Page 1 of 58
Posted on July 14 at 2 p.m.
"Enough with labels and categories...."
*cough* lib dems *cough*
On Transgender Pride
Posted on July 1 at 11:12 a.m.
"...it would also leave students uninformed and vulnerable."
While I don't disagree with the general logic in that statement, I also think that the concept of being informed has to be more of an active role, than a passive one--which is a price paid, to live in a "free republic". For example, Chris Rugg said that he had bad feelings about Rodgers, but did nothing [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-isla-vista-signs-hindsight-20140530-story.html]. If the roommates didn't feel right with him there, then the burden was on them to deal with it.
However, that said, in the case where it would seem to be gross negligence--such as there having been previous reports of Rodgers being violent or dangerous--then certainly there should have been some disclosure. Unfortunately, this would still be a far-from-perfect situation/solution, but not all equations can be solved simply.
[Note, in the interest of Full Disclosure: I actually had a "Nanny State"-style of reaction, while composing my post. While I avoided using that term, so as not to appear as being some kind of kneejerker, my thinking began to parallel at this point.]
On A Catastrophic Failure with Tragic Results
Posted on July 1 at 10:26 a.m.
"I actually don't think Democracy is a good political system because it allows the majority to oppress the minorities, I think government should be based solely on protecting individual rights, liberty and property. But if you are going to have a Democratic system then EVERYBODY should have a say."
I think that you already actually know this, but for the sake of clarification for those who may not--The country of the United States is not a democracy, exactly. It is a democratic *republic*. The government is a "representative democracy".
Some web-searching will provide far more detail, but the distiction is confusing, due to the term "democratic" being used as the modifier to "republic", as well as being the end-type, "democracy" for a governmental form. [see, http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ame...
On The Nexus of Poverty, Education, and Economic Development
Posted on June 30 at 11:37 a.m.
"If Rodger was mentally ill, or under treatment with psychotropic drugs, at the very least his roommates should have been informed and allowed to veto the assignment."
I think HIPAA law restricts this. It falls into the gap between Personal Privacy and Public Safety. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to equate "mentally ill", or "treatment with psychotropic drugs" (ignoring the "under treatment" part as opinion), directly with "dangerous", which is possibly the wiggle room that allows such "cracks" for people to "fall through", to dissect the cliche.
Posted on June 30 at 11:24 a.m.
On another note, people might do better to consider the turn signal as a *signal of INTENT*, and not, as it appears to be taken, as a *request to change lanes* (not including use for turns, of course--that is ALWAYS intent).
If a car slightly ahead of another signals, then the following driver should expect them to move over. And, if that driver moves to block, then they should expect some fender contact--or at least not be surprised when the other car continues to change lanes. [The exception to this is when drivers try to merge late, after speeding to the merge point, and then trying to cut in. Those people are pretty much just anal sphincters.]
On Stone Starts Driving
Posted on June 30 at 11:17 a.m.
"Yeah, for the people on your road bikes, share the road, it means exactly that. It’s not a one way street. (No pun intended). The rules of the road apply to all.
Stay as far to the right as possible when possible. Cyclists going down a narrow road side by side so they can chat while impeding traffic creates an unsafe road condition for all.
Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle. There is a bicycle law for California, but it would seem there are some unaware of it."
You are being contradictory in your statements--if bicyclists are "subject to all the provisions...", and "the rules of the road apply to all", then two cyclists riding side-by-side are not necessarily "impeding traffic", but are in fact traffic themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you desire out of the cyclists. And, I would even go so far as to question whether cyclist using a lane in such a manner necessitate the "Slow Vehicle" sign, but I digress....
In the area of courtesy, I agree that bicyclists should, as they say, 'share the road', as they expect it to be shared. However, because of the power difference between a car and a bicycle, I think that the auto-motorists may just have to suck it up sometimes, and simply wait to safely pass.
Posted on June 24 at 12:17 p.m.
Ah, Capitalism....'nuff said.
Aside from that, iIs the blonde in Wally's picture inspired by Jill?
On Building Manager, Cops Shut Down Mural Event
Posted on June 13 at 11:11 a.m.
Dogs are animals, and follow their instincts.
I saw the picture of Daisy and Duke on the Edhat site, and one looks like a basic terrier mix, and the other looks to be the same or possibly have some whippet/italian greyhound genes. Terriers tend towards having a "prey drive" and whippets and greyhounds (even the little, italian ones) are sight-hounds, which chase prey, literally, when seen.
Realistically, the dogs will die because they *do* what they *are*. The "criminal" issue here is that the dogs shouldn't have been off-leash, outside of their yard. And, while I realize that the dogs apparently escape their confines, this is not a criminal case. If anything, the owners should be sued by the cat owners, in civil court.
On Daisy and Duke at Risk
Posted on June 13 at 10:51 a.m.
If you find a YUT near a pile of poop, make sure to rub his/her nose in it, followed by a stern, "NO!".
On Curbing Young Urban Travelers
Posted on May 28 at 11:13 a.m.
Regarding, "Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs."
I think that the term "handgun" differentiates "hand"-guns from rifles. In such a case, "possession" would still be allowed for "firearms", as provided by in the Constitution.
[Note, however, the 2nd Amendment stipulates the "right to bear arms" ("bear" = possession), but it does NOT actually allow for manufacture. I think any trading ("transfer, receipt,..., or transportation") is necessary to allowing possession, but allowance does not necessarily extend to (mass) mass production. I would assume that, like liquor, if you make a gun for yourself, you get a pass on that....]
On Why Does the I.V. Tragedy Surprise Us?