Comments by equus_posteriori
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Posted on May 30 at 2:29 p.m.
George Washington--"Beware of Foreign Entanglements".
Dwight Eisenhower--"Beware the Military-Industrial Complex."
both certainly apply.
BTW, Scott McClellan DID say something about not speaking sooner--to someone else. Former national security advisor Richard A. Clarke had written a previous "tell all" book, and McClellan criticized him for not saying something "at the time", and accused him of just wanting to pimp his book.
So, he's a hypocrite, but an apologetic one: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4...
Posted on May 30 at 1:51 p.m.
"Hodges explained that when Veterans for Peace gave a similar assembly last year, he received complaints from parents about the assembly’s content, some of whom felt it was 'too biased.'”
I guess there's just not enough warmongering chickenhawks available to speak at a *peace* assembly. . . .
Posted on May 6 at 3 p.m.
Regardless of good or bad connotations for Native Indians (or as I prefer, "Amerindians"), I think it's preferable to at least have SOME reference, to the People that lived here before the European Invasion. At least then someone might question the reason it's there, and learn about some history.
If the mascost is changed to some boring, even "Politically Correct" thing, then that link to history will be lost--and that's even considering whether the reference is even canonically corrrect.
Then again, maybe they should just change over to be the Carpinteria Worriers.
Posted on May 6 at 2:48 p.m.
Has anyone considered chatting up one of the SB local billionaires, and attempting to start a new paper? Then, maybe the former and remaining N-P workers could shift over, and let the old paper fade away.
BTW, billclausen (hi, bill) said: "On the other hand, if I'm driving through the desert on a hot summer day and see someone laying by the roadside dying of thirst I can drive right past that person and laugh at them while I drive away...that is my LEGAL right, but does that make it MORALLY right?"
Be aware of the Good Samaritan laws for your state, and be safe out there. [http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/a/07_no_good_sam.htm]
Posted on May 6 at 2:36 p.m.
You all might feel differently, if the shoe were on the other foot!
Then again, maybe we shouldn't say anything, until we walk a mile in each other shoes. . . .(aw, you KNEW that was coming)
Posted on April 11 at 12:16 p.m.
It seems to me that almost every previous poster here has taken the Critical Mass riders as the normal representation of bicyclists, which is just foolish. However, I would agree that many--call them "non-militant"--riders do break the traffic laws often, and certainly should be called on it (at least, as much as the standard road-user).
And, while I believe that any vehicle (auto) motorist should GENERALLY yield right-of-way to a bicyclist, if a biker runs a red light or stop sign, and in the consequence is that they get squashed--welcome, to Darwinism.
Lastly, just to address billclausen's point about IV bikers: Bill, you should realize that the major operating factor there is you are dealing with college-aged "kids", and they think the place is more like Isla Vatican, with a different set of rules. [Your second point illustrates the good practice of AWARENESS, which is an alien concept, to all too many of us.]
Posted on April 8 at 2:24 p.m.
I agree with Rich.
Also, being both a bicyclist AND a motorcyclist, I think that drivers of "boxes" (cars and trucks) should PAY BETTER ATTENTION. After all, the PRIVILEDGE of driving comes with a certain responsibility.
Unfortunately, we (including myself, sometimes) take the wheel with less of a thought for the "other guy", than our own selfish desires to get where we are going. And, should the worse come to pass, the cyclist will surely wind up in worse condition than the "boxer".
On UPDATED: Injured Cyclist in "Stable But Critical Condition"
Posted on March 25 at 1:59 p.m.
"consuming fifty drinks in the approximately seventy days of spring quarter"
Seems kind of lightweight. I've personally gone 30 days, starting the first day of Fiesta, with 3+ drinks per day/night. Then stretched that one extra day the next year.
Indeed, alcoholics probably blow my meager accomplishments away, and they may be on the 'lifetime' plan!
Of course, I suppose that if you're a "starving" college student, and Mom and Dad don't subsidize your alcohol, THEN maybe 50-in-70 is something.
On a lighter note: Man, I miss watching (college) girls volleyball. . . .
On Spring Fling
Posted on March 21 at 12:40 p.m.
Perhaps, if the Indy had arranged a private viewing with the attorney, to decide whether any of the photos would help with the defense, then the issue could have been settled--even should they desire some of the photos.
I understand the need to protect reporters under shield laws, but I also believe that the defendant's rights would be violated, IF there were help found in the photographs.
On the other side, and more of where I think the shield law applies, is when the government is looking for evidence to convict. In other words, they should not be able to seek damning evidence, especially if there is not already prior "reasonable cause" to do so.
I would think that the term "fishing" applies moreso to the prosecution, than the defense. The rights of the individual should come before the shield law, but the shield law before the "public need" for prosecution.
The only other thing I can think of that might be relevant:
The street where the pictures were taken is/was a public place--where no "resonable expectation of privacy" exists. And, by that logic, any photos taken in the street would not be considered particularly confidential, and could be seen as fair game.
[As an aside, the problem with the wording, "expectation of privacy", is that the concept is a particular one. I only wish there were "resonable expectations of ANONYMITY" laws.]
Page 1 of 10 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on June 20 at 7:24 a.m.
@azuresees
Your examples show that the State government votes/passes these measures, but do you know who initiates these things?
It seems like a lot of "clutter" bills seem to block the visiting of any (maybe, more important) issue. That, and maybe there's some assumption that issues like mental health have "already been covered", so there's no push to revisit them.
On Indeed Reagan’s Children