GeorgiaDon

Kind of a funny accidental juxtaposition of a headline story and an ad on the CNN website this morning. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Andy, I look forward to the opportunity to vote for you in 2012. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In that case I agree there is a problem. If municipalities want to use RLCs to discourage red light running, they have to respect your rights under Texas law. Out of curiosity, can you also request a jury trial to contest parking tickets, or tickets for burnt out tail-lights etc? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No argument from me on that point. But, the camera is an inanimate object that simply records an image. It can't violate your rights, any more than a gun can shoot you all on its own. If the municipality issues tickets that must be paid, without an opportunity to contest, then I agree your rights have been violated. If you have an opportunity to contest the ticket, then I can't see how having a picture taken is a violation of your rights. The lack of an opportunity to contest the ticket is an administrative decision made by the municipality, not by the camera. It seems to me that, if red light cameras are inherently a violation of your rights, then so are security cameras in gas stations, stores, etc. I can think of a couple of instances where convenience store clerks were murdered, and the best evidence against the murderers (who were tried and convicted) was video from security cameras. Should those killers be released, because no law enforcement officer was on the scene to witness the killing? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree that traffic circles can work better, when people know how to use them. But, how well do they work at intersections with 3-4 lanes in each direction? Everybody has to be in the outer lane to turn out of the circle, if you enter from the left-most lane don't you end up orbiting around until you can change lanes to the outermost lane? Also doesn't reconfiguring the intersection require appropriating the properties on the corners, which would be prohibitively expensive to do for even a few intersections in most communities? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure you're right about that. Around here, the serious accidents mainly happen late at night, when there isn't much traffic and people assume the intersection will be empty so it's OK to run the red, except sometimes it isn't. Also, although you shouldn't enter the intersection for a left turn unless you can complete the turn, if you do wait for a break in traffic sufficient to cross 4 lanes before reaching the nearest lane to turn on to, you'll never get a chance to turn. So people pull into the intersection, stop, and wait for a break in traffic or for the amber light to finish the turn. That puts them in position to get nailed by someone pushing the red. Although both drivers share some of the fault, the speed of the car trying to beat the light makes those collisions very severe. Fair enough. But, do you see an alternative, other than not enforcing the red light, or pulling existing officers off of other activities such as patrolling high crime neighborhoods? I agree that's a problem, but it seems to me to be an administrative one. There should be a mechanism to contest the ticket (as there is here). You could dispute maintainance/accuracy of the camera. But surely a photo is better evidence than the say-so of a police officer? Are you confident that you could simultaneously watch a moving vehicle and the traffic light, and be absolutely sure the light was red when the car entered the intersection? If you were investigating a convenience store robbery, would you rather have a high resolution image of the suspect from a security camera, or a statement from an eye witness who was looking through the store window from the other side of the street, 100 feet away? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suppose you could do that if you wanted to. You'd likely find yourself charged with anything from careless driving to aggravated assault, though, so you'd have more to deal with than just paying for your own repairs. Also you'd find yourself uninsurable, so you'd have to turn in the plates on all your vehicles, which might complicate your future mobility some. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a perfect system. With at-fault insurance, you have to go after the at-fault party to get compensation. They may have no insurance, or be underinsured, in which case you have to sue and go through the expense and time of the legal process, and most likely still end up collecting pennies on the dollar. People think of accidents as "wining the lottery", where you can get big settlements for a sore shoulder, but it rarely turns out that way. On the other hand, with no-fault I give up the largely imaginary prospect of a life of leisure after a big settlement, but I can set the terms of how much coverage I have, so I can be sure that if I end up needing long-term care, or are so disabled I can't return to work, my care and lost income will be covered. As it is here in Georgia, I can't buy a automobile insurance policy like that, so I have to pay for separate disability insurance. I prefer to be able to define what I want to cover myself for, I don't like trusting that the other party will have enough insurance to take care of me should they cause an accident that leaves me disabled. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No-fault and government run are separate issues. Although I didn't have the issues you describe when I moved from Ontario to BC (in 1985, maybe things changed after that), I can agree with you that I don't like the government monopoly in BC either. However, even for private for-profit insurance companies, no-fault is more economically efficient as they don't have to deal with lawsuits to try to recover their expenses from the other party. It is also a fact that when I moved from BC to Arizona, where many private insurance companies compete, no company offered coverage similar to what I had in BC, and I ended up paying more for markedly inferior coverage. So where was the advantage supposedly offered by private competition? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you have any stats on the rate of accidents with injuries/fatalities vs fender-benders at intersections with red-light cameras? Where I live, cameras were installed at two major intersections with a high frequency of red light running. The overall accident rate increased slightly, but all the increase was due to fender benders (which don't have to be in the intersection to be counted). On the other hand, accidents with fatalities or injuries requiring hospitalization decreased about 75%. Even the fender benders decreased once people learned to react to the caution light by braking instead of hitting the gas, realizing they couldn't make the light, then hitting the brakes with inadequate stopping distance. I realize as a police officer you'd likely be in favor of hiring more police instead of using cameras, but to monitor those two intersections with the same coverage as the cameras would require hiring and equipping 12 officers (2 intersections, each requiring 3 8-hour shifts/day, with 2 officers/shift so the intersection isn't left unmonitored while 1 officer is writing a ticket). Hiring and equipping 12 officers (including 12 patrol cars) would cost around $1,000,000, which is just not going to happen in today's economic climate. I believe here you can choose to contest a ticket based on a red light camera. However you would have to prove the camera was defective in a way that somehow resulted in a picture of your car entering the intersection when the light is red. I don't know how that would be possible, but you can try. No-one has a "right" to endanger others by running red lights. It's all well and good to say you shouldn't enter the intersection unless you can be sure crossing traffic is stopped, but at both intersections a transport truck in the left turn lane is enough to obscure your view to the left, and then you can't see without pulling forward, which puts you in position to be hit. Don Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I like the system of no-fault insurance they have in British Columbia (I don't know if other provinces have this). Basically, you insure yourself for as much coverage as you think you will need, and in the event of an accident your own insurance covers your expenses, regardless of who is at fault. Also you get your license plate from the insurance agent, so if you cancel your insurance you must turn in your plates. If a vehicle has plates, it is insured, so we didn't have any issues with uninsured drivers. As a poor graduate student I could afford a $2 million dollar policy, which would have covered long-term care and lost future income if I (or anybody riding in my car) had been permanently disabled. When I moved to Arizona and tried to get similar coverage, I was told that it wasn't even available, and that policies for large amounts tended to attract lawsuits for the most minor fender-benders. Around 1992 there was a move to introduce no-fault insurance, but it required amending the state constitution as it involves giving up the right to sue following a car accident. The trial lawyer association poured a ton of money into a scare campaign that led to the measure being defeated at the polls. That's when I learned that American political ad campaigns are under no legal obligation to contain any recognizable element of truth. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting that you (and Turtle) didn't have money for insurance, yet you had the resources to fully cover damages, medical costs, and lost wages for yourself and any and all second/third parties, had you caused an accident. Surely, if you had caused an accident and put someone in the hospital and out of work, you wouldn't have screwed them over and walked (or run) away from your responsibilities? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So by your own accounting of history: Germany invades France and installs a puppet (Vichy) government. The Vichy govt cedes French Indochina to Japan, who ally with Germany and Italy. The Axis powers (now including Japan) are at war with Great Britain and it's allies. But in your universe, Great Britain and it's allies should have continued to sell oil to Japan? "Boycotting" Japan provided justification for the attack on Pear Harbor etc? Why should anyone have to provide resources to a country that has declared war on them, especially resources that would allow them to prosecute that war? An alternative, but I think more sane, perspective is that Japan was on an expansionist track that would inevitably have brought them into conflict with the US. The US was a relatively small naval power at the time, and the Japanese military recognized (correctly) that they could deliver a crippling blow to that navy by attacking the base at Pearl Harbor, and they believed (incorrectly) that the isolationist sentiment in the US would prevail and the US would simply withdraw and avoid further conflict. Without Pearl Harbor, it might have taken considerably longer for the US to join the conflict (or maybe they would never have joined), by which time the Axis powers would have been even better entrenched and more difficult to defeat. By miscalculating the American response, the Japanese military ultimately ensured it's own defeat. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, your perspective is that it is God who made the old lady run the stop sign? If your goal is to convince anyone that your belief system offers anything constructive, I have to say your approach sucks. Once again you resort to a cartoon of evolution to try to make your superstition look more attractive by comparison, but all you accomplish is to reveal (again) your profound ignorance of the most basic concepts of science. Evolution has nothing to do with "only the strong survive". Biological evolution is about the success of genes in propagating themselves into future generations. Genes that do a better job of conferring attributes to the organism in which they reside, that result in successful reproduction (and so transmission of the gene into subsequent generations) will persist, and genes (or alleles of genes) that do that less well will be out-reproduced, and eventually replaced. However genes don't exist in isolation, they are part of a whole genome and they must be able to work well with all the other genes to produce a successful phenotype, which is why evolution works more at the level of the genotype than the individual gene. All in all a very simple but very powerful idea, supported by mountains of real evidence. Behavior is part of the phenotype too. Individuals that are "stronger" than others of their species, but spend all their energy fighting, will not live long and on average will leave fewer offspring than less violent individuals. Human mental evolution has been dominated by the ability to collaborate and plan (which necessitates both good memory and language). Even a few people, working together, will always be able to prevail over a stronger but solitary aggressor. All the traits that make humans different from other animals are related to our ability to organize into large societies of collaborating individuals, and evolution can easily account for the development of those traits. The mischaracterization of evolution as "only the strong survive" has been a staple of the religious since Darwin's day, as they are threatened by the idea that a simple biological process can explain human nature, and no supernatural intervention is required. Ideas, too, survive by being transmitted to future generations, and in a non-biological sense they too can evolve, in that more successful ideas are retained and less successful ones are replaced. To survive, in the face of a set of ideas (science) that actually produces practical results (technologies), religious ideas will also have to evolve. Perhaps they can survive by retreating even further from the territory covered by science, and dealing only with questions like "why am I here" (in the metaphysical sense, not the biological sense that all your ancestors managed to get laid at least once). Unfortunately some religions seem to be following a strategy of surviving by dictating the violent suppression of competing ideas; either you accept my religion completely (no matter how crazy), or I will kill you. Some do this explicitly, such as the version of Islam followed by the Taliban. The fire-and-brimstone version of Christianity abstracts it some these days, in that they don't threaten physical death, but their threats of eternal torture in the "lake of fire" for those who don't fall in line make them at least kindred spirits to those who threaten physical death. Ultimately it's all about hanging onto their power over other ideas and people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max, I'll try to get out to the DZ tomorrow afternoon. Did you see the notice about balloon jumps Aug 14/15? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

A false dichotomy, unless one wishes to insist on the literal truth of each word of the Bible. Then you're in some trouble, as the Bible is full of contradictions and is an extraordinarily poor science textbook. I know a lot of people who are committed Christians and who have no issue with evolution. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I agree with Mike that calling comments "short-sighted" can be a legitimate criticism of the comment. Such a criticism should, however, be given in the context of discussion of strategy or planning. If made to a subordinate, after the fact and in a context that fosters disrespect for established policy, it's a problem. Andy908's post (I think #34 upthread) is the best description of the issue. Mike, what do you think of Andy908's comment (here it is again so you don't have to look it up): Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Where do you get that he is asking to "jump to to the front of the line"? The article states that he has been denied. I am personally all too familiar with "waiting in the line", which involves years of waiting for word of some progress, all the while being unable to get any useful information about your application (or worse, being given wrong information that increases your conviction that your application has been mishandled, but you can't even report your concerns). While you're waiting you get nothing from USCIS, but when they tell you you're denied, then you're denied, it doesn't mean "please stand by". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Max, The problem I see with this is that when people talk of God as the "creator", it is pretty much always in the sense of "creator and designer". The entanglement of God with the concept of a conscious intelligence is even deeper when you get to a personal God who even "marks the fall of a sparrow", and who has a "plan" of which we are all a part. A particle that imparts mass, or charge, or charm, has none of those properties of a self-aware intelligence. A God that is just the "uncaused cause", that started the universe in some physical sense (say, by setting Planck's constant, or by giving electrons and protons equivalent but opposite charge) and who has done nothing since, is not a God that fits with any religious concept, be it Christianity or any other faith. If you talk about a God that can plan, and manipulate events according to that plan, yet be beyond any method of physical detection, that God seems to me to be apart from Nature (i.e. "supernatural") by definition. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That has been my experience also. When I became a citizen I thought I was done with them, but they screwed up my son's naturalization application (100% their mistake), and it took me another year and pushing $1,000 in fees to get them to revisit the application and admit their error. The whole time, we were worried my son would be deported and never be allowed back. Of course, when I suggested they should refund the additional fees I had to pay to appeal their error, they said "we never do that". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's certainly possible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here's an interesting story about a guy who was brought to the US from Mexico as a child, graduated high school in Arizona then got an engineering degree from Arizona State University, married and had a child. Rather than continue to live as an illegal alien, he voluntarily returned to Mexico, then applied to immigrate to join his family in Phoenix. His wife and daughter are US citizens (not stated explicitly in the article, but as they are able to drive back and forth across the border to visit him it is a reasonable inference). US immigration has denied his application. They say he has not shown sufficient financial hardship or psychological harm to his family for him to be allowed to join them in the US. WTF? Here is a guy who was brought here as a child, voluntarily left, and now is being refused reentry despite having an American wife and child, and an education that will easily allow him to support himself and his family. Interesting example for all the people who say all the illegal immigrants should leave and come back through the proper channels. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I did. There is not one allegation that anybody actually attempted to vote who should not have. So much for your BS about answering the question and not playing the player. Here's your word for the day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Can you find a link or reference that identifies even one person who voted illegally due to this alleged "huge voter registration scam"? If I am being paid by Acorn to sign up voters, and I sign up a bunch of fake names so I can get paid more, I have defrauded Acorn. If anyone was victimized by the alleged voter registration fraud, it would be Acorn. I believe that when some instances of fraud were discovered, it was Acorn that reported it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's because "cancer" is really hundreds of different diseases, all of which result in a cell dividing uncontrollably and forming tumors and spreading from site to site in the body. Basically, every cell is capable of dividing, usually a limited number of times, but that division is controlled by dozens (or more) of different genes. Some genes encode proteins that act as "brakes" to inhibit division, others are part of a chain of proteins (a "signaling pathway") that stimulate cells to divide in response to some trigger, such as a hormone. In addition, cells have back-up mechanisms (also encoded by genes) that usually cause malfunctioning cells to die, for example through apoptosis (programmed cell death). So for a cell to become cancerous, these control mechanisms have to be malfunctioning, due either to damage to the DNA sequence (causing the gene to encode a malfunctioning protein) or to inappropriate modification to the DNA such as methylation (a so-called epigenetic modification). It usually takes a number of mutations/modifications to the DNA to cause the cell to go out of control, because of redundancy and "backups" in the system. You have 2 copies of almost all genes (one from each parent, except on the X sex chromosome that you get only from your mother), so BOTH copies of the gene have to be damaged. You may inherit one damaged copy and one good one, in which case you have a predisposition to cancer as only the good copy has to be damaged. At any rate, it may take many years of accumulating damage to the DNA in every cell before enough genes affecting the different parts of the mechanisms controlling division or apoptosis are damaged, but then you get a cell that divides out of control and doesn't die (=cancer). What all that means is that the old way of looking at cancers according to the organ where they started (such as lung cancer) is inadequate, because what you really need to know is what genes have been damaged. If there are dozens of possible genes involved, and you start thinking of all the possible combinations, you soon realize there are thousands of different combinations that can result in cancer. Then you have to figure out how to fix that damage so the cells stop dividing, or how to selectively kill just those cells and leave healthy cells unharmed. That's why ED is an easier nut to crack than "cancer". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I believe you have that exactly backwards. I wonder if that explains your political leanings? I believe I said seeing only black and white is not as good as being able to see the full spectrum of color. My understanding is that reptiles, including turtles, have very good color vision. Perhaps if you take off the sunglasses (metaphorically speaking) you'll find the world is a more interesting place. Not really. I'm always open to well articulated, logical arguments. But then, this is Speaker's Corner, so those tend to be few and far between. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)