The "Bill of Rights" is poorly named. It is a bill of restrictions. Restrictions placed on the government by its people. The rights exist separate of the Constitution.. They are natural right. "God given," some might say. Those restriction apply to the government in all cases, and the wording is very specific.
As for Israel and Palestine, I sometimes think we should lock them in their room until they sort it out. They are both behaving like children.
To your Article 3 Section 2 argument I raise you Marbury v. Madison.
I had a similar experience. Same system, large company. I usually get a 1 or 2. There was another person who deserved a 2. In order to give him a 2, they had to give someone (me) a 3. In order to give me a 3, they had to justify it, so my supervisor wrote a bunch of crap that was just plain false in my review. When I wrote my response, I copied my next two levels of management. I really didn't have a problem with the number. That's just the game.(even if its wrong). But there was no way I was going to let him write lies about me, that might be read by a future supervisor. After meeting with his manager and several hours of making my supervisor look like and idiot, they ended up changing all of the wording in my review. Later, my supervisor was promoted. I still walked away from the whole thing jaded and I am not nearly as motivated anymore. I am not sure if that is my fault or theirs.
Who'd have thought Nixon was one of our more honest presidents?
Maybe a better plan is for the state to allot the same amount for a defense as they allot for a prosecution. You can still hire your own attorney if you want, but the poor and middle class are far less likely to get overcharged in order to settle. Seems very fair to me, and it keeps prosecutors from bringing BS cases. Might solve all of the problems. Every case is proceeded by a cost, benefit analysis.
There is a "plain site" exception to the FOTPT. If you have a warrant, and while legally pursuing that warrant you find something else, the thing you find is fair game. For instance: If I serve a search warrant to find evidence that you ripped the tags off of your mattresses and when I walk in to the house I see your "grow" operation, I am free to charge you and use the evidence against you.
That's assuming the "force" mentioned above is in the form of a warrant. Otherwise they would not be able to use any of the evidence they found on the computer, including the stuff they were looking for.
FOTPT applies in the instance that your grow room is no where near anyplace that could contain a mattress or anyplace you have to walk through to get to a mattress and the officer goes out of his or her way to look for something other than tags on mattresses. At that point anything they find is off limits and any evidence they get that solely comes from direct knowledge of what they found is FOTPT, and can not be used. IANAL but once upon a time I worked in LE.
Yes,
But do you feel a duty to remain speechless?
This is not a school problem. Sure, kids who do things like this deserve to be arrested, sued, publicly flogged or whatever. But, it is not the schools responsibility to punish children for things that happen outside of school. That is a job for either their parents or the judicial system, It is their job to educate them (very large period here) Allowing schools to make decisions based on actions outside of school is a very slippery slope, for both the children and the schools. If these same allegation were made against a neighbor, is it now the schools responsibility to punish the person who made them? If they don't are they now liable in some way? School is not a punitive government entity. We already have those.
Load balance your virtual hosts or terminal servers across two physical switches with two connections to the core router. If they are terminal servers you can put them in separate locations and load balance the connections. If you have so many router/switch problems that the cost of lost productivity out ways the savings of minimizing your hardware/overhead, fire your network staff and start over.
Use server based VMs or terminal servers. Then use winterms for the desktops. You can get those for a couple a hundred dollars and they last forever.
Sounds like you were carrying a gun when you tipped over the port o potty next to the interstate highway. I can't believe they let you out so soon. You felonious bastard.
The first one is precal. It refreshes all the stuff you have forgotten since high school.
The second one has videos that go along with it. It covers all of cal I and most of cal II.
I actually prefer less than lethal force, but the last bullet is always a slug.
'A little torture never hurt anyone.' ~fictional George W. Bush
While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach, I think health care should be universal. So I am not sure. Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it’s worth, or is it better to pass on this, until we can find someone who will do it right.
Universal Health Care:
My republican friends are probably screaming. "Oh my god, how can you even think about backing this socialist crap?!" Well, in my opinion, health is at least as important as education to society. We don't seem to have a problem with socialized education. Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work (arguably) quite well. Others, of course, are hopelessly broken.
I think everyone should have access to health care, just like everyone has access to education. I don’t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live. I think it’s sad and very telling that people, who live in places that do have universal healthcare, live longer healthier lives than Americans.
The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare, but rather protecting the business models of the AMA, the big insurance companies and the big drug companies. We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems. We cannot do both.
The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this. “Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government. There will be no incentives for medical innovation. The government makes everything more complex and more expensive. What about my ability to control my medical care?” You may be right but I doubt it.
Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people, but the government can do an adequate job for everyone. You see this in the education system. The government does OK with education. If you want more than the standard, you have to pay out of your pocket.
The government could create incentives, just like they have for military contractors. Private organizations (colleges, drug companies) could compete for money to experiment. Innovations that come from this would belong to the government. They could be managed for the benefit of everyone. If a company chooses to go it alone, and they have a huge success, the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit. This would get rid of the $1000 a month prescriptions and the $25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene.
Everything will be different if the government were to run it. There would be growing pains. But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save. That’s right I said save. Medicaid and Medicare would go away. The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone. Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else. These things would no longer be part of anyone’s budget problem.
You control your medical care? Really? So you must be really, really rich. My medical care is controlled by my insurance company. I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.
How do we pay for it?
Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings. If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears. With a single payer plan, the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale. Throw in the money from Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran healthcare, and prisoner healthcare, we get a bit farther toward paying the bill. The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions. Between healthcare premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses, I will end up spending more than $12k in healthcare costs. My job is probably putting in another $6k. That is $4500/person in my house. That is obscene and I am sure that there are people putting out a lot more than me.
How would it work?
There are lots of good ideas out there. I think the government should provide two levels of coverage.
Standard HMO type care - This would be what most people need. It would take care of broken arms, colds, stitches, well care, vaccines and such.
Major Care – This would cover expensive trauma, cancer and basically anything you would need to go to the hospital for.
Just like the education system, if you want anything more than the government provides, you can pay for it or maybe here, there is room here for some type of medical insurance. Yes some people would get treated better than others. That’s just the way the world works. Things are easier if you have money. That’s how it is today and that would not change if there were government healthcare.
What are your thought?
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
