Your turn. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.
Make a new
One was a generous offer from a major corporation, but he turned it down for a riskier, creative startup in NYC. Will be working in a Chelsea loft with a bunch of young hipsters on new energy efficiency designs. Lucky duck!
Relief - joy - pride - you must be feeling it all, and if I had to guess, I bet you haven't stopped smiling since you heard the news!
Elder Daughter has now been home four days, and already has two scheduled interviews next week with American Savings Bank and Hawaiian Airlines. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
"Cuomo Spanks Weiner"
I know it's juvenile, but so is our political system. The stars are aligned for the NYC mayoral race like never before.
Why would you run for mayor knowing this?
But yeah, he must be a serious power addict to put himself through this. I don't buy the "pressure from the Mrs." business, this dude always had his eyes on mayor.
I just think its a bit too easy to always think of power grabbing when considering why pols do something. Though that's true of far too many of them.
I wish him good luck. Plenty of Repubs have gotten second chances in politics. Even the far creepier Dick Nixon, who most people probably suspected was also a crook, got his second and even third chances.
Because some (most) politicians are Cretans, simply means, some are not.
Me? I wish him good luck. And, compared to what we've had for the past decade, and more, the Billionaire (Bloomberg) and the Billionaire's enabler (Schumer) I'd take Weiner right now
I still don't know why police zeroed in on Tamerlan and Ibragim. What does the DNA evidence show?
Linky directions; super easy and takes mere seconds:
My wife and I are pretty involved in our local schools and various community organizations so we know most of the kids on the list and their parents.
It was a pretty shocking thing to have happen our community, and it really caused a lot of people to look inward and, among other things, many started working on various programs to address racism.
Then, a few days ago, we found out the perpetrator was one of the boys on "the list."
Allegedly, he wanted to create a situation where he could transfer to a different school and skirt the California Interscholastic Federation rules regarding athletics eligibility following transfers.
Dumb damn teenagers. Yup, I guess I'm ageist.
Definitely not cool, but I don't know if I'd call it "dumb"...one could say the kid is smart enough to know how the real world works...gaming the system.
No, it was definitely dumb, and he's going to be kicking himself for ever thinking it was a good idea.
But in our world, in a way it is genius...evil genius, but still genius. Bankers game the system everyday...and as long as they don't get caught, or are "too big to prosecute", they come out ahead for it. The kid could just be a great observer of how things work, and has the necessary lack of scruples to try it.
Something those in the know already know...but it's refreshing to see a court of law acknowledge it. I wonder if this possibly could open any door in regards to challenging drunk driving laws that only look at BAC as opposed to, ya know, real evidence of an impairment.
From the opinion:
Under the MMMA, a qualifying registered patient is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the act, provided that the patient possesses an amount of usable marijuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces. The statutory definition of "medical use" includes internal possession. Therefore, the MMMA shields registered patients from prosecution for the internal possession of marijuana, provided that the patient does not otherwise possess more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana. MCL 333.26427(b), however, provides a list of activities that are not protected by the MMMA, which includes driving while under the influence. Engaging in those activities removes a registered patient from the MMMA's protection because the patient is no longer acting in accordance with the MMMA. The MMMA does not define what it means to be "under the influence," but the phrase clearly contemplates something more than having any amount of marijuana in one's system and requires some effect on the person. Thus, the MMMA's protections extend to a registered patient who internally possesses marijuana while operating a vehicle unless the patient is under the influence of marijuana. The immunity from prosecution provided under the MMMA to a registered patient who drives with indications of marijuana in his or her system but is not otherwise under the influence of marijuana inescapably conflicts with MCL 257.625(8), which prohibits a person from driving with any amount of marijuana in her or system. Under the MMMA, all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the MMMA do not apply to the medical use of marijuana. Consequently, MCL 257.625(8) does not apply to the medical use of marijuana. The Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that defendant could be convicted under MCL 257.625(8) without proof that he had acted in violation of the MMMA by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.
And the Court also suggested that the state legislature institute THC limits, akin to blood alcohol levels.
So no, you still can't go party on Saturday night and drive after toking up. And if you're speeding or driving too slowly or weaving, they can still nail you on a DUI.
As you well know, I'm not asking for a license to drive impaired for anybody...I'm asking for arbitrary THC (and BAC) limits not to automatically equal impairment, because in the non-legal world they don't.
If so, like I said, good precedent.
I'm on the hopium on BAC, I know, but I have a dream that one day people will be judged by their actions and on the contents of their character, not the contents of their breath/blood/piss.
As the great Bill Cosby said about cocaine (yes, I know we're talking about pot):
I said to a guy, "Tell me, what is it about cocaine that makes it so wonderful," and he said, "Because it intensifies your personality." I said, "Yes, but what if you're an a$$hole?"
Granted many if not most DUI arrests and prosecutions involve reckless driving and/or other crimes, and I suppose it is reasonable to treat intoxicant level in the bloodstream as an aggravating factor in those cases...I could live with that. I don't think it reasonable for intoxicant levels alone to be grounds for arrest and/or prosecution.
Don't you think there has to be some bright line rule as to what is "under the influence" (such as BAC) precisely because everyone is different? It would be a nightmare if the police had to figure out "Are you really sober enough to be driving, even though your BAC is .10"? (chances are, no, you are not, even though YOU may feel like you are).
Should we do away with other bright line laws? Let 10 year olds drive cars, get married, sign contracts? Should we allow 5 year olds to vote? Or do you not see a societal good that comes from having a rule, albeit to you, an arbitrary one?
Then it would be all right.
He feels anguish
I feel better.
This, of course, only complicates matters for her back on the Left Coast, where she's currently on probation after multiple run-ins with the law, including a pending DUI case against her, in which she allegedly hit an L.A. Sheriff's Dept. cruiser last year in West Hollywood.
It's a b*tch when self-entitlement and reality have a head-on collision.