AndyBoyd

The Public Defenders that I have worked with are outstanding attorneys who have a ton of experience and know the system very well. They often have very good working relationships with the judges and prosecutors, and are usually able to obtain good plea bargains for their clients. Plus, they have the benefit of a huge support system in the Defender's office. I have seen many inexperienced private attorneys who frankly were in way over their heads. The idea that Public Defenders are incompetent "welfare attorneys" is an insulting myth. BTW I am not a Public Defender.

Eric Heiden - speedskating hero in Lake Placid 1980. Won every race from 500 meters to 10,000. 5 gold medals. I know Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps have won more, but their medals include relay races. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has won 5 individual golds in one Olympics. He completely dominated his sport in a way that no on else ever has, in my humble opinion. His achievment was the equivalent of a runner winning every event from the 100 yard dash up to the 10,000 meters. Speed skaters now specialize in certain distances, rather than doing all the races as Heiden did. His record will likely never be repeated. [/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Heiden[url]

This is a tough situation sometimes. I am not a big guy -- 5'6'', about 150 pounds -- so I fit just fine into airplane seats. Twice on flights from Chicago to Phoenix very large persons have sat down next to me. Both times, they were spilling over into my seat to the point where I could not sit without leaning well into the aisle. A flight attendant found me another seat once, but the other time the flight was full. I spent virtually the entire flight standing in the aisle while my seat-mate took up half of the seat I paid for. The flight attendants just shrugged their shoulders. It was infuriating. But I don't know what the solution is. Maybe the airlines should require people of a certain size to buy two tickets. Throwing people off planes seems harsh. But it is very unfair to customers like me to be forced to stand for an entire flight so an extremely overweight person can be comfortable. The airlines need to take a long hard look at this problem and find a fair solution.

Yet another reason not to own a cell phone.

Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. the police certainly are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect you. did you realize the SCOTUS said that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html you can count on the police and emergency services to respond to your call (most of the time) but when is always the question. Be prepared to deal with whatever you have to deal with in the minutes before they get there (3-7min average response time to my neighborhood). You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?"

Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. Did you know that tandem instructors are widely expected to protect their students, even at the expense of their own bodies? How much authority comes with this level of responsibility? Blues, Dave I agree 100%. When did "Serve and Protect" get changed to "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later"?

Monkeys flying out of her butt? Hot lesbians?? And I'm the one altering the premise of the discussion??? Love your sense of humor.

So your argument is that in response to these folks' mistaken 911 call, the police should shoot their dog and arrest everyone? My point is simply that the people we trust with police powers need to exercise restraint and good judgment at all times. It is clear that this particular officer failed miserably at that. Suppose she had missed the dog and killed a child? Would you still be playing cheerleader for her?

And, in protecting its territory, if those dogs appeared violent or dangerous with no owner in sight to restrain it, I hope the cops shot it each and every time. Did you even read the article? The dog's owners assert that there was a family member on the porch when the cop shot the dog. These poor folks inadvertently dialed 911 and a cop showed up and shot their dog. Any cop that has judgment that poor has no business walking around with a gun and a badge. The last thing we need are nervous cops with itchy trigger fingers on the street.

I have scanned this thread and did not see a news link to the actual incident. If I missed it, my apologies. Here is a link to what I think is the incident the OP is referring to. http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_14342260 This cannot be the first time a cop in that city has encountered a family dog protecting its territory. It's a shame that this officer felt so threatened that her first reaction was to shoot it. Frankly, I thought cops were tougher than that. I am not a cop, but I find it sad that this officer's response to what appeared to be a mildly threatening situation (at worst) was to pull out a gun and start blasting away. I sincerely hope that cops in general are trained better than this one was.

No, I accept personal responsibility for my failures as the result of making bad lifestyle choices. Bottom line for me is the famous Regan quote, "Government is not the answer to the problem. It is the problem." So you are an anarchist, then?

Yeah, maybe there's not much else to say.

This story leaves me speechless. Especially the mean girls' actions after the suicide. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/the_untouchable_mean_girls/

But the rest of the population are not living on our dollars So is welfare! Try again! If you want welfare you will take a drug test, but if you dont want to take a test then no welfare ACLU are a bunch of dumb asses! It that is your best argument then you might want to rethink your opinion, cause your argument is very weak It is painfully clear that you did not even bother to read the article.

Here is a link to the best argument against drug testing for welfare recipients I can find. Some of the strongest arguments are that welfare recipients are no more likely to take drugs than the rest of the population, drug testing is expensive and inefficient, and possibly unconstitutional. http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support? Would this not simply increase poverty, homelessness, and hunger and all the other negative things that go along with that? And won't that simply increase the financial pressure on private organizations like the Salvation Army? I'm not sure society will see any net gain by making life harder for drug addicts. These people need help, not more punishment. Perhaps we should provide their drugs too so as not to burden them with actually having to take the welfare money out to buy it themselves. Drug testing in order to receive free checks in the mail = more punishment It's not benefitial to make life harder for drug addicts.... You did not even attempt to understand or address my arguments.

Is it really good social policy to take away addicts' only means of support? Would this not simply increase poverty, homelessness, and hunger and all the other negative things that go along with that? And won't that simply increase the financial pressure on private organizations like the Salvation Army? I'm not sure society will see any net gain by making life harder for drug addicts. These people need help, not more punishment.

Check out the pic. I think this guy broke the record. http://news.discovery.com/space/aurora-mystery-solved.html

That said, I used to work at a hospital. Each month, the surgeons were called in because men got into a bare-knuckle brawl. Many times, when adult men hit, facial bones break. Bascially, people need to quit hitting people. People need to quit having an expectation that they can do whatever they want without consequences. That's my point in referencing the Jersey Shore incident. Other posters have pointed this out as well. Punching people is a bad idea. People get hurt, and there can be serious legal consequences. No one wants a battery conviction following them around for the rest of their lives. The a-hole who did that on Jersey Shore ended up losing his job on top of the arrest. Don't ask why I'm watching Jersey Shore. I'm not sure myself. I just can't seem to stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16LNWNQkfvw Snooki gets popped. Dude gets arrested.

No coyotes out here, but my yard is overrun with chipmunks and rabbits. If you are itching to kill something, come on over here and have at it, Elmer.

An friend of mine at the DZ a few years ago had a pit-bull mix of some sort -- it was a very nice and friendly dog. It would curl up next to me and sleep when we were on weather holds. Really, it was one of the sweetest dogs I ever met. On the other hand, incidents like this seem to keep occurring. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/man-found-dead-after-apparently-being-attacked-by-dogs.html I am not by any means an expert on dogs. But it does seem like pits, or pit mixes, are prone to instances of unprovoked aggression. I do not own a dog, but I would probably opt for another choice if I were to get one. There are lots of even-tempered dogs out there. Why take a chance with a ticking time bomb?

Another perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus Anyone up for Feats of Strength? The Airing of Grievances?

Pathetic.

Extended flying in the tunnel can result in muscle soreness, just like any other form of physical activity the body is not used to. I routinely experience upper body soreness after tunnel camps. It goes away after a few days. The more tunnel time you do, the less severe the soreness will be as your body adapts to the stress. Having said that, you also indicate you have a previous shoulder injury. Only a doctor can tell you if it's safe to be in the tunnel with a lingering shoulder problem. I'd ask around at Perris -- maybe there is a doc in the area who is somewhat familiar with skydiving and the stresses it puts on the body. Take it easy on the vitamin I. Too much of that stuff is unhealthy. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/phys-ed-does-ibuprofen-help-or-hurt-during-exercise/?apage=2