Page 1 of 57
Posted on April 21 at 2:15 p.m.
ANY time driver is found to be DUI (in Morua's case his BAC was 0.17), s/he is considered at fault because THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DRIVING. This does not necessarily mean that alcohol was a *causative factor* of the actual event, but it is STILL ILLEGAL, and so the person may/will be charged.
The idea is that a person with an illegal BAC should not be on the road, and therefore would not be able to be involved in in any collision<--this term used, as "accident" implies that the event(s) is/are unavoidable, and happened by chance.
On Freeway Closed at Castillo Due to Triple-Fatality DUI Crash
Posted on April 14 at 3:13 p.m.
The two comments that I think are closest to the truth:
"First Amendment does not protect her right to attack a minor with a poster." _JohnLocke (This is worded badly. The correct part here is that she attacked someone--according to the article, "scratched and pushed". Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect the "right to attack", nor is there really such a thing--unless the "attack" is a defensive response.)
"I was willing to give Prof. Miller-Young benefit of pregancy [sic] doubt; but soon after she should have at least apologized and admitted her mistake instead of doubling down like a Survivors of Abortion Holocaust kook." _Ken_Volok (Pregnancy hormones might be a factor in the professor's reaction. However, even if accepted as an absolute condition, an apology would be a fitting "punishment"--it's unlikely that she will think she wasn't right, but being forced to apologize might make make her realize that she did something wrong.)
This issue is really unworthy to be elevated to requiring a "First Amendment Defense", for either side.
On UCSB Professor Pleads Not Guilty to Theft and Battery
Posted on April 14 at 1:44 p.m.
While this guy is certainly no angel, and certainly overreacted, the old guy had no right to physically touch him ("While Stekkinger’s back was turned, McGrath put his hand on his shoulder...."). And, considering they had just had an argument, the older gentleman should have found security, or someone in administration.
On Man Sentenced to Eight Years for Punching Elderly Victim
Posted on April 14 at 12:49 p.m.
"Halfling", a la Tolkien (because "Hobbit", even intended well, is too similar to "midget".)
Or, perhaps "hauflin", which Wikipedia defines as a Scots word which pre-dates Tolkein. It's actually a description of a teenager, but I don't see why it couldn't be appropriated, and it seems inherently cool to me....
On Petty or Prejudice?
Posted on March 6 at 10:59 a.m.
"There are many, many people more deserving of our time and energy than Einstein."
And yet, "many, many" who are not.
On Dog Bite History Prompted Euthanasia
Posted on January 23 at 10:19 a.m.
Mohammed would be a problem, for sure...but I think that a Candy Christ would be somewhat acceptable--as long as it wasn't on a stick.
On My Life: A Chocolate Buddha
Posted on January 15 at 11:56 a.m.
I continue to fail in my understanding, of how ANY insurance, which exists to pay for health care--affordable and exorbitantly priced--can lower costs.
I suppose the idea is that one can start paying into a program and be fully covered, prior to having paid in enough to cover what care they might eventually need--which is perception, and not reality (and isn't even a case of "perception IS reality"). For example, if someone has paid $50/mo for a year, amounting to $600 for the year, but then requires a $10K surgery, it looks like a bargain--but as everyone dislikes, it causes everyone else's premium to increase (at some point). Better, if someone figured a way to make that surgery cost less. Actually, it wouldn't hurt if the problem of "income inequality" were solved, which would allow people to be able to (more) afford high cost healthcare--and if true costs were lowered at the same time, it would be a win on both fronts.
Even the lauded Single-Payer idea fails, when it's still just a system to allow the payment of high costs, while nothing actually lowers the cost of care.
On Repeal the Act
Posted on January 15 at 11:34 a.m.
Btw, a serious downside of having a ranking system for sports, is the collection and upkeep of the data. It might be better to have the ranks assigned "on the fly" by coaches, and adjusted as necessary.
On Beyond the Bathroom
Posted on January 15 at 11:32 a.m.
"The fundamental purpose of AB 1266 is to prevent the unfair exclusion of transgender students from participation in gender-based school activities, programs, and facilities; it does this by restating existing anti-discrimination laws. It is vital that we understand that this law aims to protect our most vulnerable youth....Inevitably, the discussion then shifts to perceived advantages in sports, which clouds the fact that excluding transgender youth from sports denies them significant physical, mental, and social benefits."
What seems to be missed by the limited viewpoints that I've seen so far, including this letter, is that the solution falls wide of the mark.
Considering that, "treating people differently because of gender identity is just like discriminating because of race, size, or ability" is true, and the law addresses this fact, the law works, but it's a bad solution, in that it is yet another failure due to fighting a symptom, rather than a cause.
I agree, that discrimination should not be allowed for any of the listed reasons, however, as mentioned in the first quote, regarding "perceived advantages in sports", the solution is wrong because the wrong issue was taken
Sports, as a general rule, have been segregated due to sex, for the *intertwined* reasons of male vs. female physicality, yet also due to societal separations between "girls" and "boys"--women simply did not compete with men (which the perception likely was that they *could* not compete). However, in today's world, we should be able to accept men and women (youth and adult) to be able to play together, but they should instead be segregated by ability. And, while this is likely to still settle out with men at one end of the spectrum and women at the other, at least it would allow for the exceptional persons to compete among--roughly--equals ("exceptional" to their assumed group, and not in the absolute).
As a rough sketch of what I would propose, each competitor would be given a physical test, and compared to averages for their age/size, in ranking from 1-10. Then, each person would fall into one of four bands of rank (1-2.5, 2.51-4.99, 5-7.5, 7.51-10). Then, no matter their sex and/or gender, they would compete within their group. For activities that rely less on pure strength/size, a separate ranking test could be devised, or perhaps no test is required--individual activities have to be considered separately.
As for how to determine what transgender people do regarding bathrooms, that's actually more complicated. All-unisex bathrooms, or third-option unisex bathrooms would ultimately be the best option. And, among adults, people should just relax--personally, it doesn't bother me who shares one with me, as long as they are minding their own "business"! With children, until they are able to simply look at a restroom as a restroom, regardless of sex/gender, then it's going to be ridiculously complicated....
Posted on January 15 at 10:52 a.m.
"40 Trillion in wealth transfers from makers to takers"
"Makers and takers" is a cute soundbite, but embodies a limited view of what has happened "since 1964". What's happened since the 80's has confused what one might see as a "maker" and a "taker".
"realitycheck", indeed. Which reality?
On How the Grinch REALLY Stole Christmas
Previous Month | Next Month