Comment No you won't (Score 2) 211
Yes I am grumpy and pedantic today, but this whole storm in a teacup is the result of lazy thinking by a number of authors.
Yes I am grumpy and pedantic today, but this whole storm in a teacup is the result of lazy thinking by a number of authors.
Anyway, nobody should ever be criticised for seeking to improve their prose style.
Comma use in English is greatly disputed; even in lists we have the Oxford comma (one, two, three, and four) versus the Cambridge comma (one, two, three and four). We have the adherents of comma minimalism and the adherents of strict comma use in any short pause, leading to the story of the writer who visited her editor to discover that all the commas had been marked for exclusion in her latest piece, and spent the next hour going through the document putting stet against every single one. She knew there were too many but it was now a matter of principle.
In English (i.e. England and Wales) legalese commas are avoided, because of the fear that a flaw in the paper or a fly mark will be read as a comma and affect the meaning of something. My father, a retired lawyer, often gets through an entire page of a letter without a single comma.
however, I disagree on one point: because greed and the propensity to violence exist, governments must be dirigiste to a degree if there is to be a stable society. Since economics is not much use for forecasting the effects of policy, they should forget economics and concentrate on policies designed to protect assets and encourage social cohesion, relying on human self-interest to mitigate any economic effects.
Most economics isn't even astrology: it is a cargo cult (act as if something is true and this will somehow make it so).
*To be fair to Gorbachev, he did actually point out that Soviet economics didn't work before 1990, whereas governments are still able to be in denial about Capitalist economics - till the resources start to run out.
The job of the prosecutor is to prepare and present the prosecution case. The prosecutor should have NO input into sentencing at all. It should entirely be down to the judge, who should be guided by criminological opinion and research. That after all is the function of a judge: having heard the evidence and the decision of the jury, to pronounce sentence.
The "just obeying orders" card was played at Nürnberg and by Eichmann. Didn't work. For the system to work, prosecutors must first and foremost pursue justice, or they will fall into disrepute. Right now I wouldn't trust Ms. Ortiz in charge of a pebble on a highway intersection. That does nothing to encourage people to obey the laws.
People are giving Ortiz the "Just obeying orders" get out of jail free card. Wasn't accepted at Nuernberg. Wasn't accepted at the Eichmann trial.
You view, in fact, is that of the slave owners; we are allowed to combine to enforce slavery, the slaves cannot combine to better their conditions.
It's funny how some Americans bang on about liberty, but want to confine it to corporations and officials.
"The most important thing in a man is not what he knows, but what he is." -- Narciso Yepes