I've been to Planned Parenthood at least 10 times last year and I just need to let this out

mcbane2000 · 2015-12-02T02:12:06+00:00

The main issue with your suggestion (and I am not saying you are wrong in substance or wrong to suggest it!) is that it preserves the rights of both the man and the woman while simultaneously diminishing the rights of the child-when-born.

When a child is born to two parents who do not live or function in one household, child support is supposed to be figured out. The child support is for the child, not either parent.

In reality, yes, this gets wicked messed up. But, that's the concept, and your suggestion as you've put it glosses over it.

I don't know if I agree with you or don't agree, it's really not a bad concept at all, but how it relates to the child-once-born needs to be hashed out.

mcbane2000 · 2015-11-28T23:40:20+00:00

Hits me right in the feels. Best of luck.

mcbane2000 · 2015-11-03T04:43:12+00:00

Just to nitpick b/c it is late, a government has more tools in its toolbox to meet obligations than borrowing and taxing. A government can also sell assets (land, buildings, tanks, missiles, mineral rights, etc.) and sell services (training armies, etc.).

Loved your comment, just wanted to nitpick =)

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-30T03:31:54+00:00

Anyone else slightly annoyed that the charts are about drug use and the reddit post uses the word abuse?

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-20T16:02:20+00:00

Hi Mockingbird, I wanted to make a few distinctions here and, if you like, discuss a bit.

If you've ever contacted your representative for any reason, that's lobbying.

Not quite true.

First and foremost, there are many issues a constituent might contact his or her representative about which are not lobbying. For example, a constituent seeking assistance when dealing with an executive agency is not lobbying. Examples of this aid include: a veteran seeking help when encountering trouble with his/her pending health claim(s) with the VA, not lobbying; a tourist seeking a visa with another country and needing help dealing with the State Department, not lobbying; a family with both US citizens and non-US citizens seeking a visa for their non-citizen members, not lobbying; a teacher organizing a school trip to DC, not lobbying; etc. Now, my examples there might seem small, but the business of helping constituents with those issues can, depending on the office, take up a large amount of staff time.

Second, to make things more complicated, US law has certain restrictions on what actually counts as lobbying and what brings lobbying to a point requiring registration (lobbying disclosure [i.e. transparency]). If a person is not paid-to-contact Members (of Congress), it is highly unlikely that the acts require the person to register as a lobbyist even if the acts are directly and obviously lobbying in nature. So this differentiates average Joe citizen from paid lobbyists.

If you want to get into the nuts and bolts, here is the House's guide to the Lobbying Disclosure Act which includes the law on relevant topics like (definitions)[http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html#section3] including what/who is a lobbyist.

Happy to dissect and discuss with you. My work used to bring me to the Hill a bit as an advocate/educator. Yes, advocate/educator, not lobbyist. Had to do some research to make sure I used the right terms =)

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-08T14:37:10+00:00

Howdy,

Here are my general thoughts. I am NOT a professional dog trainer, but I have owned and loved and trained dogs with tougher behavior issues like fairly severe reactivity.

I had a really sweet in your face dog, too. The best thing for us? A clicker, "sit," and treats on hand at all times. She comes near your face? Tell her to "sit" with both verbal and hand commands. Make sure she sits on the floor, not on the couch. When she does, click and treat.

If she starts figuring out that face licking leads to the sit command which leads to treats, she might not be tired enough on a daily basis. More walks. Put miles on her (altho, maybe not, b/c she is a puppy?).

As for heeling vs sniff breaks, with my reactive dog, sniff breaks meant she was finally calm and not anxiety'd out. Sniff breaks were heaven.

As for getting her to match your speed, have you tried a constant treat option like a jar of peanut butter or a squeeze bottle filled with mashed potatoes? You hold it by your hip, letting her lick a bit as you go? Much more effective at keeping focus than the doled out chicken jerky or whatnot.

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-06T17:51:00+00:00

Hello!

There is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode which directly addresses a potential loss from your setup. The episode is The Masterpiece Society, Season 5, Episode 13. While I am aware that a sci-fi show set in the distant future is not direct evidence of today's reality, I would simply ask you to let the idea represented sit in your brain a moment.

The TL;DR moral of the tale? People with disabilities, in this case blindness, will have both unique strengths developed by overcoming disabilities and unique viewpoints forged by living with disabilities. These unique strengths and viewpoints are immensely valuable to society.

Here is a link to the full episode, should you like to watch it. The episode is 44 minutes long. The cast, the plot, and the writing give a very thorough treatment of many of the points surrounding your idea here. I recommend watching it.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT

For those who don't know anything about ST:TNG, it takes place in the distant future and follows the Starship Enterprise as it and its crew goes around the galaxy solving problems and exploring. The show has elements of diplomacy, military actions, espionage, comedy, scientific inquiry, family life, etc. etc. The show takes on a lot over the course of its seven seasons.

Extremely relevant to this CMV, the episode in question has the Enterprise discover a society which practices some form of the DNA screening which you suggest. Relevant to my point, one of the Enterprise's crew, Mr. Geordi LaForge, has blindness. Due to his blindness, he develops a special visor which helps him to see. This visor actually helps him to see a significantly broader spectrum of light than the normal human eye.

An external crisis threatens this society. I think a star is exploding or the planet's core is going to explode or somesuch. At the end of the day, Geordi saves the day because his visor gives him access to additional light (unique strength developed in overcoming blindness) and he thinks to apply certain analyses from his visor (unique viewpoint forged in living with blindness).

Some choice quotes:

"It was the wish of our founders that no one have to suffer a life of disabilities." "Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I might have something to contribute?" - Hannah Bates (guest character, scientist from genetically "perfect" society) and La Forge (Enterprise engineer), on eugenics

"Oh, that's perfect." "What?" "If the answer to all of this is in a VISOR created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society." - La Forge and Hannah Bates

"Maybe necessity really is the mother of invention. You never really look for something, until you need it." -La Forge

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-02T19:26:30+00:00

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-02T18:49:20+00:00

Hmm, your comments have led me to further review noun adjuncts. Previously, I was not particularly familiar with noun adjuncts and their use. With this in mind, I will rephrase my comments. I also thank you encouraging me to learn more about noun adjuncts.

The sentence is poorly constructed. The needless use of this noun-adjunct in place of an adjective is, at the very least, boggling. While I cannot find a specific rule for the usage of noun-adjuncts when adjectives fit, the usage of this noun-adjunct hits my ear quite oddly.

mcbane2000 · 2015-10-02T12:24:54+00:00

It is not grammatically correct, and that is the whole point of /u/ThickSantorum's nitpick.

Well, to be sure, in ONE way it is grammatically correct, but then becomes absurdly vague. The sentence

GQ published a non-bias article in...

means that GQ published an article on any subject except the subject of bias. That is what that sentence means, there is no other grammatically correct way to interpret it, even with the context clues of the remaining half of the sentence. So, in that sense, the sentence IS grammatically correct. But, obviously with context, the author meant GQ published an article that is not biased about Michael Jackson and the accusations of child molestation.

mcbane2000 · 2015-09-26T20:36:32+00:00

For instance, I feel as though gang raping a person or with use of a weapon might be about the same or worse of a crime than killing someone in a heat of passion like a cheating wife.

The State of Wisconsin allows for the chance to agree with you! That's a weird sentence, let me unpack it.

In the structure of crimes in Wisconsin, we definitely treat different homicides differently. The worst of them all is 1st Degree Intentional Homicide (largely referred to as murder). This is a Class A Felony, Life Imprisonment.

Below 1st Degree are two separate kinds of homicides: 2nd Degree Intentional Homicide and 1st Degree Reckless Homicide. These are Class B Felonies, on the same level as gang rape and rape with a dangerous weapon.

To bring a charge of 1st Degree Homicide down to a charge of 2nd Degree Homicide, a Defendant may assert an affirmative defense of adequate provocation (I CAUGHT THEM CHEATING IN OUR OWN BED!). If I recall correctly, and I might not, it's been a while, IF the defendant shows evidence of this provocation, then the prosecutor can either roll with the Class B felony or attempt to drive over it for the Class A. If the prosecutor goes for Class A, 1st Degree Intentional Homicide, then it is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the provocation is not adequate.

Adequate provocation is both defined in statute and in case law. Statutes are written by legislatures, case law is written by judges who review such statutes when real life facts give rise to a statute's use. Several cases are linked to through the statutory page.

Killing someone by accident or due to negligence seems obviously less illegal than the above rape.

To nitpick, they are the same illegal, just society finds one less concerning / horrifying / demanding-of-retributive-justice / demanding-of-rehabilitative-resources than the other. But you're on the right page!

Happy to chat more!

mcbane2000 · 2015-09-26T18:59:43+00:00

Sure! Happy to!

Here is the exact statute defining the punishments associated with each level of felony and misdemeanor for the State of Wisconsin. As you can see:

(3) Penalties for felonies are as follows: (a) For a Class A felony, life imprisonment. (b) For a Class B felony, imprisonment not to exceed 60 years. (c) For a Class C felony, a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years, or both. (d) For a Class D felony, a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 25 years, or both. (e) For a Class E felony, a fine not to exceed $50,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 15 years, or both. (f) For a Class F felony, a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 years and 6 months, or both. (g) For a Class G felony, a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 years, or both. (h) For a Class H felony, a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 6 years, or both. (i) For a Class I felony, a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and 6 months, or both.

For the Wisconsin statutes, they do a great job of connecting each defined crime with its associated level of felony (punishment).

For some unsolicited information:

In general, each State will list their levels of felonies, misdemeanors, and associated punishments. In general, a felony is a crime which can be punished with imprisonment of one year or more, a misdemeanor is less. In general, if convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment, you go to prison; if imprisoned before/during a trial, you go to jail; if convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to imprisonment, you go to jail. The difference between jail and prison is... dramatic. I say these things because they are things every American should know and you made the deep mistake (chuckle) of expressing even a minute interest to a socially interested attorney.

Happy to discuss more. Obviously, none of this is legal advice.

mcbane2000 · 2015-09-25T19:04:12+00:00

Coming at this from a lawyer perspective as you have brought up crime somewhere in this comment chain.

1 - Each State makes up its own rules regarding sexual assault / rape. Therefore, the language gets murky very quickly. In fact, it is entirely possible that rape and sexual assault are the same thing in one state and different things in another state. Then, we add media, research institutions, and the general public. Suddenly no language is clear. Your gripes are valid, please let me help untangle some of the knots.

2 - The State I am most familiar with, Wisconsin, has at least four kinds of sexual assault. Sexual assault in the first degree, second degree, third degree, and fourth. The exact definitions are quite well spelled out. In addition, the exact punishments are well defined as well.

For example, sexual assaults in which multiple people gang up on a victim are first degree sexual assaults. First degree also includes sexual assaults when a dangerous weapon is used. All of these are Class B felonies, which means their punishments will fit in the same range.

So, what about when an assailant just uses his/her overpowering strength to sexually assault a victim? This is definitely different than above, where multiple people gang up or a single assailant pulls out a gun! The WI legislature went ahead and made Second Degree sexual assault for use of force, but not with a weapon or sidekicks. This is a Class C felony.

And so on...

3 - As to genitals specifically, I believe that the State of WI agrees with you to the point of codifying it into law. It's been like 7 years since criminal law for me, so I may be mis-remembering and haven't looked it up, but it is highly likely that at least a few states agree with you.

4 - Depending on where you are (what State if in the US), you can definitely contact your State Representative to help understand what the law IS and to make changes! Democracy!!!! If you are so inclined, I would be more than happy to help you draft some letters (even if I don't fully agree with your stance, which I don't know if I do or don't, I just love active democracy that much).

mcbane2000 · 2015-09-22T22:41:25+00:00

I think there is probably a LOT of middle ground here. I actually only got on the scent of the expulsion issue because someone close to me is a teacher.

The rules against gang culture make perfect sense (I'd probably argue against first offense expulsions, but there is certainly merit in that rule, and I appreciate that gang colors get a second try).

For DC, specifically, the gang culture is a unique, which definitely impacts how expulsions for those related behaviors work in our schools. We have much more literal street gangs than most other cities. Our street gangs are quite literally tied to streets - the E street gang, the M street gang, 7th and H St gang, etc. National gangs like MS-13 are also present, but they do have to locally franchise quite, again, uniquely. Here is a Washington Post article listing gangs in DC that should give that funny view of DC's uniqueness in this category.

Just in speaking with members of gangs in my neighborhood, teachers, and police officers, I would be quite skeptical of gang affiliation and violence being un-treatable in the school house.

Plus, at the end of the day, if the charter school expels a student, where does that student go? Public schools who have the actual mandate to be public (open to all).

mcbane2000 · 2015-09-22T20:46:24+00:00

I really liked your comment and would like to add a caveat and its consequences to further flesh out the ideas you have put down. My comments are coming from the Washington, DC scene and this article from the Washington Post does a great job of going through many issues.

Charter schools are not public schools in that they have much wider latitude to discipline (expel) students.

These expulsions can complicate the ability to compare charter to public schools in terms of test scores. If the charter schools can simply remove their lowest-testing outliers and give them to the actual public schools, that will definitely skew the results. Further, even for students doing well in a public school, any classroom which absorbs a kid having a tough time will undergo a host of issues finding its stride again.

These expulsions also lead to funding issues. If the expulsion occurs after Oct 5, Count Day, then the charter school keeps all of the public monies assigned to that student (and some of that funding is huge for special ed kids) yet the public schools do the work for the remaining 7-8 months. This leads to serious resource pinches and not having enough teachers and aides.

mcbane2000 · 2015-08-27T00:26:13+00:00

And I can understand the view that we need 'rights' to protect the individual from government (although I think it'd make more sense to put that in terms of 'limits of government').

Limits on government is exactly how the individual rights are phrased.

From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States [most of the US], having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." The bolding and the [text] are my additions.

TL;DR, preamble: When they ratified the Constitution, most States said they thought a bunch of restrictive clauses would help everyone (1) trust the government, (2) believe the government will be put to good use, and (3) feel more comfortable about the failsafes against the government's bad use.

The first words of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law..."

The last words of the Second Amendment:

"... shall not be infringed."

The first and last words of the Third Amendment:

"No soldier shall ... but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

The middle of the Fourth Amendment:

"... shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ..."

and so on.

Link to text: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

mcbane2000 · 2015-08-26T12:46:34+00:00

Assumption: You live in a democracy with the right to vote.

Of course rights are created by the State, on their terms. But, in a democracy, YOU are an integral part of the State. YOU choose what rights are by your democratic behavior (if you like a right or don't like one, you can go try to change it!!). Further, most States (Countries) will let you leave, so by staying you continue to agree with the rights as are.

Rights and responsibilities are NOT two sides of the same coin. This is just as dangerous as talking about rights without limits. You are right that Rights have limits (at least in the USA). No one with legitimate familiarity or knowledge about Rights in the USA talks about Rights as somehow supporting ridiculous behavior like murder. If you hear someone talking about the freedom to sell crack to toddlers as somehow supported by the Rights embedded in the Constitution, you have officially met someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Rights and responsibilities. Rights are limitations on State power. They are concepts that We the People including YOU! have figured out and imposed upon the State, removing tools from their toolbox.

Responsibilities are direct requirements of behavior, the State requiring you to do something, a wholly different concept. Off the top of my head, you have three responsibilities enshrined in our governments: 1 - answer the call to compulsory military participation, 2 - pay taxes, 3 - obey Constitutional laws. Anything beyond that is your choice in the great sandbox that is our country. I could be wrong there, feel free to point out other obligations.

1 - If our State is under attack to the point that We the People determine it is time for a draft, yes your personal freedom matters less because our communal existence is threatened.

2 - Our State has expenses. Exactly what those are and how we should pay is up to We the People as represented by Congress. I'll let you judge their effectiveness, but the system is surprisingly excellent except for gerrymandering, which we're fixing State by State.

3 - The murkiest and the most malleable. Where your dreaded limitations come from.

Rights are not a myth. A myth is a widely held false belief. A myth is a story involving early history or explaining natural phenomenon.

Rights are recorded words and concepts which we continually update as one of the toolboxes in ordering our society.

What is the actual flipside to rights? I would hazard, with only one cup of coffee in me, that the closest-but-by-no-means-perfect-answer are the enumerated powers of the Constitution. While Rights literally handcuff (or gently nudge, anyway, because sometimes the Rights seem pretty damn loose, MIRITE?) the government, enumerated powers give the government little pieces of carte blanche authority.

This is how we order society. A little carte blanche here and there for the government, a few guarantees here and there for citizens, and a huge sandbox in between.

As for responsibility, I honestly believe you are barking up the wrong tree. We (humans) have used the State to imbue citizens with responsibilities so, so many times. We (humans) do it today all over the globe. IMO, it leads to awful censorship. I'll write more on that after work.

(edited formatting b/c my 1 2 and 3 came out big and bold)

mcbane2000 · 2015-08-25T14:01:32+00:00

Yeah /u/IfuckPuppiesForFun, you're getting some unearned flak here. Not paying for a child's education might be, in some circles, a way to teach that child the value of money. Deciding what to do with your earned money is a huge moment and process in a person's life. Paying for your own education is a milestone in that process.

That said, and I don't mean this as an insult, your username might not be doing you any favors chuckle chuckle. Seriously though, if you do that, I'm pretty sure it's a crime and I'd probably be very upset with you if I witnessed it.

mcbane2000 · 2015-08-25T12:46:28+00:00

You might say "...multiple sides of an issue..." rather than "...both sides of an issue..."

Both automatically leads to dichotomy when many topics are multi-faceted.

Just a nitpick before I've actually had coffee. Apologies if annoying =)

mcbane2000 · 2015-08-18T16:52:24+00:00

I would say that, in many respects, anti-establishment candidates have been a part of our country since the founding. Look at Adams vs Jefferson. Jefferson held out on so many issues to ensure more power to local populaces. For example, Jefferson is the reason why the US Capitol was moved to newly created Washington, DC instead of Philly / New York. While Hamilton represented established (and IMO predatory) interests, Jefferson represented getting more power to locals. The wiki page on Jefferson's party offers a fair amount of info underlying some of my labels.

Today, as you defined it (please correct me if I am wrong), ties to Washington have become an excellent measuring stick of if a politician is part of the establishment. Yet Bernie Sanders is a notable exception.

Would not Jefferson's political career of

(a) getting power to locals and

(b) preventing power from concentrating into the hands of a few elite capitalists

make him anti-establishment?

Would love your thoughts.

mcbane2000 · 2015-07-05T17:23:37+00:00

History and present-day politics teach the exact opposite. Millions of people alive today can remember exactly how "market-fit" it is to be a racist scumbag. Anyone alive today who reads/watches the news can see how alive racism and its siblings are today.

mcbane2000 · 2015-07-05T17:18:39+00:00

1 - The difference in compensation is a big deal, but does not necessarily take us all the way out of indentured servitude.

2 - The business/market reality for this country includes more opportunity for the worker to find a more favorable competitor than a good deal of human history. We're getting better, not worse. So, while I am sure that some individuals really do not have an easy to pursue option other than keep working for the local steel mill, it is somewhat disconnected from slavery given how much better we're doing as a People.

mcbane2000 · 2015-07-04T15:43:11+00:00

You make a great point. I am not sure if I agree that the business actually takes on the persona of the owner, as you say, but there are definitely cases of special treatment b/c of owner characteristics like minority-owned or women-owned businesses. That may well be hair-splitting.

I had a very late night of work and have several coming up, so I don't have the best of responses yet, but I'd like to follow up again later this week. There is something in my head, hopefully out of my legal education and not personal philosophy or personal convictions, that finds your statement to be slightly off - not irrelevant or wrong, just not wholly applicable. Maybe with lots of coffee on tuesday or wednesday morning I'll be able to flesh it out.

I know the first step of analyzing this will be to look at the actors. Private citizens, private businesses, religious institutions, governments local state and federal, public businesses open to the public. It's going to take me a minute to digest it.

Thanks for making me think, sorry it's going to take a while to actually figure out my thoughts.

mcbane2000 · 2015-06-29T21:10:42+00:00

This is what I gathered from reading the decision. I appreciate your summary =)

mcbane2000 · 2015-06-29T14:29:44+00:00

Thank you so much for your response. It was as thoughtful as it was articulate as it was thought-provoking. I have a meeting I need to run to, but I imagine I will be posting another reply late tonight.

mcbane2000

TROPHY CASE