Nightingale

Not sure how that would make it any different than it is now. Schools are funded with property tax rather than income tax, but regardless, it's taxpayers paying for it, whether they have kids or not. In California, they've begun distributing funds on a more equal basis across the state, rather than having the local community's tax dollars go to fund the local school, which created really good schools in wealthy neighborhoods, and really poor schools in poor neighborhoods.

One of the huge problems with the voucher program is that it doesn't really help the kids that it claims to. The people who can't afford private school generally still can't afford it, because the vouchers don't come anywhere near actually covering the cost. Even if they did cover the cost, parents would still need to find a way to get their kids to the private school. Private schools generally aren't in the poorest parts of town and don't provide bussing. The parent would either need to find a carpool (unlikely, since the odds of another low income family nearby scraping together the money to send their child to the same school are pretty low) or drive the kid to school themselves, which, again, is unlikely, since the parent may not own a vehicle or work regular hours that would allow for drop-off/pick-up. "A common misconception is that, armed with a voucher, parents could enroll their children at any school - public or private. In truth, several obstacles would still prevent the majority of voucher recipients from ever using them: private schools are under no obligation to accept students, and would likely reject the majority of those with histories of behavior problems, learning disabilities, or unstable family situations... those with the most to gain under this proposal are not the working poor or minority communities, but the wealthy, who will gain tax credits for something they already do (send their kids to private schools), and the Christian Right, who are eager to use their vouchers to fund a religious education." (soyouwanna.com) Eight out of ten families that accept vouchers had to pay out of their pockets as well (AP). While the program was designed to require schools to take the voucher to cover the entire tuition, private schools have been tacking on "fees" to make up the difference. Unfortunately, what it comes down to is that many private schools don't want low income children. They make their money based on their reputations, and are very reluctant to accept students who may not be able to uphold those reputations. Private schools are allowed to discriminate. That's part of what makes them private. Even if the school did want to accept the voucher students, many of Florida's voucher eligible students are special-ed, and most private schools don't have the facilities or training to provide for special needs kids.

Vinny - I wasn't able to find the exact text of the case online yet, so this is guessing, but given the portion of the Florida constitution quoted on page 2 of this thread, this decision seems like a no-brainer for the court. The state constitution states that money from the public fund/state treasury cannot be spent in a manner that directly or indirectly funds religious organizations. If the vouchers can be used at religious schools, it's a clear violation of the Florida constitution. If the people of Florida don't like this, they can change their constitution through their amendment process. If the vouchers were only usable at non-religious schools, perhaps the ruling would have been different. I think it was a good ruling. The Florida constitution gives the people of Florida the right to not have their money spent to further a religion they may or may not agree with. A huge way of furthering religion is through religious schools (take a look at Catholicism for a huge example here). The ruling wasn't about whether the education at the public schools was quality, or whether the schools accepting the vouchers were better. The ruling was about taxpayers having the right to choose to keep their money away from supporting religious organizations. The job of the court in this case was to determine whether or not the voucher program was acceptible under the constitution of Florida. They found it was not. If the people of Florida have an issue with the ruling, they can alter their constitution to either allow state money to be given to support religious organizations, or just make a specific exception for school vouchers.

Yes, the criminal should still be prosecuted. You can decide not to pursue a civil action against him (not to sue), but a criminal case is prosecuted by the state because of a broken law. One of the reasons it works this way is that otherwise, criminals would have a much bigger incentive to try to frighten victims into dropping charges.

Excellent book. Dr. Tse is a wonderfully articulate author writing about something that's very controversial, and she actually manages to answer the question of "why don't they learn English?". She's a really nice person too... taught at the univeristy where I went to grad school. Funks... I'd be happy to send you my copy of her book... if you promise to actually read it.

Which country are you referring to?

I hope you have a merry christmas, Gary.

Coming from the point of view of a self defense instructor and someone who's found themself in a rotten situation, I see your point. This probably isn't going to be a popular point of view, but having been in the kind of situation others describe here, I know that I did something stupid. The attack was not my fault. Being in a situation where I COULD be attacked was my fault. I was walking back to my car in a downtown area after leaving a coffee-house type concert. Someone actually offered to walk with me, but I said no. That was a damn stupid thing to do. Somebody attacked me. I got very lucky and got out of the situation with nothing worse than a sprained wrist. The worst part was that when I left the shop and started walking, I had that awful prickle on the back of my neck...something was making me feel scared and jumpy. I had a bad feeling about the situation, and I ignored it. The bottom line is that if I hadn't been walking alone in the dark with nobody around, I probably wouldn't have been attacked. I put myself in a bad situation, and that was my own fault. I should have let my friend walk me to my car. I should've asked him for a ride to my car. I should NOT have been walking several rather deserted city blocks alone in the dark. Period. The attack was the fault of the attacker, but being in a situation where an attack could take place was my fault. Everyone, but women especially, need to acknowledge that the world is not a safe place and take steps to avoid danger. It's our responsibility to make sure we are safe, simply because nobody else is going to do it for us. I used to teach womens' self defense seminars. They were a couple of hours long, and we'd spend the first hour going over how not to get into situations where self defense is needed in the first place. The main things we went over were: 1. don't walk alone after dark. if you have to call a security guard to walk with you from a store to your car, do it. That's part of what they're paid for. 2. don't have both hands full at the same time. you're more of a target if they think you can't move quickly. When you're out shopping, consolidate bags and make a couple of trips to your car if you need to. 3. if they just want your purse, give it to them. 4. Always carry your car keys in your pocket, not your purse (see rule 3...you don't want to get stuck without keys) 5. keep an eye and a hand on your drink when you're at a club or on a date with someone new. If you lose sight of it, get a new one. 6. always be aware of your surroundings. know where all the exits are. 7. don't wear clothing you can't move in or shoes you can't run in or get rid of easily if you have to. 8. even if you're lost, walk like you know exactly where you're going and are familiar with the area until you find someone you can ask for directions (shopkeepers or police or another woman on the street). Looking uncertain makes you more of a target. 9. don't ever get intoxicated to the point where you're not aware of your surroundings or can't defend yourself unless you're at home with only people you trust, and even then it's not a great idea. 10. If someone tries to take you somewhere, fight. If they get you to a second place of their choosing, there's a damn good chance you're going to end up dead. If they're trying to take you somewhere, you have nothing to lose, so fight. Chances are, they'll go look for an easier victim. Rely on your mind, your senses, and your observation skills to keep you out of trouble. If you have a bad feeling about something, LISTEN TO IT, PLEASE!!!!! Worst case, if you start running, you'll look silly. Best case, you've just saved your life.

Political marriage came first. "Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons. ... The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours." Source: About.com

Very well put. This is from a psychologist's Q and A, and I think he does a pretty good job of explaining... it's long, though. Q: I've heard therapists say that a male adult who sexually abuses a boy isn't necessarily ‘homosexual.' This seems confusing: If he isn't homosexual, then why would he sexually molest boys, instead of girls? This is a very good question, and there are several ways to respond to it. First, we need to clarify our definitions. When discussing sexual abuse and molestation of children, there's often conflict over terminology. One frequently quoted researchers on the topic of homosexuality and child molestation, Gregory Herek, a research psychologist at the University of California, defines pedophilia as "a psychosexual disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners, which may or may not be acted upon." He defines child sexual abuse as "actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent." Not all pedophiles actually molest children, he points out. A pedophile may be attracted to children, but never actually engage in sexual contact with them. Quite often, pedophiles never develop a sexual orientation toward other adults. Herek points out that child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to "actions," without implying any "particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator." In other words, not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles. Pedophilia can be viewed as a kind of sexual fetish, wherein the person requires the mental image of a child--not necessarily a flesh-and-blood child--to achieve sexual gratification. Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don't identify as homosexual–the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender They are sexually aroused by youth, not by gender. In contrast, child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults, but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence and controlling their humiliated victims. Indeed, research supports that a child molester isn't any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual. In fact, some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in who a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children. In these situations, an adult male is trusted by those around him, including children and their families. Males are often given access to boys to mentor, teach, coach and advise. Therefore, a male pedophile may have easier access to a male child. In trying to make sense of an adult male's sexually abusing a male child, many of us mislabel it as an act of homosexuality, which it isn't. Feminists have argued for years that rape is not a sex act–it is an act of violence using sex as a weapon. In the same way, a pedophile abusing a child of the same sex is not perpetrating a homosexual act, but an act of violence and exploitation using sexuality. There is a world of difference between these two things, but it requires a subtle understanding of the inner motivation of the abuser. To call child molestation of a boy by a man "homosexual” or of a girl by a man "heterosexual" is to misunderstand pedophilia. No true pedophile is attracted to adults, so neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality applies. Accordingly, Herek suggests calling men's sexual abuse of boys "male-male molestation" and men's abuse of girls, "male-female molestation." Interestingly, Anna C. Salter writes, in “Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists and other Sex Offenders”, that when a man molests little girls, we call him a "pedophile" and not a "heterosexual." Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, "homosexual. Herek writes that because of our society's aversion to male homosexuality, and the attempts made by some to represent gay men as a danger to "family values," many in our society immediately think of male-male molestation as homosexuality. He compares this with the time when African Americans were often falsely accused of raping white women, and when medieval Jews were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Both are examples of how mainstream society eagerly jumped to conclusions to that justified discrimination and violence against these minorities. Today, gays face the same kind of prejudice. Most recently, we've seen gay men unfairly turned out of the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of this myth that gay men are likely to be child molesters. Keeping gays out of scouting won't protect boys from pedophiles. In reality, abuse of boys by gay pedophiles is rare, and the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. Nicholas Groth is a noted authority on this topic. In a 1982 study by Grot, he asks, "Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children, and are pre-adolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual." Herek writes, similarly, that abuse of boys by gay men is rare; and that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still. The topic of female-female molestation continues to be largely ignored. There are few books on female sex offenders, particularly about mothers sexually abusing their daughters. I can find no books on mothers who sexually abuse their sons. There is one handbook by Hani Miletski, M.S.W., entitled, “Mother-Son Incest: The Unthinkable Taboo.” Unthinkable is an appropriate word—so much so that there is nothing else in the literature on this topic, even though female pedophiles and female child molesters certainly exist. We know so much more than we did historically and yet have a long way to go. We can understand child sexual abuse further when people's bias and prejudice are removed and the evidence is empirical and scientific. Joe Kort MA, MSW, ACSW

One of the main purposes of the federal court system is to uphold the constitution and to hear cases brought under the constitution. A large part of upholding the constitution involves hearing challenges to laws, policies, and regulations that may be counter to the constitution, determining whether or not that is true, and invalidating the items at issue that actually are unconstitutional, sometimes in spite of what the majority wants. The court functions in a way that is meant to interpret and clarify the constitution. It's a very broad document, and the meaning of what's written is not always clear. The job of the courts in this situation is to take the constitution and apply it to the issues in front of them. As an example, the constutition forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" but doesn't actually define what is considered cruel, and what is considered unusual. Punishment isn't supposed to be a cakewalk, it's supposed to be a punishment, and it's the job of the courts to determine where to draw the line between appropriate punishment and "cruel" punishment. And, even if the punishment is clearly cruel, is it "unusual"? What does "unusual" really mean? Unusual in what community? The local neighborhood? The state? The nation? The world? The constitution doesn't say. It's the court's job to figure out what was actually intended by the words "cruel and unusual." The system was designed this way on purpose. When people create policies that are counter to the constitution, if a case is brought to the courts, the court can rule that the policy is unconstitutional. The courts aren't removing power from the people; they are exercising a power that was granted to the judicial branch in the constitution. The people do not have the power to create public laws, policies and regulations that are counter to the constitution. Sometimes they do it anyway, and when challenged, if the system is functioning properly, those laws are struck down. The power of the people in situations like this is not to make policies counter to the constitution under the claim of "majority rules." The power of the people is to vote for representatives who will AMEND the constitution in a way which would make the policies desired by the people constitutional.

Actually, I don't know this one. I don't take the trial practice class until next year. I sat in on a few depos as a law clerk, and copies didn't seem like an issue, tho.

I got a 21.

From the point of view of someone who remembers very well what it was like to be a teenager, because ten years isn't all that long: If you do track her computer usage (and I don't recommend it, because if she finds out, it probably ruins any chance of her voluntarily opening up to you about anything), remember that what you see is out of context. If my parents had been monitoring my computer usage when I was in high school, they would have found that I visited: the planned parenthood homepage playboy.com the anarchist's cookbook national rifle association whitehouse.com PFLAG And probably a few other things they would have flipped out over that I don't remember right now. Had they been monitoring my computer usage instead of talking to me, they wouldn't have known WHY I was looking at those websites, and they would have freaked, probably jumping to the conclusions that I was pregnant, looking at porn, trying to blow something up, thinking about shooting somebody, and a lesbian (none of which was actually the case). I would have been completely offended and extremely upset that they didn't trust me, when I was visiting those sites for completely innocent reasons, and we would have had a major breakdown in trust and communication. I went to plannedparenthood.com for information on STDs for a project for health class. I stumbled onto playboy.com because my girl scout troop was visiting an orphanage, and my patrol was in charge of games and activities. My keyword search was something like "play girl boy game children". Given that playboy gets a lot more hits than sites about childrens' games, it was at the top of the list and I wasn't really thinking when I clicked. When the page popped up, I freaked and ran and told my mom. We ended up having a good laugh about it and a long parent to kid talk about porn and sex. I looked up the anarchist cookbook for a story I was writing in english class. I figured if I was writing about detectives investigating a building that spontaneously blew up. I should probably have some idea about what makes things blow up. I went to the NRA website to research a paper I had to write for AP government class on one of the amendments in the bill of rights. The teacher counted the class off by tens, and I happened to be one of the 2s. During this same project, I stumbled upon whitehouse.com when I was looking for whitehouse.gov. Totally innocent mistake, and again, I told my mom, because I knew I could trust her not to get mad without hearing me out first, and we ended up having a laugh over it. I went to PFLAG because one of my friends told me she thought she was a lesbian. I wanted to understand what she was going through and how to be there for her. My friend's sexual orientation is not my parents' business (especially since I knew she'd already talked to her mom), but I did ask them a few general questions over the next few days in addition to finding info online. A lot of times, there's perfectly logical explanations for what kids do. Sometimes there aren't. Depends on the kid, depends on the situation. Personally, I think you'll get a lot farther with family counseling than you will with a key logger. Counseling can improve trust and communication. Finding out she's being monitored will probably have the opposite effect, especially if she really isn't doing anything wrong. Remember that if you do find something you don't like and confront her with it, you'll have to tell her how you found out.

No, I don't think he's an idiot. However, I do think there's a distinct difference between intelligence and wisdom.

Lindsey - Many families of victims have asked prosecutors not to seek the death penalty, mainly because if the accused gets life in prison, the legal drama ends there, or typically after one or two appeals. With the death penalty, they go through hearing after hearing and appeal after appeal and never really get the chance to move on until decades later. From the Baltimore Sun: After consulting with the family of the murder victim, Maryland prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty against Kenneth Collins during a recent resentencing hearing. Collins' death sentence was overturned because of an inadequate defense at his originial trial. Margaret Breeden, the victim's widow, noted that seeking the death penalty for Collins would result in years of agonizing appeals and that her family is "tired of reliving the memories of his death every time a new hearing is scheduled." The prosecutor, Stephen Bailey, noted that the Breeden family is among a growing number of victims' families who have dropped their pursuit of a death sentence. "Fewer people, though very supportive of the death penalty, are willing to put themselves through a process that many of them see as never ending and not necessarily guaranteeing the results that the system promises," Bailey stated.

Rehmwa- There's a real problem with the system if people who support the idea of state-sanctioned killing are calling for reforms. If we can't implement a system with such an absolute, final, and irreversable result either perfectly or with a very minute margin for error, we shouldn't have the system at all. Over 100 people released from death row upon the overturning of their convictions due to new evidence or major flaws in their trials tell me that the system is irreparibly flawed. The governor of Illinois came to the same conclusion when he granted clemency to every death row prisoner. His statement to the press included: "Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death." JohnRich - I never called Tookie Williams a hero. I don't think he is, and I am aware that he did terrible things in the past. However, I do think he would have, at this point in his life, been more useful to society alive than dead, given his anti-gang work. I also think that, whether he is guilty or not, his execution represents the continuing of a system that causes the execution of innocent people.

Capital punishment has nothing to do with self defense. With self defense, you must use appropriate force, meaning, you can't go overboard and shoot someone who didn't present an immediate, imminent threat of death/great bodily harm. If we held capital punishment to the same standard, it would fail, because we are not in imminent danger from these prisoners. Locking them up for life removes the threat from society, and therefore is appropriate force. Anything more is no longer self defense.

Just to clarify the timeline: The last time Tookie Williams was disciplined for involvement in a fight was July 6, 1993. He began to speak out against gang violence towards the end of 1993 and began work on his books. In 1997, he posted a public apology on a website denouncing many of the things he did regarding the Crips and gang violence. His first book was published in 1997. So, no. He was not writing childrens books while he was getting into fights in prison.

Which would have resulted in the state-sanctioned killing of an innocent person. I do insist that the number of persons who are executed but innocent of the capital crimes for which they are convicted *must* be zero or else we should suspend capital punishment until such time as we are able to guarantee zero executions of innocents. I applaud the former governor of my state, George Ryan, for placing a moratorium on capital punishment here unless and until we are certain there will be no innocent people executed. Do you support a moratorium on the death penatly or do accept that states may execute innocent people? The above statements are a great example of the main reason I oppose the death penalty. As long as the death penalty continues, innocent people will be executed. The system is broken. Executing the guilty simply continues a system that also executes innocents. As long as there is a chance of the state-sanctioned killing of an innocent, there should be a moratorium on the death penalty. As long as we willingly allow state-sanctioned killing, the responsibility for the death of innocent people rests squarely on our own shoulders. The US is a government by the people, which makes every citizen old enough to vote responsible for what happens here. If we could guarantee that every person executed was guilty, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. I still wouldn't like it. However, we will never be able to make that guarantee. Oh. And Rhino: Yes, I would still continue to oppose the death penalty in the scenario you describe... However, what's interesting is that in that situation, the criminal would probably not even be eligible for the death penalty due to a lack of special circumstances.

I'll help enforce the laws, but there are laws, while I'll enforce them if I must, I'll also try to change them. Being a part of the system doesn't mean that I can't work to make the system better.

So where were you in the other 1000+ executions. Personally, I tend to concentrate my efforts on California, since, as a citizen of this state, it's where I can be most easily heard and where my opinion carries the most weight. I feel I can accomplish more lobbying here than out of state. However, since you asked: on and around January 19, 2005 I was out protesting, making phone calls, and writing letters, and doing what I could to support DPF. On and around January 29, 2002; March 27, 2001; March 15, 2000; May 4, 1999; February 9, 1999; and July 14, 1998, I was busy protesting and writing letters to government officials as well as participating in the Death Penalty Abolition group on my college/grad school campus. On and around May 3, 1996; February 23, 1996, and August 24, 1993 I was in high school and my mom wouldn't let me go to protests, so I organized a few on my school campus, and, of course, wrote letters and made phone calls. When I was in junior high and elementary school, I didn't know a lot about it, so I can't say I was doing anything at that point in time.

interesting how federal law differs from state law: Federal law defines murder as "the willful killing of one human being by another." State law defines it as "the unlawful killing of a human being..." Interesting how one word makes all the difference. What separates state-sanctioned murder from criminal murder is simply that one is legal and the other is not. Both are one person killing another person.

I oppose it in all situations, because as long as the guilty are on death row, there will be innocents there too. As long as our system is imperfect, there will be mistakes. The death penalty is an irreversible mistake. You can let someone out of prison if they're found to be innocent. You can't un-execute someone. I'm not saying Tookie Williams doesn't "deserve it." What I'm saying is that executing him continues a barbaric practice that also kills innocent people, and that his death is doing more harm than good because he's simply worth a bit more to society alive than dead. He can't change what he did, but his influence has prevented some kids from doing what he did, and maybe if we keep him around, he can prevent a few more kids from joining gangs. Dead, the gangs will make him into a martyr, and that's a terrifying thought. This isn't just about Tookie Williams. it's about the effect the death penalty has on society. It doesn't do a lot of good, and causes a lot of problems. It doesn't give closure to victim's families. They're still caught up in the middle decades later because of all the hearings and red tape, which are necessary as attempts to prevent the execution of innocent people. Lock the guy up for life and let the families move on as best they can. The death penalty doesn't save money. Even a death penalty trial costs more than a regular trial because there are two separate phases (trial phase and penalty phase). Housing death row inmates is more expensive than regular inmates. Executions themselves are damned expensive. Also, money is a pretty stupid reason to advocate killing someone in the first place. The system we have does not work. Until the system is perfect, we will always run the risk of executing an innocent. As long as we run that risk, we shouldn't be having exections. Far too many people don't care about the wrongly accused until it's too late. They start to care when it's themselves or their parent, sibling, child, relative, or friend that stands wrongly accused, and by that point, it's probably too late.