discussion comment
16 years ago
Excellent, it is now a proud member of TUSCL.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Altruism is a demand-side ethic, based on the view that the distribution of goods is the fundamental issue in ethics and that the needy have first claim on goods. In defending egoism, Ayn Rand did not merely defend a new standard for the beneficiary of one's actions. She completely recast the framework of debate by denying that distribution is the fundamental issue.
Rand was the first thinker, to my knowledge, who proposed a genuine supply-side ethic. She recognized that achievement, not suffering, is the central fact of human existence. She honored the act of creating value above the act of giving it away."
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--368-Supply_Side_Ethics.aspx
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi Bobbyl,
Think: shades of gray. Not every culture or person shares your ideas about marriage or especially male monogamy (even if the "contract" or "vows" say monogamy for both parties). This adorable older middle age latina was complaining to me about her "cheating" husband. I told her that in her *particular* culture it was my understanding the husband was supposed to be fucking everything in sight to prove is manlines and that the wife was supposed to be very pure: excellent thinking, btw, imo. :) So her husband was merely carrying out his manly duties with a vengeance! Damn, that middle age man could perform---poking the secretary on the boss's desk along with his friend and co-worker in the morning, then ravishing his young hot married co-worker for lunch, then hit the clubs in search of real VIP action, and finally home to wifey to take care of marital business. All this without viagra! I doubt every day was this good for him, btw.
So wifey is crying her eyes and out and says yes she knows the rules, but this America! Oh, geez. :( I explain America is actually a little more diverse than the media propaganda might lead her to believe. Then she goes on to explain how the American women she knows don't let their husbands "cheat." I said you wish to get divorced? She says NO, I just want him to stop having sex with everyone. I ask why? She says because it is "cheating." I say that isn't your culture and you knew he was extremely sexually active---looks and health irrelevant! She says YES, but this is America. Sheesh. Well, in America the American women run to the divorce court, do you wish to follow in their footsteps in that regard as well? Still crying, she says NO! But, why can't he be like her. She isn't having sex with everyone. I'm just shaking my head and say you really believe men and women have equal sexual desire? She shakes her head YES! I say so you want to screw every man in sight? She shakes her head NO! She just wants a single man----her husband. Well, I say, then you don't have equal sexual desire because I think even the family dog isn't safe from your husband. She looks at me like I'm crazy. I say that man is in heat!!! You aren't even a little in heat from what I can see. Next, you will be telling me some nonsense that you are as a physically powerful as your husband or some other idiocy in the name of equality. Finally, it gets down to she is afraid that he is going to leave her. That was extremely deranged---he strongly believes in NO DIVORCE and would probably back it up with extreme violence if necessary. So she starts yapping about her American women friends. Sigh. I told her to forget about her American friends unless she wants to follow in their footsteps!
I told her husband about this nonsense and he is like why would she want to be an American? Does she want a divorce? I told him that, that was what she was afraid of. He says then she needs to understand that I'm a man and men need to fuck as many women as possible. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"And after a year of training I finally got the title pizziola (SP ?) But the other day I noticed then using the term at papa johns. WTF???? I had to work my ass off for that title."
Can a pizziola who has earned the title by working their ass after a year of training cook a better pizza than the 8 hour trainee?
I prepared a long winded motion in a guardianship case for a lawyer----upfront I explained that my knowledge of the revelvant law was zero. The motion---poorly written, imo, and of dubious merit?---was filed AS IS; just amazing, imo, that the lawyer didn't clean it up a little after my warnings the quality of my motion was subpar---to be kind. Lawyer easily won. :) I doubt the judge even read the motion that I prepared for the lawyer--the lawyer told me it wouldn't matter either way---it was just for billable hours. :) The point being the training or quality may have NO relevance: The best mouth watering pizza that I *ever* had was in a little pizza place in Gainsville. It wouldn't have surprised me if they "officially" knew nothing about making pizzas---they sure as hell were down to earth "rednecks." :) They had some homemade regular southern cooking for me to try and it was BAD, imo---but, they thought that cooking (not for sale, btw) was much better than their pizzas.
discussion comment
16 years ago
BTW, I did request that this club be added so hopefully it will soon be a member of TUSCL. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
It doesn't make any difference to me. Of course, I'm not into the religious BS and there isn't any negative unless the dancer is very limited by it.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Inequitable injunctions: the scandal of private judging in the U.S. courts. (depublishing of judicial opinions)
From: Stanford Law Review | Date: May 1, 2004| Author: Pether, Penelope | COPYRIGHT 2004 Stanford Law School.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-119314505.html
I haven't bothered to read this and it may even cost $$$, but some people might be interested in depublished opinions as well as unpublished opinions. It should be very interesting to those who believe the law isn't hidden from the public---hidden for varying reasons. Most people are ignorant and want to believe whatever they're fed by the newspaper or a single judge or single lawyer. Even where lawyers seem to be in complete agreement---it might be a good idea to dig deeper. Research the actual court files. Yes, a lot work. And, very few people do it. Most are ignorant and those who know the value of checking hundreds of files usually won't take the time because it is so labor intensive. And, what is the point unless you are writing an article for publication?
discussion comment
16 years ago
For those interested in jury nullification you might wish to check this website: http://www.fija.org/.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/barkow.pdf
discussion comment
16 years ago
Well, I hope you get your "learned" opinion. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Correction:
"A jury's most significant right is also the one they are most likely to know nothing about: the power or right to nullify the law and follow their conscience when rendering their decisions. It is sometimes hard to convince novice jurors that this right exists, because judges often give instructions to the contrary." ID at page 53---I have this book at home.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Juror's Rights (Legal Survival Guides) (Paperback)
by Jacqueline D. Stanley (she is an attorney who believes in jury nullification)
http://www.amazon.com/Jurors-Rights-Legal-Survival-Guides/dp/1570713332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217803538&sr=8-1
"A jury's most significant right is also the one they are most likely to know nothing about: the power or right nullify the law and follow their conscience when rendering their decisions. It is sometimes hard to convince novice jurors that this right exists, because judges often give instructions to the contrary." ID at page 53---I have this book at home.
More interesting, imo, is the body of "secret law" i.e. case law that has been removed from the law reports, but is nonetheless *controlling* precedent. Doubt it? Well, any search of depublished opinions should yield some interesting leads----I would assume. I did a lot of work on this issue, but it was years ago. This one judge argued vociferously ALL case law should be secret so criminals wont know how to break the law and get away with it---as if judges adhere to precedent---controlling or otherwise unless they happen to *feel* like it.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"'Jury Trial, Jury Nullification, and the Kriho Case'
December 6, 1996
The National Law Journal - Podium/Civil Liberties
By Harvey A. Silverglate
Apparently for the first time in American legal history, a criminal trial juror has herself been placed on trial for contempt, growing out of her telling fellow jurors, during deliberations, a truthful fact -- that American juries have the power to acquit a defendant even if they believe that he violated the law. The case, arising and tried in Gilpin County, Colorado, has pitted judges and prosecutors, who fear the spread of "jury nullification", against a growing, or at least increasingly vocal, movement of libertarians, civil libertarians, and others who seek to stem a growing tendency by courts, legislatures, and prosecutors to curtail the ancient and revered right to trial by jury.
Laura J. Kriho was sworn to serve as a trial juror in the prosecution of a 19-year-old woman charged with felony possession of amphetamines. During jury selection voir dire, Kriho did not disclose two matters that, later, the trial judge and the District Attorney said were material omissions made under oath: (1) that in 1984 she had been charged with felony possession of LSD, pleaded guilty, and received a deferred judgment and sentence, and (2) that she disagreed with the drug laws and did not believe that a juror had to follow the judge's instructions as to the law and hence could acquit even a demonstrably guilty defendant. Even though Kriho had not been asked a direct question on either of these matters during jury selection, she was charged with perjury for failing to disclose them when asked a general question as to whether she knew of any reason why she could not serve as a conscientious juror in accordance with the evidence and the law as instructed by the court."
http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.natllawj.htm
Generally, the judges here in Miami-Dade County from what my friends have related will NOT tolerate jurors being educated about jury nullification. Handing out pamphlets to educate the jury is enough to get the jury dismissed-----I wish I had one to give my neighbor who can't understand or speak English very well. Of course, the court may reason, correctly, that the pamphlet is NO threat as far as he is concerned because he wouldn't be able to understand it; if written in English.
The Golden Rule? (You can't place yourself in the defendant's shoes.) Yes, that is a definite HELL NO!!!
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The problem with the proposed statute is that every SF law enforcement officer and prosecutor takes an oath to uphold the laws of the State of California."
More importantly they probably also swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as California's Constitution as well as to God and the Pink Poney, etc. Point being the law can and is twisted to mean whatever BS those with the power choose it to mean. Penumbras, remember, penumbras; at least that was honest. :) Judges find it easy to ignore even well established precedent and clearly written law; the filth and fraud of law is big business for the bright and brightless.
Perhaps it was just the high priced attorneys that I spoke with, but none thought The Second Amendment applied as an individual right. I doubt law professors by and large were teaching their young pupils that it was an individual right; of course, I could be wrong. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi clubman2,
LOL! :)
Well, if we are going to get technical I coulda wrote Vodka + Cold OJ in a 1 to 1 ratio shaken, not stirred, by a stripper, every once in a blue moon.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Do I have an answer, no, this is all just one piece of the larger drug problem."
Or, blessing? You know, buddy, I happen to like a Vodka every once in a blue moon. Heck, I even scarf down a Bud Light, now and again. And, decades ago I smoked a joint and it was WONDERFUL!!! :) (I'm truly thrilled I didn't get sent to a government prison for that violation of law.)
Or, perhaps it is a *symptom*? I believe the propaganda--correct or incorrect--is that America is the BIG DRUGGIE of the world. On the one hand, I'm anti-drugs because frankly I think the typical U.S. Citizen is way too slow and stupid to ever be trusted with hard alcohol let alone a cold beer. On the other hand, I recognize all the good drugs do e.g. feels heavenly, like fucking a comely stripper for $5 per song (finish quick and it only cost $5!); of course you *might* get an STD.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I'm imagining 22 born again Christians based in Washington D.C. They love reading The Bible and praying and also believe strongly in The Second Amendment.
They launch major "terrorist" attacks against Red China because of course they're jealous of China's human secularism. Yes, not too bright: think President Bush aka They're Jealous of Our Freedoms. :) The attacks claimed the lives of just under 3,000 Chinese Citizens. Of course, the Chinese started waving their little flags and were yapping about barbaric American terrorists, blah, blah, blah . . .
The Chinese fortunately or unfortunately had their own little clone of President Bush in charge. First, he launches a major attack e.g. "shock and awe" against Sweden. Why Swenden? It was there! DUH. :) Then once Sweden has been decimated, the President of China attacks the U.S. to "liberate" the helpless Americans and kill ALL the terrorists. Gee, what brilliance from the President of China. :)
Of course, President Bush lovers here in America LOVE the President of China for waging an all out global War on Terror. Result: Everybody lived happily everafter fighting endless phoney baloney wars. :) Yes, God is great; indeed.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi how,
You reject my "contention." What a surprise? :) Actually, I merely THANKED President Bush for turning Afghanistan into a "narco state."
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Afghan Opium Trade Hits New Peak
U.N. Report Describes a Scale of Narcotics Production Not Seen in Two Centuries
By Colum Lynch and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 28, 2007; Page A07
UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 27 -- Opium production in Afghanistan has increased by 34 percent over the past year, and the country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market, according to a report by the United Nations' anti-drug agency."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701356.html
"Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3294
As I was saying THANK YOU President Bush for turning Afghanistan into a "narco state." :) Honestly, I would LOVE to see President Bush in office for another 20 years because is such an incompetent---too bad so many innocent people would have to suffer under his rule, however.
how, THANK YOU for your "rebuttal." LOL! You are definitely highly qualified to work for the Bush Administration. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
There was and probably still is a Jewish attorney in a wheelchair who works as a public defender. I don't remember his name, but he has an excellent reputation according to the people I've spoken with. Anyway, he was in court doing an excellent job from what I could see. The subject came up how he went the extra miles to get the "guilty" off according to the prosecutor. The lady judge says well, *you don't have to offer him plea deals*. The prosecutor says something like it wasn't a plea deal he took the case to trial! The lady judge is dumbfounded and says is that even possible? (To go to trial and win as a PD?) (Perhaps she was joking, but it sure didn't sound like it.) Anyway, the handicapped attorney says something like it wasn't a big deal because the client was innocent and the State had NO evidence. The lady judge says regardless, that is amazing you were able to win as she is shaking her head NO. The handicapped attorney says but he was INNOCENT. The lady judge says something to the effect that that doesn't matter, the State should still win or something equally outrageous. She probably is one of those judges who insists on seating jurors who can vaguely speak/understand English and figures they just need to vote guilty so there's no harm.
Yes, just a boat load of "freedoms" in the U.S. Thank God, those U.S. soldiers are busy killing people. :( Or, as shadowcat would say you just wouldn't understand unless you're dodging enemy bullets. Or, FONDL ---we need the draft so people, those forced to serve, will love America. :(
Anyway, as Bork pointed out one person's freedom is another person's lack of freedom---thus, by his reasoning the default is always freedom assuming you're an optimist like him. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"NHANES found that only 9% of the subjects with HSV-2 antibodies had knowledge of their disease. Many patients faced with a new infection assume that their partner has been unfaithful or dishonest, and it is important to inform the patient that it is quite common for a person with HSV-2 to be unaware of his infection, which could have occurred months or years before." *** http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3958/is_200311/ai_n9316638/pg_3 ***
Moral of the story? Infected wifey screams bloody murder don't admit guilt, but clobber her over the head with facts. :) Something like: Look bitch, I probably got infected from my military days before I had the misfortune of marrying such a mistrusting wife. So I'm fighting for *your freedoms* risking my life and limb--- You're just nagging and accusing and unappreciative and need to as a start, wear those flag pins I bought you!!!
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I may be against abortion but if someone is trying to buy a legal product and someone refuses to sell it to them in the pharmacy, I think they should be fired."
And, whose decision should it be that employee be fired? The government? Just because there is a legal product doesn't mean that a private business should be forced to sell it, imo. Sort of like I believe a stripper should be free to refuse a customer for *any* reason----Now, the dancers at Angels made a very strong case why that shouldn't be allowed and in a free market (which doesn't exist as far as stripclubs here in Miami-Dade) I'd probably agree with them. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"if they want to continue cheating,then the answer is NO. but, if they are stopping, the answer is maybe"
Interesting answer. Sorta like if the wife has been cheating with the husband's best friend, but has decided that in the future she will only sleep with her husband. Yes, I can see how happy hubby will be at the good news. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi shadowcat,
I voted until either the Florida Supreme Court struck down the 3 citizen petitions involving the single subject rule or the Miami Stadium deal. I can't remember which came last.
A friend worked to get these citizen initiatives on the ballot. I basically said he was a dummy because the Florida Supreme Court would strike them down using the single subject rule they created. It would be a big joke on those who believed in democracy. He says NO, there are law professors and a former Florida Supreme Court Judge onboard. I'm just laughing because it is just too stupid. This isn't about law, but corruption.
Of course, the citizen initiatives passed by healthy margins. And, The Florida Supreme Court struck them down FAST using the single subject rule. :) So much for the "legal advice" of law professors and a former Florida Supreme Court Judge.
In the Miami Stadium deal you had 2 candidates with supposedly opposing viewpoints. One wanted to use taxpayer funds to build a stadium and the other said developers should pay for it or it shouldn't get built. After the candidate who opposed taxpayer funding won the election, he immediately changed positions and gave away even more taxpayer money. UNDERSTAND? Attorney David Paul who fought the stadium fraud *before* the election had gotten clobber in court. I had told him NOT to worry because we would win on election day. He laughed at me and said you don't actually believe it matters who wins? I said yes---boy, was that naive. He added that if he thought there would be honest election that he wouldn't have gone to court. In his opinion the court was paid off just like the candidates. I told him that he was just bitter about losing a tough case and the candidate who was opposed to taking taxpayer funds to build the stadium would put an end to the crime. Again corruption ruled.
Just recently my neighbor got chosen for jury duty. The government knew that his English was WEAK at best---he uses me as a translator and even then it is difficult! He voted guilty even though he says that he didn't understand what was being said. Why guilty? He just wanted to get back to paid employment. He said NOT guilty would have been just as good a vote and those like him who couldn't understand English just wanted to let the *few* or *one* who could understand English decide the case. So much for the BS about a jury trial and YES, imo, it should actually be a jury of your peers! Too radical. :) More radical the jury should actually be able to understand the language the trial is being conducted under! Trial like other supposed rights in this country are just another fraud. (Too much radicalism: the court shouldn't be allowed to exclude exculpatory evidence, the list goes on and on. So MUSH freedom; that's right MUSH.)
I wish those who murdered British soldiers had heeded the wisdom of "Love it or leave it." :) Yes, NO U.S. government. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
This War on Terror is *almost* as retarded as the War on Drugs. America lover of endless wars for fun and profit.
Actually, it is *more* retarded than the War on Drugs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
BTW, if the U.S. is going to continue the silliness of fighting "terrorism," then it seems like war with Iran and Pakistan is pretty much unavoidable. I think the Chinese and Russians are loving it, not to mention Bin Laden and friends. :)
Anyway, the U.S. Congress knows how to eliminate terrorists cheaply and easily!!! :) Yes, hard to believe Congress is capable of doing good, but HEADLINES: "Mandela off U.S. terrorism watch list." *** http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/01/mandela.watch/ ***
So, just call Bin Laden and friends something else . . . didn't President Reagan call these Holy Warriors ----- FREEDOM FIGHTERS? :) And, didn't President Reagan have the solution to hundreds of Marines being butchered in their sleep by "terrorists"? YES, run fast as hell while calling it victory!!! ;)
This War on Terror is *almost* as retarded as the War on Drugs. America lover of endless wars for fun and profit.