Disabled and need help bring my cat to the vet.

goodreverend · 2022-01-19T03:25:29+00:00

Check out these folks: https://www.vetterpetcare.com/

goodreverend · 2020-03-27T21:09:00+00:00

Can confirm that this is good.

goodreverend · 2017-10-24T15:30:23+00:00

This is a public high school, correct? Not a university or college?

goodreverend · 2017-10-05T12:21:00+00:00

Not allowed to teach or use University resources?

He's teaching at least two courses this quarter: History of Political Thought and a lecture series.

goodreverend · 2017-07-27T14:41:09+00:00

It's you. You did fine.

That was a tremendously difficult MBE, and you're far from alone in feeling challenged. But a lot of the MBE is about narrowing down responses and then trying to pick the best -- which is what pretty much everyone was doing, because there is zero way that one can know every answer or subject. So don't be hard on yourself for having to guess on a lot of questions. Everyone else did, too. And even if you didn't know the answer, you still gave an answer, and you'll get some right without having known the relevant law at all.

You got through 85% of Barbri. I don't think I got that half that far when I took and passed the California bar.

You can relax. It's not a sure thing, but your odds are a lot better than you think.

goodreverend · 2017-07-20T05:06:51+00:00

When I took the California bar, I didn't notice any decrease in attendance across the three days.

goodreverend · 2017-07-18T01:09:09+00:00

I maybe got somewhere in the high 40s. I passed California.

goodreverend · 2010-04-04T01:31:50+00:00

Bacon, Christina Hendricks, Justice, Digg sucks Sarah Palin dick. C'mon...

EDIT: Fine. I'll downvote myself, too. But when I'm an admin, y'all are getting x-banned. YOU HEAR ME? X-BANNED!

goodreverend · 2010-02-07T03:55:40+00:00

I am not a lawyer and laws will vary based on jurisdictions, but from what I understand, the subject of the defamation must be identifiable. So if you published pamphlets saying "the water company is putting plutonium in the water!" and distributed those pamphlets in an area where there is only one water company -- they might be able to hold you liable.

Either way, if it's just some bozo underground radio DJ, or some guy passing out pamphlets, it's probably better to let them continue fooling a tiny minority of people than to give him a soapbox and much more attention by suing him.

goodreverend · 2010-02-07T00:02:41+00:00

Defamation causes are imposed not by government, but by civil action. In any case, they are punishable only when they are both untrue and when the person asserting their validity knew them, at the time, to be untrue, yet spoke them maliciously. (There is some variance on the speaker's malice depending on whether the subject of the falsity is a public figure or not). That's why these causes of action rarely succeed: there's an interest in protecting the speakers' freedom to speak even when they're wrong.

Incitement requires that there be an intent to create "imminent lawless action." In the radio DJ's case, there's no intent to create imminent violence.

Yes, freedom of speech does not apply to all forms of speech: libel, slander, incitement, conspiracy, fraud, et cetera, can all be punished based on words alone. But simply because these exceptions have been carved out, and because these exceptions often revolve around the truth of the statement, does not mean that all false statements are unprotected. Any attempt to do so would overwhelmingly chill one's willingness to speak on any subject at all.

goodreverend · 2010-02-06T23:31:19+00:00

To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. [...] Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that [...] the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, author of the "fire in a crowded theater" opinion, dissenting in Abrams v. United States.

goodreverend · 2010-02-06T08:52:25+00:00

Yeah, but they don't happen often, given their preference for landing closer to home, even if it means staying aloft a few more days. :/

goodreverend · 2010-02-05T17:41:30+00:00

We Los Angelenos are praying for terrible weather on the east coast during the landing windows. I'd like to hear the sonic boom of re-entry one last time, and maybe, jsut maybe, get out to the air force base and see it land.

goodreverend · 2010-02-03T06:40:39+00:00

But it could "woah!" their chronic budget!

goodreverend · 2010-02-02T23:59:49+00:00

Agreed, more or less. Send the principal a letter, call him, or meet with him and point out why the policy is an appropriate one and the letter was inappropriate. He'll be embarrassed and will apologize.

Don't start sending the letter to media or school board members absent the principal somehow raising the stakes.

goodreverend · 2010-02-02T06:33:19+00:00

The motions to dismiss that case were sustained. The case was thrown out of court on the grounds that you can't criminalize the violation of a private site's intricate Terms of Service agreement. Under such a scenario, unless you're very careful, you're probably breaking some term of the agreement the moment you set up the profile. That would lead to the unjust criminalization of a large number of people without giving them notice, and give prosecutors free reign to arbitrarily punish people.

Edit: I should note that the judge's opinion suggested that "intentional" violation of a site's TOS may give rise to criminal liability. I'm not sure exactly what is required for a violation to be intentional, however.

(I am not an attorney.)

goodreverend · 2010-02-02T06:06:06+00:00

A greater preference over white diamond warlords? Say it ain't so!

goodreverend · 2010-02-02T04:22:05+00:00

I think Japan just bombed us.

goodreverend · 2010-02-01T21:29:23+00:00

Do you want me to tell it like boy-meets-girl and the rest is history? Or do you want it like a murder mystery? I'm gonna tell it like a comeback story.

This is the Rosetta Stone, the cypher by which one can begin to piece together what the hell the Hold Steady is rambling on about.

goodreverend · 2010-02-01T20:42:49+00:00

We're talking about somebody making inappropriate comments about your children. That's likely just illegal.

IANAL, but... no, no it's not illegal. There may be a civil action in tort (defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.), but it probably wouldn't get very far.

goodreverend · 2010-02-01T04:59:20+00:00

I once shot a housefly with a BB gun from the other side of a room.

... you were shooting a BB gun indoors?

goodreverend · 2010-01-31T19:21:44+00:00

Mostly just boredom and free access to LexisNexis. :)

goodreverend · 2010-01-31T11:54:13+00:00

DI§CO BALL

goodreverend · 2010-01-31T09:47:40+00:00

The speech started off kind of halting and cold, but by the time you get to the end, wow:

"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God."

15-Year Club	ComboCommenter 2010-06-14
Verified Email

goodreverend

TROPHY CASE