Want some real truth? Here it is. Facebook will not let us post this on their site (It violates their community standards??!!!) but I will let you see it. GO HERE.
Sommer drew the ire of Georgetown University's Hoya Newspaper because she tells the truth about the sacred cow of higher ed. She debunks the theory of the wage gap. Watch the video, then you can argue with me below. I think this is the best debunking of "liberal./progressive think" that I have seen.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Monday, November 28, 2011
Kid Tweets That She Muscled Governor Brownback. Should She Be Made To Apologize? I Say YES!
Here is the story from the Associate Press:
"A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal's demand that she apologize.
Emma Sullivan (twitter@emmakat988) told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's not sorry and an apology letter wouldn't be sincere.
The Shawnee Mission East senior was in Topeka last week when she sent a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback. It read: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person."
She actually made no such comment..."
Thereafter Brownback's Media hound found the tweet while searching the Governor's name. When she read the tweet, she contacted the school. The Principal got a call from the Governor's office, and had heart palpitations. He ordered the 18 year old woman to write an apology to help him with "damage control."
Our Question is: Should Ms. Sullivan apologize and for what should she apologize?
The kid claims to be liberal. Okay. She also claims not to like Governor Brownback. Okay again. She has decided not to write the apology...and every liberal and libertarian it seems supports her decision... NOT ME.
I am not being contrarian, I just think that there are some serious issues here that may not be affected by this young woman's right to free speech.
1. She was at a school function, representing her High School.
2. She lied, she said she told Brownback off, in person.
3. She tweeted, against the rules of the school at a time she was in class.
Now I want to make the following clear. If she had tweeted, on her personal twitter account at 3:30PM that she saw Brownback and wished she had told him he sucked, well then no problem.
That isn't what happened here. Here she was invited to meet with the Governor of her state.Not because she was someone who the governor would normally meet with, but because she was chosen by her school to go. While she was in the Governor's home or office, she took out her cellphone, and reported she told the man "He sucked" (Skip the fact that the statement is both juvenile and vulgar) in person. That was both against the rules about texting in class, AND, it was a lie.
Now imagine if she had said something dumber like she had assaulted or God forbid shot the man? Would that be okay?? What First Amendment line had been crossed? Isn't that still political speech? She is still saying she doesn't like the man. She is still lying. She would still be doing it on school time.
No, I don't agree that she is putting forth her opinion. I think she was going for a laugh, which is also okay as far as it goes, but the truth is, it was disrespectful not of Brownback (after all it goes with the territory of being a politician) but of the Office of the Governor. It was also a disrespect of her position as a campus leader of her school and all the people in it, including the few that may like the Governor, AND, she broke her school texting rule.
Now that doesn't mean she should have written a mea cupla, nor promise to help Brownback win his next campaign. It does mean that this college bound woman should show some understanding that: 1. The Governor of your state deserves your respect as the leader of the state and the choice of the people of your state; 2. You broke school rules and you are sorry for that, and; 3. That as a school leader, she has an obligation to represent her student body by asking smart questions, reporting accurately what was said and if she disagreed she had the right to state an opinion that criticized Brownback.
I am not asking her to agree with Brownback, but respect for our institutions is an important thing for schools to teach. The proper way to engage in debate is an important thing for leaders to learn. (Remember when some wingnut congressman yelled out at Obama during his State of the Union "you're a liar"? that kind of comment does not spur on the debate. It doesn't bring the other side into understanding your grievances. Saying Brownback "sucks" is just juvenile and frankly makes me think Ms. Sullivan is stupid. All I know is, she is entitled to an opinion, but you don't have the right to come into my house and crap on my carpet. Verbally, that is what she did. Her principal is right to demand an APPROPRIATE Apology. Not one that necessarily makes the Governor or his people happy, but one that indicates that the student understands where she went wrong.
"A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal's demand that she apologize.
Emma Sullivan (twitter@emmakat988) told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's not sorry and an apology letter wouldn't be sincere.
The Shawnee Mission East senior was in Topeka last week when she sent a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback. It read: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person."
She actually made no such comment..."
Thereafter Brownback's Media hound found the tweet while searching the Governor's name. When she read the tweet, she contacted the school. The Principal got a call from the Governor's office, and had heart palpitations. He ordered the 18 year old woman to write an apology to help him with "damage control."
Our Question is: Should Ms. Sullivan apologize and for what should she apologize?
The kid claims to be liberal. Okay. She also claims not to like Governor Brownback. Okay again. She has decided not to write the apology...and every liberal and libertarian it seems supports her decision... NOT ME.
I am not being contrarian, I just think that there are some serious issues here that may not be affected by this young woman's right to free speech.
1. She was at a school function, representing her High School.
2. She lied, she said she told Brownback off, in person.
3. She tweeted, against the rules of the school at a time she was in class.
Now I want to make the following clear. If she had tweeted, on her personal twitter account at 3:30PM that she saw Brownback and wished she had told him he sucked, well then no problem.
That isn't what happened here. Here she was invited to meet with the Governor of her state.Not because she was someone who the governor would normally meet with, but because she was chosen by her school to go. While she was in the Governor's home or office, she took out her cellphone, and reported she told the man "He sucked" (Skip the fact that the statement is both juvenile and vulgar) in person. That was both against the rules about texting in class, AND, it was a lie.
Now imagine if she had said something dumber like she had assaulted or God forbid shot the man? Would that be okay?? What First Amendment line had been crossed? Isn't that still political speech? She is still saying she doesn't like the man. She is still lying. She would still be doing it on school time.
No, I don't agree that she is putting forth her opinion. I think she was going for a laugh, which is also okay as far as it goes, but the truth is, it was disrespectful not of Brownback (after all it goes with the territory of being a politician) but of the Office of the Governor. It was also a disrespect of her position as a campus leader of her school and all the people in it, including the few that may like the Governor, AND, she broke her school texting rule.
Now that doesn't mean she should have written a mea cupla, nor promise to help Brownback win his next campaign. It does mean that this college bound woman should show some understanding that: 1. The Governor of your state deserves your respect as the leader of the state and the choice of the people of your state; 2. You broke school rules and you are sorry for that, and; 3. That as a school leader, she has an obligation to represent her student body by asking smart questions, reporting accurately what was said and if she disagreed she had the right to state an opinion that criticized Brownback.
I am not asking her to agree with Brownback, but respect for our institutions is an important thing for schools to teach. The proper way to engage in debate is an important thing for leaders to learn. (Remember when some wingnut congressman yelled out at Obama during his State of the Union "you're a liar"? that kind of comment does not spur on the debate. It doesn't bring the other side into understanding your grievances. Saying Brownback "sucks" is just juvenile and frankly makes me think Ms. Sullivan is stupid. All I know is, she is entitled to an opinion, but you don't have the right to come into my house and crap on my carpet. Verbally, that is what she did. Her principal is right to demand an APPROPRIATE Apology. Not one that necessarily makes the Governor or his people happy, but one that indicates that the student understands where she went wrong.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
A Strong Defense of Joe Paterno: Why Paterno Was Morally & Ethically Right Not To Go Further in The Sandusky Sex Abuse Case
In the comments section of an article in an SI online blog post by Joe Posnanski, Columbia Univ. Adjunct Professor Scott Semer assails Joe Paterno for not taking greater actions in the Jerry Sandusky case (Link is to the actual Grand Jury Report. It is not for the squeamish.)
Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.
I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.
After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."
Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.
Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.
Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)
Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.
Semer rests his opinions as a lawyer and an Adjunct Professor of Transactional Law at Columbia Univ. in NYC. He takes what I believe is the majority opinion as to Coach Paterno's decisions which is that he did the least he could do to cover himself but owed a moral duty to do more.
I too am an attorney, a criminal defense lawyer, a former special prosecutor, and an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy, and as to his judgment of Paterno I completely disagree with Professor Semer. I think Paterno did what was both morally and legally correct.
After contacting his chain of command superiors, he let them do their jobs. He knew there was a campus police force that investigates ( and prosecutes ) crimes on campus. He took whatever information he had to the head of his department. He took it to the person who is, for all intents and purposes, the police commissioner of a 256 person police force which according to the Campus website says: "(The University Police are) governed by a state statute that gives our officers the same authority as municipal police officers."
Paterno didn't just give his information to a superior, he turned it over to the highest ranking official in that police department. That man, PSU's VP of Business called in the ACTUAL WITNESS and spoke to him. In other words Paterno could see an investigation.
Suggesting Paterno should have then done more is both ridiculous and dangerous. Paterno should not have approached Sandusky,for fear he tip him off to the investigation; he should not have called University police after nothing happened because 1. A police department has a right to set its policing priorities. The Courts have consistently held that: it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
2. Once he reported the incident (and not having any information as to the progress of any investigation or the results thereof) Paterno had no other action he could reasonably take. If he pressed further or went public he risked opening himself and the University up to a law suit from Sandusky for libel , and that is assuming Paterno thought the grad assistant was both reliable and accurate. By that person's own admission he was distraught. He would be accused of trying to eliminate a potential competitor for his job. He would also call into question the safety of the campus and without any proof of his own on the allegations of another. Pattern is not a witness and arguably isn't even an "outcry witness." ( an outcry witness is one who verifies that another witness was so distraught that what they are saying must be true. To be an outcry witness the original witness must make his statement to you first and within a few minutes top hours after witnessing the incident. More than a couple of hours usually spoils the outcry's reliability. It gives the maker too much time to make up the testimony)
3. Assuming Paterno did go to the Chief of Police for the Penn State police department, the person under Gary Schultz, would that not be an act of insubordination? What if he were wrong? He would lose a long time friend and PSU family member. He would hurt alums, recruits and his teams. His fellow coaches could not trust him, all of this without being an actual witness to anything. Taking one man's word against anothers.
Noone wants to see kids hurt, and I believe Coach Paterno heads that list. People suggesting he needed to do more either don't understand the law of criminal investigation, or have a different ax to grind ( like the head of the PA State Police who is grand standing in saying people have a greater responsibility than to report crime to the local Authority. He would be the first guy to defend a civil rights suit against his agency, (brought by a crime victim claiming that the failure to arrest caused her injuries) by invoking the Warren case.)
Paterno handled this exactly as he should have and to suggest otherwise is to use 20/20 hindsight to judge what was a fluid real time situation. I guess the path is always clear for the Monday Morning Quarterback.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Happy Fourth of July 2011
Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.
Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.
In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.
For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."
Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.
I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.
Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!
Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.
In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.
The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.
Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.
Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.
Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.
In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.
For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."
Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.
I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.
Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!
Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.
In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.
The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.
Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.
Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Stuff Even I Can't Make Up: Blabbing Bimbos, USHLS Keep Cartoons Characters Safe From Child Sex Abuse, Moonlighting Is Okay for Judges As Long As They Remain Unfunny and Surprise! Someone Got Angry in an Anger Management Class..
For a little light reading, I thought I would take you for a short tour of what I found funny (that's to read funny strange not funny HA HA! I will admit there is some overlap however)
1. For the last time People, If you are going to "Kiss and Tell" DON"T DO IT ON THE INTERNET!!!
Exhibit One: A woman fighting for child support admits on Facebook that her child is not her husband's.
To quote our friends at ABA Journal News "...one mom posted photos of her children during a custody battle, eliciting a comment from a friend that they didn't look much like her husband. Her response: That's because they're not his." That was smart...
Exhibit Two: Another Duke University Sex Scandal.
An apparently Jock sniffing College Co-ed from Duke University decided it would be a cute idea to make a "Power Point Presentation" of her sexual hi-jinx while an undergrad at Duke University. She ranked 13 lovers, all jocks (many Lacrosse players btw) and was very "explicit" in her descriptions of the guys and the activities she and they engaged in. She sent it by e-mail to three friends and "Surprise" it got sent all over the net!!!
(Yeah like she didn't mean to leak it so that she would get the obligatory book opportunity and Playboy spread.)
I think the kids at Duke may have too much time on their hands. How in the hell do they keep getting that US News and World Report Ranking given that they can't seem to shut up??? What ever happened to discretion being the better part of Valor?? In the interest of truth in journalism, I admit, I could have been subject number 12... okay maybe not but a guy can dream can't he?? (You can read the whole report and see the pictures with blackened out faces here)
2. Your United States Bureau of Homeland Security: Keeping "Toon Town" Safe for Cartoon Kids. Now if they could only protect America.
Radley Balko of the "Agitator", one of my favorite bloggers, has put the only headline I could think of on a case of Simpson cartoon characters in sexual positions causing a conviction for Possession of Child Pornography (yeah you read that right.) In his blog post
I read the press release from the US Justice Dept. trying to decipher the real reason they brought this prosecution... If it weren't so true of the way some of these folks think, I'd have laughed. Here is the Money Quote: “We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”
I am so very happy no moreTOON TOWN characters will be sexually exploited for someone's perverse sexual gratification, now could you use some of these funds you WASTED on this prosecution to freaking solve a crime in MY HOMELAND?? You know, a real crime not a cartoon crime... Maybe find some guy like, oh I don't know... OSAMA BIN LADENmaybe??? Where is Bob Hoskins when he is really needed
While on this same topic, If you happen to be a boss (say the Editor of "Innovation" at the Chicago Tribune, maybe it is not a good idea to use company e-mail to distribute a link to a website that has a fake newscast showing women in various stages of inebriation and undress... I'm just sayin'.
In this time of political correctness, all employers need to be more "sensitive", still I can't help feeling like this guy would still have a job if he wasn't always sending these kind of weird things out.
Hattip: NY TIMES
3. Judges in NY have not received a raise (Not even cost of living) in almost two decades. That is not only inconceivable but downright unfair to them and to the citizens (A well funded judiciary is essential to a nation of laws.) So to fix the problem, we gave them a raise right? NOOOOOO!
We will now allow them to "Moonlight". I can see it now:
Attorney: I have another witness your Honor
Judge: I'm sorry, I have to give the Katz kid a piano lesson at 5:15 on the dot. Otherwise I won't be able to tutor the Smith kid in Math at 6:30. Oh by the way, your decision on that stay of the death penalty? I won't have it done till tomorrow afternoon...
Attorney: Uh Your Honor, my client is due to be executed at 12AM tonight...
Judge: Hmmm well maybe if I skip dinner I can finish it by 11:45PM.
Oh yeah it seems that one job a judge can not have is doing "stand up" comedy... Has anyone read some of the decisions they write... KIDDING IT WAS A JOKE... REALLY... :)
Hattip: ABA Journal News Today.
4. From the Bureau of "I Don't Think She Gets It" comes this little ditty "Woman Stabs Another Attendee at Anger Management Class"
That's right, Faribah Maradiaga 19, stabbed a fellow classmate in her anger management class.
Wanna know what they were arguing about??
Men?
Kids?
Obamacare?
Here is your money quote: "A dispute over the value of a video on anger management being shown to the class sparked a war of words..." I guess that video wasn't as good as they thought it might be.
Okay and for those of you who stuck around this long, My old blogger friend Ken Lammers who was a defense attorney and is now a prosecutor (KENNY KENNY KENNY) has been touted as one of the "Hot Law Enforcement Types."
Oh yeah, If you liked this post, let me know. Leave a note on here or on Facebook.
And on a more serious note, if You or someone you know has been accused of Assault, Child Pornography Possession, or Sexual Harassment at work or at school, it is no laughing matter. It is also nothing to handle without the help of a good lawyer. I am more than willing to speak to anybody who needs help with this or any myriad of legal problems. You can reach me here
1. For the last time People, If you are going to "Kiss and Tell" DON"T DO IT ON THE INTERNET!!!
Exhibit One: A woman fighting for child support admits on Facebook that her child is not her husband's.
To quote our friends at ABA Journal News "...one mom posted photos of her children during a custody battle, eliciting a comment from a friend that they didn't look much like her husband. Her response: That's because they're not his." That was smart...
Exhibit Two: Another Duke University Sex Scandal.
An apparently Jock sniffing College Co-ed from Duke University decided it would be a cute idea to make a "Power Point Presentation" of her sexual hi-jinx while an undergrad at Duke University. She ranked 13 lovers, all jocks (many Lacrosse players btw) and was very "explicit" in her descriptions of the guys and the activities she and they engaged in. She sent it by e-mail to three friends and "Surprise" it got sent all over the net!!!
(Yeah like she didn't mean to leak it so that she would get the obligatory book opportunity and Playboy spread.)
I think the kids at Duke may have too much time on their hands. How in the hell do they keep getting that US News and World Report Ranking given that they can't seem to shut up??? What ever happened to discretion being the better part of Valor?? In the interest of truth in journalism, I admit, I could have been subject number 12... okay maybe not but a guy can dream can't he?? (You can read the whole report and see the pictures with blackened out faces here)
2. Your United States Bureau of Homeland Security: Keeping "Toon Town" Safe for Cartoon Kids. Now if they could only protect America.
Radley Balko of the "Agitator", one of my favorite bloggers, has put the only headline I could think of on a case of Simpson cartoon characters in sexual positions causing a conviction for Possession of Child Pornography (yeah you read that right.) In his blog post
Worst. Prosecution. Ever.Radley describes a prosecution where the only "Images" were cartoon characters... Better get rid of any "Fritz the Cat" videos you downloaded.
I read the press release from the US Justice Dept. trying to decipher the real reason they brought this prosecution... If it weren't so true of the way some of these folks think, I'd have laughed. Here is the Money Quote: “We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”
I am so very happy no moreTOON TOWN characters will be sexually exploited for someone's perverse sexual gratification, now could you use some of these funds you WASTED on this prosecution to freaking solve a crime in MY HOMELAND?? You know, a real crime not a cartoon crime... Maybe find some guy like, oh I don't know... OSAMA BIN LADENmaybe??? Where is Bob Hoskins when he is really needed
While on this same topic, If you happen to be a boss (say the Editor of "Innovation" at the Chicago Tribune, maybe it is not a good idea to use company e-mail to distribute a link to a website that has a fake newscast showing women in various stages of inebriation and undress... I'm just sayin'.
In this time of political correctness, all employers need to be more "sensitive", still I can't help feeling like this guy would still have a job if he wasn't always sending these kind of weird things out.
Hattip: NY TIMES
3. Judges in NY have not received a raise (Not even cost of living) in almost two decades. That is not only inconceivable but downright unfair to them and to the citizens (A well funded judiciary is essential to a nation of laws.) So to fix the problem, we gave them a raise right? NOOOOOO!
We will now allow them to "Moonlight". I can see it now:
Attorney: I have another witness your Honor
Judge: I'm sorry, I have to give the Katz kid a piano lesson at 5:15 on the dot. Otherwise I won't be able to tutor the Smith kid in Math at 6:30. Oh by the way, your decision on that stay of the death penalty? I won't have it done till tomorrow afternoon...
Attorney: Uh Your Honor, my client is due to be executed at 12AM tonight...
Judge: Hmmm well maybe if I skip dinner I can finish it by 11:45PM.
Oh yeah it seems that one job a judge can not have is doing "stand up" comedy... Has anyone read some of the decisions they write... KIDDING IT WAS A JOKE... REALLY... :)
Hattip: ABA Journal News Today.
4. From the Bureau of "I Don't Think She Gets It" comes this little ditty "Woman Stabs Another Attendee at Anger Management Class"
That's right, Faribah Maradiaga 19, stabbed a fellow classmate in her anger management class.
Wanna know what they were arguing about??
Men?
Kids?
Obamacare?
Here is your money quote: "A dispute over the value of a video on anger management being shown to the class sparked a war of words..." I guess that video wasn't as good as they thought it might be.
Okay and for those of you who stuck around this long, My old blogger friend Ken Lammers who was a defense attorney and is now a prosecutor (KENNY KENNY KENNY) has been touted as one of the "Hot Law Enforcement Types."
Oh yeah, If you liked this post, let me know. Leave a note on here or on Facebook.
And on a more serious note, if You or someone you know has been accused of Assault, Child Pornography Possession, or Sexual Harassment at work or at school, it is no laughing matter. It is also nothing to handle without the help of a good lawyer. I am more than willing to speak to anybody who needs help with this or any myriad of legal problems. You can reach me here
Monday, April 19, 2010
U.S. News & World Report Law School Rankings Shocker: Hofstra Law School Jumps 14 spots.
US News & World Reports Law School Rankings came out last week and my Alma Mater Hofstra University School of Law just jumped Fourteen (14)points!
Just two years ago, Hofstra did not even qualify as a tier 1 school. Last year it squeaked in at number 99 but this year it establishes itself as a school on the rise.
As an Alum I am of course very proud of both the faculty and staff as well as the students who made this happen. I am not sure of the efficacy of a law school ranking system to begin with, but if you are going to have one, then I guess it is better to be in the top tier than not.
My fear is that the areas that the USNWR survey thinks are important may become over pronounced and take from the school the things that make it relevant to its students.
For example, Hofstra used to bring in a lot of returning students and students that had little or no intention of practicing law once they got their degrees. That number has been reduced to a large extent because of the shear cost of getting a degree these days. Those returning students however provided a real lesson in perseverance in their younger classmates. Their real life lessons made our classes more "interesting" and frankly less obtuse. If this were to be diminished in search of higher ranked applicants and at the expense of the small class sizes, then I would think that while the ranking would be better, the educational experience would be far lessened.
I am sure that the clinic program and trial program (which US News does not rank highly but whose students regularly win trial competitions against those schools that are well rated in these areas) remain a vital part of the curricular and will as the school's reputation grows become a source of US News pride as well.
For those of you who are thinking about law school, I highly recommend Hofstra School of law. Its proximity to both the hub of Long Island (Nassau County) legal practice and that of NYC, makes it an attractive place to go to school and increases the chance of finding a job Tenfold.
Just two years ago, Hofstra did not even qualify as a tier 1 school. Last year it squeaked in at number 99 but this year it establishes itself as a school on the rise.
As an Alum I am of course very proud of both the faculty and staff as well as the students who made this happen. I am not sure of the efficacy of a law school ranking system to begin with, but if you are going to have one, then I guess it is better to be in the top tier than not.
My fear is that the areas that the USNWR survey thinks are important may become over pronounced and take from the school the things that make it relevant to its students.
For example, Hofstra used to bring in a lot of returning students and students that had little or no intention of practicing law once they got their degrees. That number has been reduced to a large extent because of the shear cost of getting a degree these days. Those returning students however provided a real lesson in perseverance in their younger classmates. Their real life lessons made our classes more "interesting" and frankly less obtuse. If this were to be diminished in search of higher ranked applicants and at the expense of the small class sizes, then I would think that while the ranking would be better, the educational experience would be far lessened.
I am sure that the clinic program and trial program (which US News does not rank highly but whose students regularly win trial competitions against those schools that are well rated in these areas) remain a vital part of the curricular and will as the school's reputation grows become a source of US News pride as well.
For those of you who are thinking about law school, I highly recommend Hofstra School of law. Its proximity to both the hub of Long Island (Nassau County) legal practice and that of NYC, makes it an attractive place to go to school and increases the chance of finding a job Tenfold.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Understanding Internships: Are You An Intern or a Slave?
The summer internships are on their way. For many High School, College and even Grad Students, the economy is dictating that, in highly sought after opportunities, payment of any kind may be discretionary.
In a NY Times piece last week Reporter Steve Greenhouse described how many young people are not being treated fairly by employers who either paid them below minimum wage, or below scale and called the experience an "Internship."
I spent most of my law school career in unpaid or stipended (which is to say low paying) internships. I worked for government entities and learned a lot. I received hands on opportunities and I had a pretty prestigious resume line for the trouble. Now I was fortunate, my parents by this point in our lives were comfortable enough to allow me to take on these experiences and provided money for me to live on. Many however are not so lucky. Moreover, many students are getting internships that teach them nothing and take the job of other employees all for the aid to the employers profit margin.
Believe it or not, the government actually has a set of guidelines that one may use to determine if their unpaid internship is in fact an internship or a indentured servitude.
Essentially, an internship must have the following six requirements to be able to be unpaid:
In my office, we try to adhere to these six requirements strictly. It is impossible to work in a law office without there being some profit to our firm or clients, and it is impossible to work if people do not file. Heck even I file. However our intern program (which I have run off and on for 25 years now) has the qualities required.
For example, the interns work a part-time schedule usually 3 eight hour days unless we are in a trial. They get hands on learning under the watchful eye of a licensed attorney they participate in conferences, meet clients and visit them at the jail (when the client is incarcerated.) They go to court and work on briefs and articles as if they were working for a law review.
They go to meals and bar events with us and take their meals during the work day with the attorney to whom they are assigned.
Their work is usually not billed to the client (unless their name is on it such as on a brief) and they journal their experiences so that we may answer any unasked questions they may have. They have no guarantee of employment however we often do hire those that have interned for us.
If a kid is spending more than an hour or two a day filing, getting coffee for rather than with his boss, and answering phones (like a receptionist as opposed to say a para-legal) then the first prong of the test is violated as is the second, third and fourth prongs.
Internships are a great mentoring tool. They provided many young people an opportunity to obtain skills that give them a running start on a job. Unfortunately in the hands of the uninformed or worse unscrupulous they are torturous and a waste of the student's time.
If you are considering having an unpaid or low paid intern or internship program this summer, and want to know if you are in compliance, or if you are an unpaid or low paid intern and think you are being unfairly treated, give me a call and we will try to help you.
Hattip: The New York Times.
In a NY Times piece last week Reporter Steve Greenhouse described how many young people are not being treated fairly by employers who either paid them below minimum wage, or below scale and called the experience an "Internship."
I spent most of my law school career in unpaid or stipended (which is to say low paying) internships. I worked for government entities and learned a lot. I received hands on opportunities and I had a pretty prestigious resume line for the trouble. Now I was fortunate, my parents by this point in our lives were comfortable enough to allow me to take on these experiences and provided money for me to live on. Many however are not so lucky. Moreover, many students are getting internships that teach them nothing and take the job of other employees all for the aid to the employers profit margin.
Believe it or not, the government actually has a set of guidelines that one may use to determine if their unpaid internship is in fact an internship or a indentured servitude.
Essentially, an internship must have the following six requirements to be able to be unpaid:
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has developed the six
factors below to evaluate whether a worker is a trainee or an employee for purposes of
the FLSA:
1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the
employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic
educational instruction;
2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close
observation;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the
activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually
be impeded;
5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training
period; and
6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to
wages for the time spent in training.
If all of the factors listed above are met, then the worker is a “trainee”, an employment
relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime
provisions do not apply to the worker. Because the FLSA’s definition of “employee” is
broad, the excluded category of “trainee” is necessarily quite narrow. Moreover, the fact
that an employer labels a worker as a trainee and the worker’s activities as training and/or
a state unemployment compensation program develops what it calls a training program
and describes the unemployed workers who participate as trainees does not make the
worker a trainee for purposes of the FLSA unless the six factors are met. Some of the six
factors are discussed in more detail below.
In my office, we try to adhere to these six requirements strictly. It is impossible to work in a law office without there being some profit to our firm or clients, and it is impossible to work if people do not file. Heck even I file. However our intern program (which I have run off and on for 25 years now) has the qualities required.
For example, the interns work a part-time schedule usually 3 eight hour days unless we are in a trial. They get hands on learning under the watchful eye of a licensed attorney they participate in conferences, meet clients and visit them at the jail (when the client is incarcerated.) They go to court and work on briefs and articles as if they were working for a law review.
They go to meals and bar events with us and take their meals during the work day with the attorney to whom they are assigned.
Their work is usually not billed to the client (unless their name is on it such as on a brief) and they journal their experiences so that we may answer any unasked questions they may have. They have no guarantee of employment however we often do hire those that have interned for us.
If a kid is spending more than an hour or two a day filing, getting coffee for rather than with his boss, and answering phones (like a receptionist as opposed to say a para-legal) then the first prong of the test is violated as is the second, third and fourth prongs.
Internships are a great mentoring tool. They provided many young people an opportunity to obtain skills that give them a running start on a job. Unfortunately in the hands of the uninformed or worse unscrupulous they are torturous and a waste of the student's time.
If you are considering having an unpaid or low paid intern or internship program this summer, and want to know if you are in compliance, or if you are an unpaid or low paid intern and think you are being unfairly treated, give me a call and we will try to help you.
Hattip: The New York Times.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Happy Easter, The Lord Has Risen. Will You Help a Mom Of Two Find A Bone Marrow Donor?
Christ has risen. I am in a hopeful mood. Maybe it is the sudden turn in the weather, or maybe it is the good food mom serves on Easter Sunday. Either way, I am blogging again for better or worse. If you want to know where I've been, I have been trying cases left and right.
I tried a Rape case (statutory) in Queens and a Retaliation Employment Harassment case in the US District Court Eastern District of New York in the Central Islip NY (that is in Suffolk County for the uninitiated).
The results in the former case were mixed but not up to what I had hoped. In the latter case the case went well despite the pleadings which were filed "Pro Se" (by the client without the aid of an attorney.) These were my Third and Fourth Trial since December 17th 2009. I have two more scheduled in April, both of which will go to trial. Both are in Nassau County NY. May will bring Mother's day, Graduation of my eldest and in the latter part of the month a huge Prisoner's Rights, Civil Rights trial in Syracuse NY. June and early July is filled with two very interesting trials in Riverhead (Suffolk.) In between I was just a team leader for the week long,NYSBA Young Lawyer Trial Advocacy program at Cornell Law School. Wow I am tired, lol
I don't usually blog my cases until they are over, lest some juror read it "by accident." I think I will continue that habit, although I will be mentioning some of the issues I am running into if I think they are interesting enough.
In the meantime, I have a received a request to help find a Bone Marrow match for Thespina Pontisakos. She is a wife of an attorney and a mom of two sons. Thespina has Myelodysplastic Syndrome(MDS) and she will die if we don't find a donor match. Be the remedy. Join the registry. (Go to the link above and enter the Promo Code: helpthespina
You see, if the match is found, and Thespina gets the Bone Marrow transplant, Thespina lives, if not she dies. That seems easy enough. Try to help, it is almost painless to find out if you match. If you match, you will have the power to save a life. If you don't match Thespina, maybe you can save someone else. Either way, it appears to be an easy choice.
If you are going to be registering, or have registered already, and want to leave a thought or two here, I will publish them. Meanwhile, please, spread the word.
TLD
I tried a Rape case (statutory) in Queens and a Retaliation Employment Harassment case in the US District Court Eastern District of New York in the Central Islip NY (that is in Suffolk County for the uninitiated).
The results in the former case were mixed but not up to what I had hoped. In the latter case the case went well despite the pleadings which were filed "Pro Se" (by the client without the aid of an attorney.) These were my Third and Fourth Trial since December 17th 2009. I have two more scheduled in April, both of which will go to trial. Both are in Nassau County NY. May will bring Mother's day, Graduation of my eldest and in the latter part of the month a huge Prisoner's Rights, Civil Rights trial in Syracuse NY. June and early July is filled with two very interesting trials in Riverhead (Suffolk.) In between I was just a team leader for the week long,NYSBA Young Lawyer Trial Advocacy program at Cornell Law School. Wow I am tired, lol
I don't usually blog my cases until they are over, lest some juror read it "by accident." I think I will continue that habit, although I will be mentioning some of the issues I am running into if I think they are interesting enough.
In the meantime, I have a received a request to help find a Bone Marrow match for Thespina Pontisakos. She is a wife of an attorney and a mom of two sons. Thespina has Myelodysplastic Syndrome(MDS) and she will die if we don't find a donor match. Be the remedy. Join the registry. (Go to the link above and enter the Promo Code: helpthespina
You see, if the match is found, and Thespina gets the Bone Marrow transplant, Thespina lives, if not she dies. That seems easy enough. Try to help, it is almost painless to find out if you match. If you match, you will have the power to save a life. If you don't match Thespina, maybe you can save someone else. Either way, it appears to be an easy choice.
If you are going to be registering, or have registered already, and want to leave a thought or two here, I will publish them. Meanwhile, please, spread the word.
TLD
Monday, June 08, 2009
Freedom of Speech Does Not Permit You To Break The Law
Ian Barry is a Seventeen year old who knowingly broke the law to make a point. Ian gave a speech as to why Marijuana ought to be legal to a High School class. During the speech, he lit a joint and by the end of the speech, ingested the joint. Police arrested him. He has been charged locally. He says in this article that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that he is ready to pay a penalty for his actions.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!
Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
Monday, March 02, 2009
Lessons I Learned This Month: Eat Less Calories ,Exercise More, Doodle When You Can, and Don't Mess Around With Pres. Obama!
I really envy the people who find something cool and interesting to say everyday. I blog in spurts A month here and a month there then a week off here and a month off there. Not much of a way to build a following. Nevertheless, I blog for the enjoyment so if it isn't fun I am not going to do it.
Now that I have found my way home again. I think I will start off light.
First off, Did you know doodling was good for you? Yup that's right. It HELPS you concentrate. Same with playing easy games like Brickbreaker on a Blackberry or Freecell. I am often guilty of this when I get board in an interview or on a phone call. Some clients find it quite distracting. I find if I don't do it I lose my concentration. Now I know why. Read about it here
As for diet and exercise, guess what, Eat less, move more, lose weight. It's all here in this study. NIH had to commission a study for this??
Eating less calories and moving more has never been a question. The reason for the various diets is that eating less and exercising more is not what calls to most obese people. Chocolate shakes and steaks call to us. Now I know you are saying just do that, it doesn't matter how you do it. That said, however, getting me to do this is not an easy undertaking. Food and the way we use is part of the answer. This study doesn't go into that. It repeats simple science. Put in less fuel, use more energy, you should need to get to surplus faster. Got it. Now tell me what, where and how. Keep me doing it and then you have something.
President Obama at least sounds like a President. He has issued a dare so to speak against lobbyist's who intend to stand in the way of his change platform on issues like energy and healthcare. I guess we will see if his bully pulpit is bigger than the soft campaign money of the special interests. So far I like the guy though not all of his programs.
I am not a big Rush Limbaugh kind of guy. Hey Rush, get a clue, the public threw you guys out. You sat there for 8 years as a bully pulpit for a President who took his marching orders from your playbook and it in part caused the greatest depression since the great depression. You aren't pulling for the President to succeed in putting us back on track? Screw you!! I don't like everything he is doing, but he is our guy and we need to give him a chance like we did Bush, and if his plan works, and works well, then the loyal (NOTE TO RUSH I SAID LOYAL) opposition is going to have to do some rethinking.
Personally I think we need to allow for a correction. We also need to get out of fixing markets and let them self correct. What we need to do better is recognize phony products (sub-prime loan credit default swaps or CDS)and not allow them to be traded to people who don't understand them. I think we need to roll back the bankruptcy rules too. By changing them, we let the banks loan out too much money to risky borrowers. The new laws encouraged banking officials to think they can't lose as borrowers could not just walk away from the loans anymore, they had to restructure and pay some of it back. Oh well...
There is one more thing I think we need to do. We need to start teaching, requiring state-wide teaching of economics in the schools starting with Micro-economics in the younger grades and Macro in the High School. It should be required of every kid to have at least 2 years of it in HS in order to graduate. Maybe then we will all understand the issues and how to read a public budget and a stock and shareholders report.
Okay that's it for tonight. It is nice to be back. See you all around.
Now that I have found my way home again. I think I will start off light.
First off, Did you know doodling was good for you? Yup that's right. It HELPS you concentrate. Same with playing easy games like Brickbreaker on a Blackberry or Freecell. I am often guilty of this when I get board in an interview or on a phone call. Some clients find it quite distracting. I find if I don't do it I lose my concentration. Now I know why. Read about it here
As for diet and exercise, guess what, Eat less, move more, lose weight. It's all here in this study. NIH had to commission a study for this??
Eating less calories and moving more has never been a question. The reason for the various diets is that eating less and exercising more is not what calls to most obese people. Chocolate shakes and steaks call to us. Now I know you are saying just do that, it doesn't matter how you do it. That said, however, getting me to do this is not an easy undertaking. Food and the way we use is part of the answer. This study doesn't go into that. It repeats simple science. Put in less fuel, use more energy, you should need to get to surplus faster. Got it. Now tell me what, where and how. Keep me doing it and then you have something.
President Obama at least sounds like a President. He has issued a dare so to speak against lobbyist's who intend to stand in the way of his change platform on issues like energy and healthcare. I guess we will see if his bully pulpit is bigger than the soft campaign money of the special interests. So far I like the guy though not all of his programs.
I am not a big Rush Limbaugh kind of guy. Hey Rush, get a clue, the public threw you guys out. You sat there for 8 years as a bully pulpit for a President who took his marching orders from your playbook and it in part caused the greatest depression since the great depression. You aren't pulling for the President to succeed in putting us back on track? Screw you!! I don't like everything he is doing, but he is our guy and we need to give him a chance like we did Bush, and if his plan works, and works well, then the loyal (NOTE TO RUSH I SAID LOYAL) opposition is going to have to do some rethinking.
Personally I think we need to allow for a correction. We also need to get out of fixing markets and let them self correct. What we need to do better is recognize phony products (sub-prime loan credit default swaps or CDS)and not allow them to be traded to people who don't understand them. I think we need to roll back the bankruptcy rules too. By changing them, we let the banks loan out too much money to risky borrowers. The new laws encouraged banking officials to think they can't lose as borrowers could not just walk away from the loans anymore, they had to restructure and pay some of it back. Oh well...
There is one more thing I think we need to do. We need to start teaching, requiring state-wide teaching of economics in the schools starting with Micro-economics in the younger grades and Macro in the High School. It should be required of every kid to have at least 2 years of it in HS in order to graduate. Maybe then we will all understand the issues and how to read a public budget and a stock and shareholders report.
Okay that's it for tonight. It is nice to be back. See you all around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)