year old Kathryn Johnston. Johnston, described by neighbors as feeble and afraid to open her door at night, opens fire on officers as they burst into her home. Three of the officers are wounded before Johnston is shot and killed. Relatives say that Johnston lived alone, and legally owned a gun because she was fearful of intruders. She lived in the home for 17 years. Police claim that they find a small amount of marijuana in Johnston's home, but none of the cocaine, computers, money, or equipment described in the affidavit that was used to obtain a warrant. There are now allegations of a police cover-up. Developing... Source Shaila Dewan and Brenda Goodman, "Atlanta Officers Suspended in Inquiry on Killing in Raid " The New York Times, November 28, 2006." The reality of what happened is much much worse. It was subsequently proven that police lied on the documents used to obtain the no-knock warrant, and (after the raid went bad) picked up a known small-time dealer and used the threat of trumped-up charges to force him to lie and say he had bought drugs at the residence. Ms Johnston did have an old rusty revolver, as she lived in a high crime area, and as the undercover police broke down her door she fired one shot over their heads. The police in turn fired 39 times, hitting Ms Johnston five(!) times. All the injuries to the 3 police officers were from their own bullets ricocheting. Ms Johnston was still alive at that point, but the police handcuffed her and left her to bleed out as they searched the house. When they found no drugs or anything else incriminating in the house, one of them planted three bags of marijuana,which they had obtained from another bust earlier in the day, in Ms. Johnston's basement. The case was suspicious enough that it attracted an investigation from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI, where it was proven that the Atlanta police made up the information used to obtain the warrant, and both planted evidence after the fact and used threats to force an "informant" to lie and say he had provided the (false) information. Three officers were tried, convicted, and sentenced to terms of 10, 6, and 5 years. Personally I think they got off very lightly. Worse, almost, was the revelation that such behavior was routine within the narcotics division, driven by a quota system that the police tried hard to cover up. As another result, over 100 convictions had to be reexamined and several people were exonerated. So it it emphatically not true that, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. As part and parcel of the whole "war on drugs" nonsense, I think the use of the "war" to justify a pattern of confiscating money and property, without the need to even file charges must less obtain a conviction, provides plenty of motive for such police abuses. I know several cops. Some are great people, but a couple are genuinely scary. I think the profession attracts people who want to help, and some who just like the power. I also think it's hard to hold that job for a long time without becoming jaded, and perhaps frustrated at the limitations imposed if you do things "by the book". I can see how easy it would be to fall in line with the "it's a war", "the end justifies the means" mentality. 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)

If it was consistent it wouldn't be ironic, pretty much by definition. I believe the point of the "no legislators" sign is to point out that a law that allows businesses to ban people because they are gay can also be used against other groups including legislators. They are an ironic protest against the law, not intended to be taken literally. 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)

It's not about permission. You have the right, feel free to use it. Don't need anybody's permission! Like jumping a much smaller canopy. Feel free to do it, just increases your risk of a rather violent death. People warn you and provide the data, proceed at your own risk. Some people are just very talented hotshot skygod pilots who make all the right decisions. Some aren't. Same situation here. Data shows that adding a gun to your household increases the risk of a household member dying a violent death. You know the risks, you take your chances. This is exactly correct, but some seem to take any suggestion that guns in the house can pose a risk as an attack on their 2nd amendment rights. None of us want to believe it, but we (or family members) are always at risk of a moment of despair, a flash of anger, or a mental illness. We have lost members of our dz.com community to this. I can think of more than one person who used to post here who I wish to God had not had a gun at hand at the wrong moment. I can't think of a single person who was murdered in their home, though. I can recall one person who was murdered, and I wish he had been able to defend himself, but I don't think that happened at home. I also recall a skydiver who used to post a lot, who murdered her parents (but I can't recall her name). It's hard to be quantitative about things when you're just picking up an incident here or there from what people post, but over the past few years the experience of our dz.com family seems to reflect the findings of the researchers: a number of suicides, a skydiver who used a gun to commit murder, but no-one (that I can recall) who had to use deadly force to protect themselves in their home. 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)

Perhaps you overlooked this part (bold added for emphasis): "My position is that men must make the decision about creating a child in advance: only have sex with people you trust absolutely when they tell you they are on the pill/IUD, whatever; actually have that discussion in advance of sex; know what the risk of failure of each method of birth control is; use multiple methods; and so on. ... On the other hand, the woman has all of those options, plus an additional option to terminate the pregnancy. That's not unfair, it's just biology." I just can't see how that could possibly be read as meaning "the man makes the choices and the woman has to do whatever he wants". If the woman somehow raped the man, or otherwise managed to steal his sperm against his will, I would agree with with the use of the term "enslave". If the guy took a gamble (trusting someone he doesn't know, or relying on her to take 100% of the responsibility for birth control, or relying on a birth control method with a known failure rate), then he made a choice, she didn't "enslave" him. Why do you assume the guy is powerless and the woman is 100% responsible for the choices that get made? Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, you could recognize that it is the child, not the woman, who has the man "enslaved", as you put it. That's true, though the circumstance there is almost always that the man was married to a woman who cheated on him, then deceived him into believing that the child was his. We could perhaps take a tangent here and discuss who is the real "parent", a man who invested years into loving, caring for, and teaching a child, or someone whose sole contribution was a sperm donation. Nevertheless, the problem is a legal system that obstructs the "nurturing dad" from collecting damages from the "bio-dad". That system is a legacy from the days when it was impossible to prove who is the real bio-father; the technology to do that is quite recent, and the law has yet to catch up. That could be remedied with a few changes to the law, without resorting to a system that gave a blanket pass to fathers to say "hey, it wasn't my idea" and walk away from their children. In a way we do this now. We don't pick strangers off the street, but we do collectively pay taxes to pick up the slack from fathers who don't care to take financial responsibility for their offspring. I still haven't seen anything to make me believe that you give any weight at all to the fact that we are talking about a child who has real needs that someone must meet, a child who did not have any say in the circumstances of their birth. A child is not a piece of luggage, nor is it an impediment that can simply be discarded when it becomes inconvenient. Perhaps you will mock my "for the children" perspective, but I think it immoral that the one totally innocent party in these situations is the one who has to bear the full consequence of their parent's bad decisions. 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)

It seems every time anybody raises the abortion issue you trot out your "poor oppressed men" schtick. Yet, somehow, I cannot recall a single instance in which you have acknowledged that the child (should the mother choose to carry the pregnancy to term) is a human being with actual needs, needs that we as a society have decided have to be met by the adults responsible for that child's existence. Perhaps my attitude is from the 1950s. On the other hand, American society is rife with problems (crime, poverty) in large measure directly related to fathers walking away from their responsibilities. Why should I (as a taxpayer) have to pay to support your kid so you can move on to the next woman, and the next, and the one after that? You may say "let the mother shoulder the whole burden", but I'm sure you're aware that juggling caring for a child with holding down a job that pays well enough to meet everyones needs is a balance that eludes the vast majority of single mothers. If the question is, should the mother be able to drop the child with the father and walk away, leaving him alone to meet the costs and needs of the child, my answer would be no. Both parents need to take responsibility for their child. Ideally taking responsibility would involve actually raising the child, but at a minimum it would need to be providing financially for the child's needs. I honestly don't get this question. If the woman gets pregnant, and chooses to have an abortion, and the guy who got her pregnant decides he really wants a child and goes out on his own and adopts a child, should she be forced to raise that adopted child? Is that what you're asking? If that is your question (which I think I must have misunderstood, because it's a ridiculous question and you're not a ridiculous person), then no, she should not be bound by his decision, which he made on his own. You seem to be worked up over some sense that it is unfair that child bearing is not perfectly symmetrical between males and females. As I am sure you are aware, though, it is a simple fact of biology that females can bear children and males cannot. If you, as a male, wish to have a child you must find a cooperative female, or else adopt. You cannot force a woman to carry your child, without violating her right to determine what happens to her own body. Producing a child is a much greater burden on the mother than it is on the father, and since her body (but not the father's) is intimately involved in the process she bears greater risks, and also has more opportunities to make decisions. My position is that men must make the decision about creating a child in advance: only have sex with people you trust absolutely when they tell you they are on the pill/IUD, whatever; actually have that discussion in advance of sex; know what the risk of failure of each method of birth control is; use multiple methods; and so on. Balancing risk with fun shouldn't be out of the question for a skydiver. Taking responsibility for your actions shouldn't be an outrageous concept for a libertarian, either. On the other hand, the woman has all of those options, plus an additional option to terminate the pregnancy. That's not unfair, it's just biology. 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)

You could also look at it this way: Case 1: demand responsible behavior from an adult who chose to engage in sex without taking adequate provision against pregnancy, despite claiming he doesn't want to be responsible for a child, vs Case 2: victimize a child who had absolutely no choice in the circumstances of their conception, likely condemning that child to an upbringing in poverty (considering that single parenthood is the single best predictor of poverty). Don't want kids? Take responsibility for birth control yourself. Sure you don't want kids? Get snipped. 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)

News story with video of the house and expansion. "Bishop of Bling" does seem to fit. 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)

Thanks for the clarification (you too Andy). 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)

We just need another King Henry VIII to resolve this issue.I'm not sure it would all be exempt from property taxes. I recall that churches are exempt but the rectory (where the priest lives) is not. [Pretty low hanging fruit there for a joke about priests living in a rectory.] Similarly, a church's income is not taxed, but the priest's salary is. Henry VIII might be able to change the situation, but he'd need to amend the constitution. The tax exempt status of churches follows from the establishment clause. If you can tax something, then you have authority over it. Because government is supposed to be independent of all religions, it cannot put itself in a position of authority over them, and so it can't tax them. Government can put some limits on what it considers as religious activities, though, so some things churches do as a business (such as paying salaries, or owning houses for people to live in) are taxable. 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)

You're missing the point. If it's black on black it's murder. If it's black on white it's murder. If it's white on black it's SYG. Or perhaps a bit more accurately, if it's poor on poor, or poor on well off, it's murder. If it's "well enough off to afford a decent legal team" against poor, it's "reasonable doubt". 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)

In that case, today you learned why Marissa Alexander was found guilty once, and likely will be again.My vague recollection (which may be inaccurate) is that she claims she left, but realized she did not have the car keys. When she reentered the house to get the keys her boyfriend/husband tried to attack her, and she fired a warning shot. Whether or not that story is true, it does show that it is possible for a situation to be more complicated than "she should have left in her car". If your choice is to go back and try to get your keys, or to leave your car and attempt a long walk home in the dark through sketchy neighborhoods, never knowing if or when your ex is going to show up in his car and try to run you down or something, I think we can agree that it's not completely unreasonable to try to get your car keys. Prosecutors get paid to paint things in black and white (so to speak), because grey might lead the jury towards empathy or understanding for the accused. However the real world sometimes is grey. 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 didn't know what the split was, so thanks for that info. Have you seen any interviews with the jurors where the reason for some to not vote guilty were actually discussed? Something from the actual jurors that indicated premeditation was the issue? In Florida 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are lesser included charges under 1st degree murder, so the jury could have voted not guilty of 1st degree but guilty of 2nd or manslaughter. That they did not do so suggests to me that the issue was whether or not Dunn thought he was threatened with a lethal weapon. If any juror thought Dunn had a reasonable belief Davis was a threat to his life, then they would have to vote not guilty on every possible charge, but they could still agree that didn't give Dunn the right to try to kill everyone else in the car too. If premeditation was the only issue, they should have convicted for 2nd degree murder of Davis, as well as attempted murder of his companions. So, I suspect the problem was that some (3?) jurors bought the self-defense argument. Even so, I suspect the prosecution might have an easier go of it if they re-prosecute for 2nd degree murder. However I admit I have seen only one interview with a juror, and that person would have voted to convict and I didn't see actual discussion of why other jurors disagreed. 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 have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that my rather mean-spirited post has developed into a pretty interesting thread. This is one of those occasions where I'm impressed with how well-read some of our Speaker's Corner citizenry are. 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)

Certainly true in Canada. 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)

Good luck with that. Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been fighting (in court, mainly) over water from the Chatahoochee River for many decades now. The problem is Atlanta has grown so big it essentially depletes the river before it ever gets to Alabama, much less Florida. If it wasn't for sewer recharge (water from the treatment plants) going back into the river downstream of Atlanta, the river would be essentially dry. Rather than negotiate meaningful limits on water use to ensure enough makes it to Alabama and Florida (not to mention Georgia cities downstream of Atlanta), the Georgia legislature wastes it's time on hairbrained schemes like moving the state border 2 miles north, so they can divert yet more water from the Tennessee River. The "logic" behind this move is that (allegedly) surveyors made a mistake when the Georgia/Tennessee border was set, and correcting that mistake now (200 years after the fact) would put a bend of the river (plus most of Chattanooga) in Georgia. A big pipe from the river bend to Atlanta would be all that would be needed to give Atlanta all the water it needs, well for 100 years or so until the city outgrew that additional supply. The problem is this: 1: water = growth (in population and industry) 2: growth = tax revenue 3: tax revenue = power (for politicians) Asking politicians to agree on shared water resources is like asking them to chop off their hand, they are not going to do it unless there is no other option. I have wondered about what kind of issues could prompt the US to try to take over Canada. I could think of only two things, water and oil. Well, that and maybe poutine. All are limiting resources in the US and abundant in Canada. 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)

Maybe, but in this case it would be complicated by that "freedom of religion" thing. I'm not sure many politicians would be willing to back something that would open the door to them being painted as anti-religion. Perhaps we should get skydiving and base jumping registered as "official religions". Then we could deduct the cost of jumps from our taxable income, and the DZ could become a tax exempt church. Most wuffos already think skydivers/base jumpers are about as nuts as snake handlers. 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)

Correction noted, Ron. Good to know you're not into the snake handling thing. That stuff is truly dangerous. 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 got the joke in jclalor's post. Made sense to me. Still, maybe he'll connect the dots for you so you'll get it too. Out of curiosity, are you an actual human? Because you come across as some kind of an "irritant bot". Either that or some 13 year old brat who hangs out in their parent's basement and thinks it's funny to try to piss people off. LOL On the off chance that you are an actual person who has actual ideas, turning down the "rudeness" volume in your posts could lead to you being taken a bit more seriously. Just saying. 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)