Unfortunately, most people ask questions that aren't allowed under the rules of evidence. For example, "what was she wearing?" (this isn't relevant for a rape trial), or "Did he/she refuse to take a breathalyzer?" (Caveat - that may be admissible in some locations, but a breath test refusal is inadmissible in Massachusetts courts.)

Want an example of a relevant question that's admissible? How about "where, exactly, in the back was he shot?" Or "Did the shot come from the right or the left?" Unfortunately, these are few & far between.

Here's the thing; most attorneys bring out everything they can that's allowed by the rules of evidence. If you don't hear about it in court, there's a good chance that it isn't allowed by the rule of evidence. Omissions are more often a matter of law than they are a matter of legal practice.

The quote from the summary is incorrect - Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state are currently required to pay sales (or use) tax. The problem that the government has is that (1) the vendor often does not collect those taxes for internet (or mail order) sales, and (2) most people don't report them on their annual tax forms.

It's interesting to note that the summary quoted a representative from the state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a line on their state tax form specifically pertaining to out-of-state on-line purchases & sales tax. The state tax form requires you, as a citizen of Massachusetts, to (1) either pay the exact sales tax on items purchased on-line, or (2) pay a safety net "default" tax on your purchases if you can't itemize yor purchases.

But we all know the real issue here - it's the underlying infrastructure. Congress knows that large retail establishments (i.e., Amazon) can set up reliable taxing system. If the individual states have to rely upon the tax-paying individuals to truthfully report their purchases (as they do now), they fear (read: know) that they will not collect as much in taxes. They want to shift the burden to the retailers in order to make as much money as possible.

I would be much more sympathetic to these issues if the lawmakers would simply come out & say what they mean in a straight-forward, truthful manner. As it is, they look like weasels because they have to lie about the current state of affairs in order to get bills like this passed.

The title of the song that you're describing for is "Entrance of the Gladiators."

Frankly, I think you're better off if you don't know the real title of the song. For the last ten years all I can picture when I hear this tune is tiny versions of Maximus spilling out of a clown-car in the middle of the Forum.

" If you are just starting, get some binoculars."

As someone who has used both binoculars & telescopes as an amateur, I would like to second this advice. Here are some specific reasons why:

Movement. Telescopes all seem to have at least one direction reversed (in other words, to move the field to the right you need to move the telescope to the left. Or up/down is reversed.) This is not something that you get used to after 5 minutes - it's an ongoing frustration. And it's important because of:

Field of vision. Telescopes tend to have a smaller field of vision, often something like 2 degrees (I'm going from memory here.) That may not sound bad, but in practice it can become a major hassle as you have to constantly move the telescope to keep things in your field of view. Also, you often want to view larger areas of the sky at one time without having to move your telescope. And given the movement problem (above), you will find yourself adjusting the telescope the wrong way about half of the time. Stupid? Yes. Frustrating? Double-yes.

Ease of use. Telescopes require setup time. Binoculars require removal of the lens caps. This is one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal in the store, but in real life it will quickly become a major issue (unless you leave you telescope planted in one place all of the time, which I don't think is an ideal situation for an amateur.) You want to be able to scan the sky with your bare eyes & then _immediately_ use your magnifying device to look at something specific. You do _not_ want to mess around with tripods and sighting scopes just to see the latest thing that caught your fancy. Binoculars win big here. Don't underestimate the usefulness of binoculars' quick reaction time. In my view, this is the most important factor to consider; if it isn't easy to use, you won't use it.

For the record, I'm an amateur who has owned and used both inexpensive binoculars and an inexpensive telescope. I would _hands down_ recommend the binoculars. Get practical experience, and _then_ shop for a telescope.

One more thing. Binoculars are much more kid-friendly than telescopes, so if you're a parent trying to interest your children in astronomy, add that to the above reasons.

I hope this helps.