The unimportant news thread

Started by Lethevich, March 05, 2008, 07:14:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Karl Henning

Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2014, 07:22:02 AM
I have to say this is not the 50s anymore.  You can't just let your children roam free.  It's not safe.  The stupid article tries to argue that crime rate is way down... not in SC.  This took place in SC, where the crime rate is very high. 

That blogger petulantly writes "her mother wanted to let her play outside rather than sit inside a stuffy restaurant all day."

Clearly the mother has a challenge with arranging daycare for the daughter;  but neither "take your daughter to McDonald's while you work your shift there," nor leave the child unsupervised in a park, is a responsible parental decision.

I don't think that's a Palmetto State-specific matter.  There's a McDonald's on Tremont Street;  no mother working there should just leave her child roam even around the Boston Common, which is about as friendly a public park as one could wish.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Karl Henning

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 07:26:32 AM
It is not a crime to be poor and a single mother

Yes, but what do you advise?  No action?
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

EigenUser

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 07:26:32 AM
this is not an area for the criminal justice system.  It is not a crime to be poor and a single mother

*sigh*

No, absolutely not. However, being a single mother isn't some sort of unavoidable disability, either. Excuse my conservative side for showing, but people need to be more responsible here. If you can't afford daycare, then I personally don't find it responsible to have a child in the first place.

Like DavidW said, this isn't the 50's anymore. It's really a shame that it isn't any longer safe (for whatever reasons). I read the article, though, and I did think that they were far too harsh with her. It wasn't a major case of neglect -- just poor judgement, something that falls upon all parents at times.
Beethoven's Op. 133 -- A fugue so bad that even Beethoven himself called it "Grosse".

bwv 1080

#1183
Quote from: karlhenning on July 25, 2014, 07:56:47 AM
Yes, but what do you advise?  No action?

yes, as I cannot think of realistic option that would improve her situation

BTW she is back at work
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/07/24/debra-harrell-back-on-her-job-at-mcdonalds-lawyer-says/

bwv 1080

Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2014, 07:22:02 AM
I have to say this is not the 50s anymore.  You can't just let your children roam free.  It's not safe.  The stupid article tries to argue that crime rate is way down... not in SC.  This took place in SC, where the crime rate is very high.

Outside of some particular neighborhoods things are as safe as the 50s, its neither as dangerous today as parents fed on histrionic media reports of child abductors believe nor were the 50s as safe as everyone thinks they were.  If people really wanted to keep kids safe they would ban private swimming pools (not proposing this, but they are by far the greatest risk to kids) which would save far more children than not letting them run around a park

Ken B

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 07:26:32 AM
this is not an area for the criminal justice system
Key point. Let's imagine we all agree that what the mother did was undesirable. (I am not saying we all do, or should, just for the sake of argument). Is jail the right approach? Putting the kid in custody away from her family?

How about the mother who was arrested for leaving her 11 year old sitting in the car for 5 minutes while she went into a store? Aside from the transparent unhelpfulness here, it is very arbitrary. Why is a passing cop a better judge than a parent of how responsible her 11 year old is?


bwv 1080

American Shale Boom Imperils 30 Million European Jobs
The shale revolution has been a uniquely American phenomenon, and that's provided the U.S. with a new competitive advantage: cheap gas. Thanks to fracking, America is suddenly flush with natural gas, as well as a burgeoning supply of natural gas liquids (an important chemical feedstock and natural gas drilling byproduct). That's attracting the interest of petrochemical companies around the world, and especially in Europe, where green opposition to fracking has prevented industry from reaping similar benefits. The chief economist of the International Energy Agency warned that this development is putting tens of millions of European jobs at risk, Bloomberg reports:

Manufacturers of petrochemicals, aluminum, fertilizers and plastics are leaving Europe to take advantage of booming U.S. production of natural gas from shale rock formations, Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based adviser to 29 nations, said at a conference in London today.

"Many petrochemicals companies in central Europe are moving out," Birol said. "Thirty million jobs are in danger."

Europe's loss is America's gain. The continent's policymakers might want to take a closer look at fracking; it would not only support industry, but it would also help reduce dependence on imports of Russian natural gas.

Published on July 18, 2014 11:47 am
http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/07/18/american-shale-boom-imperils-30-million-european-jobs/

Ken B

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
American Shale Boom Imperils 30 Million European Jobs
The shale revolution has been a uniquely American phenomenon, and that's provided the U.S. with a new competitive advantage: cheap gas. Thanks to fracking, America is suddenly flush with natural gas, as well as a burgeoning supply of natural gas liquids (an important chemical feedstock and natural gas drilling byproduct). That's attracting the interest of petrochemical companies around the world, and especially in Europe, where green opposition to fracking has prevented industry from reaping similar benefits. The chief economist of the International Energy Agency warned that this development is putting tens of millions of European jobs at risk, Bloomberg reports:

Manufacturers of petrochemicals, aluminum, fertilizers and plastics are leaving Europe to take advantage of booming U.S. production of natural gas from shale rock formations, Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based adviser to 29 nations, said at a conference in London today.

"Many petrochemicals companies in central Europe are moving out," Birol said. "Thirty million jobs are in danger."

Europe's loss is America's gain. The continent's policymakers might want to take a closer look at fracking; it would not only support industry, but it would also help reduce dependence on imports of Russian natural gas.

Published on July 18, 2014 11:47 am
http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/07/18/american-shale-boom-imperils-30-million-european-jobs/
Part of a general economic rule: the prejudice of others confers competitive advantage.

Karl Henning

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 08:15:38 AM
Outside of some particular neighborhoods things are as safe as the 50s, its neither as dangerous today as parents fed on histrionic media reports of child abductors believe nor were the 50s as safe as everyone thinks they were.  If people really wanted to keep kids safe they would ban private swimming pools (not proposing this, but they are by far the greatest risk to kids) which would save far more children than not letting them run around a park

I suppose that, as abduction is not the only possible danger, we disagree that leaving a child unsupervised in a park is "reasonably safe."

I'm glad she's back to work.
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Ken B

Another new topic. Multiple choice quiz. Here is the situation.
Say you are getting a divorce. A judge has to decide child custody. The judge is having an affair with your wife during the whole time. You find out and complain. Does the court system

a) chastise the judge and order a new hearing
b) allow an appeal
c) respond with "where is YOUR law degree sucker, you're not part of the guild, get out of my face you civvie street loser!"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/6th_circuit_says_man_cant_sue_judge_who_had_affair_with_his_wife_during_chi


kishnevi

Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
Another new topic. Multiple choice quiz. Here is the situation.
Say you are getting a divorce. A judge has to decide child custody. The judge is having an affair with your wife during the whole time. You find out and complain. Does the court system

a) chastise the judge and order a new hearing
b) allow an appeal
c) respond with "where is YOUR law degree sucker, you're not part of the guild, get out of my face you civvie street loser!"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/6th_circuit_says_man_cant_sue_judge_who_had_affair_with_his_wife_during_chi

Actually a very correct decision.   The appropriate course is entirely a state matter.  Federal courts do not remove state judges from the bench and do not decide child custody matters.  A state retrial and state discipline of the judge is all that is required here.

And my mother let me go wherever I wanted on my own, once she was sure I could cross the street on my own.  Which stage I reached at about the age of 9.

Ken B

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2014, 01:42:16 PM
Actually a very correct decision.   The appropriate course is entirely a state matter.  Federal courts do not remove state judges from the bench and do not decide child custody matters.  A state retrial and state discipline of the judge is all that is required here.

And my mother let me go wherever I wanted on my own, once she was sure I could cross the street on my own.  Which stage I reached at about the age of 9.
This was not as far as I can see was not decided on federalism grounds. Whether federal courts cannot cannot remove the state judge is irrelevant question at hand. It's absurd to argue that there was no denial of due process here, since due process involves an impartial disinterested judge. Instead what we have is the court, comprised of lawyers, that judges, lawyers, even when deliberately vitiating the due process rights of complainants or defendants have immunity regardless.

My cohort from school pretty was much free range by the age of nine or 10. Number of fatalities rapes or serious accidents: zero. Although a few of my friends did grow up to be lawyers, so there's that.

kishnevi

Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 02:04:24 PM
This was not as far as I can see was not decided on federalism grounds. Whether federal courts cannot cannot remove the state judge is irrelevant question at hand. It's absurd to argue that there was no denial of due process here, since due process involves an impartial disinterested judge. Instead what we have is the court, comprised of lawyers, that judges, lawyers, even when deliberately vitiating the due process rights of complainants or defendants have immunity regardless.

My cohort from school pretty was much free range by the age of nine or 10. Number of fatalities rapes or serious accidents: zero. Although a few of my friends did grow up to be lawyers, so there's that.
My underlying point is that his due process rights were not violated.  The appropriate remedies lie with the state court and are easily available:  remove the judge and retry the disputed issues.  This is not a case of lawyers protecting their own.  This is a case of judges refusing to allow a plaintiff to abuse the system.
BTW (full disclosure) I have not practiced law for a number of years but I am a lawyer and member of the Florida Bar.

Ken B

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2014, 04:15:52 PM
My underlying point is that his due process rights were not violated.  The appropriate remedies lie with the state court and are easily available:  remove the judge and retry the disputed issues.  This is not a case of lawyers protecting their own.  This is a case of judges refusing to allow a plaintiff to abuse the system.
BTW (full disclosure) I have not practiced law for a number of years but I am a lawyer and member of the Florida Bar.
Question. Had this been a juror in a civil suit against his ex-wife, would the court have refused to even allow the case to be heard? Had he been an arbiter in a private arbitration firm the couple had agreed to use, would the court have refused to allow the case to even be heard?
These are rhetorical questions.

kishnevi

Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 06:10:34 PM
Question. Had this been a juror in a civil suit against his ex-wife, would the court have refused to even allow the case to be heard? Had he been an arbiter in a private arbitration firm the couple had agreed to use, would the court have refused to allow the case to even be heard?
These are rhetorical questions.
To answer them nonrhetorically,  the answer would be yes, and for exactly the same reasons as applied to the judge. 

Ken B

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2014, 07:44:17 PM
To answer them nonrhetorically,  the answer would be yes, and for exactly the same reasons as applied to the judge.
The judgement was based on judicial immunity. Non-judges enjoy that?

An arbiter can be sued for conflict of interest or fraud, no? In my hypothetical we have at least one of those, probably both. People get sued for those all the time, no?

kishnevi

Quote from: Ken B on July 25, 2014, 07:58:52 PM
The judgement was based on judicial immunity. Non-judges enjoy that?

An arbiter can be sued for conflict of interest or fraud, no? In my hypothetical we have at least one of those, probably both. People get sued for those all the time, no?
People get sued all the time,  but that does not mean that a suit is appropriate.   In your hypo the correct procedure would be to sue to set aside the initial decision, not sue for damages.
Judicial immunity is fundamental to how the courts operate, whether you like it or not.  Without it, judges would be open to suits by digruntled litigants for any reason.

jochanaan

Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 25, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
American Shale Boom Imperils 30 Million European Jobs...
And that's not all it imperils!  That stuff is much, much dirtier than regular crude oil, and has already caused an environmental disaster in northern Alberta province, Canada. :P
Imagination + discipline = creativity

bwv 1080

Quote from: jochanaan on July 27, 2014, 09:07:31 PM
And that's not all it imperils!  That stuff is much, much dirtier than regular crude oil, and has already caused an environmental disaster in northern Alberta province, Canada. :P

no, you are thinking of oil sands which are mined.  This is referring to shale formations that are miles underground and extracted through hydraulic fracturing (fracking)

Jo498

Wasn't there news a few weeks ago that for one of the major prospective shale fields (in California?) the viable yields had been overestimated by a factor of 20?

There is only one way out of the energy crisis: use less (FAR less, the US uses five times the world average, Europe about three times) and get renewable (sun, wind etc.) going ASAP.
Europe is doing slightly better, but no way good enough; there could VERY dire times only a decade or two ahead.
Tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre.
- Blaise Pascal