ParanoiA

There are a million reasons to suspect but not a single reason to believe. Where does that fit in the poll?

Yeah, there's something weird about rape susceptibility as a pro-life argument.

Damn that hurts. I suppose that's true, but then there's always the chance we evolve to a more disciplined mindset, or that specious efforts to avoid loss and pain will eventually inflate it traumatically, causing us to rethink how we gauge loss and pain. Maybe a hundred years from now, letting the economy correct itself without buffers will be the preferred method of avoiding loss and pain. So, those of us who advocate a more purer form of capitalism must maintain our roles to contribute to that evolution, and to the democracy since it's essentially a net result of the people's diverse voices.

Very cool theory. Would seem to fit very well. Damn, I hope this is it, I like it.

If you're replying to me, then no, I'm not arguing that a minor have a right to free speech. I'm arguing that I, the parent, have a right to allow my child to speak freely, while I accept the responsibility and consequences of that exercise. My right to do that ends at the school yard gate, as does theirs. Otherwise, the teacher has more say so than I about my child's speaking rights out in public. That's entirely a sham. I'm largely basing this off of the philosophical notion that the parent essentially grants rights to the child. I can let them speak, or have them shut up. I can tell them to sit down, or let them run around. I'm the authority, not the school, except when they're at school. My opinion, anyway.

I've always found Pioneer's ramblings enjoyable. iNow is right on about him, which is why I don't take his posts very seriously, yet I always read them and take something from it. He's oddly intelligent though and looks at things entirely differently, which has a potential for accidental genius that I doubt he would recognize, but maybe we can. And the fact that he posts like there's no one else in the world talking to him just fits the image.

Found an interesting article that talks about this case and covers many of the dynamics we've engaged in here: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/schools-lack-authority-punish-online-student-speech Some hightlights: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedLooks like the legal origination of school authority over students is the in loco parentis doctrine. It’s been ruled on a few times too. Here’s an interesting ruling by the supreme court in 1969 concerning Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District: Very interesting and has a gaping interpretative hole in the phrase “materially disrupts classwork or substantial disorder”. I don’t think Doninger v Niehoff qualifies as a material disruption or any kind of disorder. Apparently Clarence Thomas criticized this ruling citing Lander v. Seaver: And neither of these were the case with Doninger v. Niehoff either. I still haven’t found any definition of when in loco parentis is in effect and when it isn’t, but I thought this was interesting. I'm starting to lean toward standing against this proposed law. Because it's sounding like an interpretive issue for the Supreme Court to figure out first. If they don't infer a subordinate authority to the legal parent over the student, then I'll be on board for a new law. Principly, I believe the parent trumps the public official concerning supervision and authority (and responsibility) and thus allocation of first amendment rights. I don't so much see it as the right of a student to speak, as much as I see it the right of the parent to allow their child to speak. If they're under their parent's supervision, then the parent should be the one to punish and decide what is acceptable free speech for their child to engage in - still subject to federal laws concerning minors, indecency and etc, of course. Until I find a good argument otherwise, I'm inclined to conclude that in loco parentis ends at the school yard gate, unless explicit legal parental consent is given beyond that.

You called it. Although I was really hoping the admiral would just walk onto the bridge and plug one in Gaeta's head without saying a word. I swear I spent half the episode cussing at the TV. I am surprised they only executed those two though. I guess I don't understand mutiny and forgiveness. Sure, those 'caught up' in it perhaps don't deserve death, but it's hard to reconcile all of these participants, some of them taking a leadership role, involved in it going essentially unpunished. Unless of course, I'm jumping to that conclusion. I didn't notice anything that would suggest otherwise. This show always leaves me wanting more.

I'm not so sure. I think the accusation is that the pork is defined as that which doesn't stimulate anything, but rather seems generated from ideological imperatives. So the argument becomes about ideology, when really it should be about the fact this is a stimulus bill, not the president's proposed budget. The republican argument, as I've heard it anyway, is that the democrats are using the bipartisan stimulus initiative to attach pet projects that have been dormant and rejected for years previous. Without a line item veto, you can really use national exigencies to sneak stuff through. So it becomes entirely partisan and thus cooperation falls by the wayside. Of course, it's the pot calling the kettle black. I like the line item veto for this reason. In a way, you can hold the president accountable for not using that power if they allow such pork. So, when the president says "no earmarks" or claims no ideological opportunism, then they must prove it with their pen. Also, I see alot of posts complaining about the republican's definition of "non-stimulus" related items, but I haven't seen the flowchart that supports such things as being stimulating for the economy. For instance, does investment in NASA stimulate the economy? I'm not sure how. I like that kind of investment, but as part of the presidential budget, not as part of a stimulus package. My mind could be changed if someone could support how these things stimulate the economy. Really, this seems to be the dividing line I think. Some of us disagree with the things the citizens living under it expect the government to do. I too agree wholeheartedly with your statement here. I don't care how big the government has to be to enforce laws against violent crime, protect us from foreign invasion, uh..keep peanut factories from shipping deadly bacteria across the country..etc. However, I don't expect my government to police the globe, subsidize bad investment, bailout failing capitalists..etc. So that appears to be the heart of it, I think. It doesn't really matter why we're here? That explains why you insist on reinflating bad investment, leaving you destined to keep cycling over and over again. How is that progessive and forward looking? Laissez-faire would have us learn something for sure. We learn to not invest in bad ideas or else we lose our ass. Your idea of continuing the bad investment keeps us from learning anything or moving forward since it presupposes, by your own words, that it doesn't matter why it's happening. I think the point ecoli is trying to make is that you're trying to solve a solution. Diluting the solution to tame the bad taste just dilutes the cure as well, takes longer to play out. Again, all of the models "work". But that doesn't mean society likes how they work. It's clear that our society doesn't like the natural corrective effects of a purer form of capitalism. So, I agree with you that modern society insists upon it, but I don't think it's required. We're just becoming more and more collective, more and more security driven and less and less driven by individual opportunism and the liberties and consequences that go with that. The consequences are nothing new and nothing revolutionary - expansion of the state at the expense of liberty. And if that's what modern society wants, there's not much guys like ecoli and I can do about it. We simply prefer a more brief hard medicine approach, to keep the state small and preserve as much individual pursuit as we can. But I don't think that means it's not forward looking, or insists on a lack of progress. Not at all.

Ha! I totally cheated. And winky face didn't do anything. No bolt of lightening, no unexplained sudden dissappearance, nothing. I'm still right here drinking my morning cof

Now there's a perspective I hadn't considered. I second that offense.

Thinking about it, I'm not so sure I'd want to be disconnected after all. What if you guys make some break throughs in "brain repair" in the next 20 years? Similar reasoning to cryonics.

Hmm, I guess I'm just surprised we don't hear that thrown in our faces when we advocate letting these poor people die. I'm gald, but I'm surprised all the same.

You know, this makes me wonder if they really just don't believe the brain damage is irreversible. Why do these people feel so much pride in keeping vegetables alive? Also, has there ever been a misdiagnosis related to irreversible brain damage? I ask because I can only imagine how that could fuel this nonsense even further. Particularly if there was prayer involved before they woke up.

For one, it's not an appointed position, they barred her from running for office, implying an election. Tantamount to Obama being denied to run in the primaries because he admitted to doing drugs. Second, I agree with the consequences angle when we're talking about the freedom to disagree, shun, speak out..etc - exercising rights. However this is a consequence delivered from the position of authority. Only authority could give her this punishment. The fair consequence would be for her to run and no one votes for her because this teacher campaigned against her, reminding everyone what she said. That sort of thing. Actually, I've been trying to steer clear of commenting on this law until I understand where school authority over my child comes from, legally speaking. In general I do resist excess laws. Right now, I'm not sure where I'm at in the constitution in reference to this whole scenario to distinguish a need for a new law, or the improper interpretation of a current one. Well then you sue her. You don't have the local authorities remove her from the rotary club. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is the crux of my position, but if I'm interpreting this case correctly she could say her teacher is stupid on her myspace page and have to answer to school authority for it. That is WAY beyond the doorstep of the school house. This presupposes that they're subordinate to school staff continuously, regardless of geographical location, purely at their discretion. After all, disparagement is a subjective parameter so even complimenting a teacher while throwing in a nod at one of their flaws or something, could also be punishable. At some point they must leave the jurisdiction of school authority. Where is that point? 18 years of age? Graduation? Off school grounds? Unless of course that was her life dream from 5 years old. Likewise, getting that speeding ticket for floating a stop sign that you actually stopped at, is not worth fighting in court Pangloss, because I don't think it's a big deal. <slams gavel> Next case! I understand your aversion, but public attention and dramatic outrage is the check in our system. From your story, the adults were unethical, and failed to lead by example. They missed what is arguably the most important moment to teach such things as well. And no one else was able to correct this action, either, apparently. I do agree with your general tone here, and I agree there is a threshold to make a big deal out of these things. I'm not going to roast a teacher on KC News Channel 5 for throwing my kid's fingerpainting away after calling her a name. I tend to look at the essential principle at question in a given situation. Since we're dealing with free speech and school jurisdiction, I think this particular case warrants attention. It's a good time to review this, particularly in the internet age. Edit: Thinking about it a little more, I wonder how your fellow classmates learned from that experience with the adults that didn't step up for their mistake. Do they rationalize around ethics also? When they're between a rock and hard place, do they also justify screwing others the way those adults did? What's that ole saying...our characters are defined by the decisions we make when our backs are against the wall, not when things are going just fine? Are you sure you did the right thing in not destroying their careers?

That's a thoughtful post. I like the way you framed this. Perhaps I'm being a bit too idealistic in dismissing fear of banking panic or overcorrection.

Interesting stuff padren. I guess my impulse is to direct a "stimulus" to the problem. What is the actual problem? What is a recession? I'm sure I'll be taken to task for this, but it seems to me the problem is human behavior. A recession seems to be a psychological condition. Since people are aware of economic strife, they're sitting on money. They're not excuting any business plan as it's all on hold, waiting for things to turn up and stabilize. We undermine ourselves. If we all woke up tomorrow morning and totally forgot there's an economic crisis, we'd probably go buy that car, rent that lot to open our business, buy some tools for the shop, hire some employees to gear up for the summer, etc. So, to me, when we talk about stimulus, I think about techniques that will alter our perception of the economy. Or techniques that intice us to defy our fear of the state of affairs and take a chance anyway. If we all just agree not to participate in the recession, we won't have a recession. That's why I keep going on about investor confidence - that's shorthand to express the whole nature of fear to risk or release capital. And I believe that is the problem. So how do you get someone to take a chance anyway? Offer them a deal they can't refuse, or tempt their opportunist nature. I think that's why republicans like tax cuts so much, and I do too. I think if you cut the capital gains, and reward investment with other breaks, then you activate their inner opportunist and cause them to risk capital. Of course, that's not enough because they may risk some capital but that doesn't mean they will invest in anticipation of a thriving market. Instead I think they invest with the idea the market will be sluggish - because the outlook is still bleak. So while tax cuts lure them to spend some money, it doesn't change their analysis of future events, so the investment is small, more inconsequential. That's the part I have a bit of a time with. I'm not sure how you provoke them to invest in lieu of a thriving market so they'll spend more money and get things moving. Hire 5 guys intead of 2. Order two loads of material instead of one. That sort of thing. That's why I keep going on about time and patience and ignoring the media's incessant sensationalism on the matter. Stop reminding everyone everything sucks, please. I can't help but think we'll recover faster when we have a positive outlook, even if it's somewhat artificial.

Oh no, no, I didn't mean that at all. Man, I'm just not sharing my thoughts very well this week. No, my friend, I don't mind being in the minority opinion at all and actually feel more comfortable there most generally. I've been trying to articulate my position of supporting capping CEO pay, while not supporting the bailout outright. Waitforufo offered up the idea that Obama should make the bailout desirable to the failing company. My statement was more along the lines of..."I'm finding it harder and harder to maintain this ambiguous position....it was cool when the bailout was a mercy offer, but if we're trying to create incentive, then my partition doesn't even exist.." Totally a reply to waitforufo. Nah, I love this place. You guys rock.

Well, that's more about what drives the necessity for authority and I don't dispute that. I don't have any issues necessarily with controlling the kiddos, my question is about where that authority technically comes from, legally. In other words, if a school official detains a student, for whatever reason, what law supports the force to do that? I would think that verbiage would be detailed somewhere. I'm thinking I basically handed that authority to the school system with my signature somewhere in the enrollment paperwork, but I'm not sure. Same here. If nothing else, are they not under my authority, my gaurdianship when not on school grounds? I mean, children don't lose their rights to the nearest adult, just because they're kids. At some point, a threshold must exist, I would think. Otherwise, I'm suing the school for neglect. They do a terrible job of raising them, I'm over here doing practically everything except readin' and writin' and 'rithmetic. There's no arguing with that, it's a good point. We've had a few threads lately that touch on children's rights. I'm thinking somebody needs to start a discussion on it. I know I would certainly get something out of it. But it doesn't undermine the result she wants though. Of course, that still supports your point that they don't always understand the full measure of their actions. The ends don't justify the means, yadda yadda.

I think the expiration date was offered by Jefferson already - a new constitution via a new revolution every 20 years.

If people stopped committing murder, do we wipe it from the books? It's a sound principle for murder to be illegal even if it isn't a popular problem. That's all I'm arguing in salary caps for bailouts. I guess I didn't see this as a sales maneuver. I thought this was essentially companies on one knee asking to be saved. I really can't relate with the notion of baiting a hook to tempt a bailout. That could open a whole 'nother can of worms. How long until companies start effectively extorting the president with de facto threats of bankruptcy? I reject any effort to "sell" a bailout, even more emphatically than I reject a bailout. I'm finding it harder and harder to even comment here. If any president can be remembered for his high principals, it's an improvement. Your point is taken though, I just don't agree with it. Right, bad chief officers haven't earned large compensation packages when they're asking for a bailout. Notice I said "asking for", not "agreeing to". And I say they haven't earned it from the perspective of a forced investor holding some percentage of the company depending on the size of the bailout - so my demands are reasonable. I don't pay failures. I fire them. They should be happy if I agree to let them wipe down the toilets for minimum wage.

Yeah, that headline grabbed me. When I first read this I thought it was fairly open and shut: blogging insults about your teacher, especially off school grounds, is entirely protected free speech. Any punishment should be fought tooth and nail. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/05/lawmakers-press-free-speech-foul-mouth-blog-case/ But then I got to wondering how it is school authorities achieve the power to restrict freedom of movement, behaviors and etc constitutionally, let alone speech, in the first place. Is it rights that we, the parents, grant the school upon enrollment and admittance? Something I was supposed to have read before I signed? At any rate, I have no sympathy for the "technology" excuse. Schools need to review and flex their procedures and rule structure to respond to changes in technology without trampling on our rights. I really have no idea where they're going with that excuse anyway - you can restrict the use of any electronic gizmos you want. Enforcement might be difficult, so what else is new? This floored me: Yeah that's cute. The school board is best to decide what part of the constitution will be followed.

Same here. I have always wanted to try my flip flop idea where office folks make less than the workers. I like the idea of a shop full of talent making the money, while administration, enjoying their controlled environments sitting on their duffs, make considerably less. There are some supervisors out there that really earn their money, and I haven't met any of them.

I guess I'm not clear here, are you suggesting that we should not pass laws when they will apply to almost no one? This is why I'm confused about conservatives being against this - even if it applies to NO ONE, it's still a sound princple to be deployed in bailout scenarios. We should do it because it is only logical, as Spock would say. If it applies to no one, great. If it applies to someone, great. How do we lose here? As far as the stock goes, isn't that a good idea? Doesn't the company have to perform well so they can pay the federal money back? Even if they get trillions of dollars in stocks, how does that affect us adversely when they've paid the bailout money back? I understand the symbolism / substance argument I think you're making, and it makes sense to me in terms of casting a humble shadow, but the argument doesn't support dismissing a fairly universal principle that when begging for money you ought not have gold in your pockets.

Honestly, I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion on the particulars like that, but I won't let that stop me from at least answering your question to say yeah, it certainly sounds like a great idea. Structurally it fits the investor role very well, I think.