SoutherDem
SoutherDem's JournalDU question
I have been on DU for some time but am just starting to go beyond "Latest Thread", so I have a couple of "dumb" questions but I will show my ignorance and ask anyway.
What is the difference between a "group" and a "forum" as to the DU world, are the rules or policies different?
Why do some posts on a specific group/forum post only at that location yet others post to latest threads also? (On that one I thought I knew the answer but have proven myself wrong.)
Pet Food Recall Question
I heard of the most recent Pet Food Recall from my parents. They saw it on NBC Nightly News (I think last Thursday) but I haven't been able to find the details on their website. I have found the information on other websites.
Here is the problem. My parents are recalling details I have not been able to verify. My parents are in their seventies and don't always recall things like they did when they were younger. Also, my father (step-father) has often been known to "read" between the lines and can draw details most people don't, fail to realize when a current issue may be referenced by a past event or miss the segue between stories.
They say the story on NBC Nightly News included cat food, which I have only read about dog food. Also, they say in was food from China, which I have only read of domestic manufactures.
I have read the recalls and don't purchase any of the brands included but before I hail the "all clear" I just wanted to know if anyone heard the same story and can verify either their recalled details or confusion?
Thanks
Stand Your Ground or Duty to Retreat
For the last few months we have been hearing a good bit about Castle Doctrine (Laws) or Stand Your Ground Laws. The media has also brought many events to our attention in which it seem these laws have resulted, in some situations, where people have been killed under circumstances where self defense seems to be highly in question, yet the shooter has not been charged for a crime using these laws.
Likewise we have heard how death rates under the circumstances of self defense have increased threefold. I have also heard how the laws which were in place (in Florida specifically) would have resulted in the shooter not being charged anyway, if it was self defense, so these laws are not needed and in fact have actually allowed legal vigilanteism.
It is my understanding, until 2006 in Alabama the law said we had a “duty to retreat”. I recall for years hearing how people who were charged with a crime for shooting a burgular because they had an opportunity to retreat rather than protect their person or property. I remember where the actual recommendation, by a law enforcement officer, was to create a “safe room” e.g. a bedroom in which you should get a reenforced door with strong locks and a phone, then if your house is broken into you should retreat to that room lock yourself in and call the police and wait, that you should only use deadly force if the burgular broke into that room (I am not sure if this was just the recommendation of that office/department or if it took that to meet the requirement of the law).
I have never heard one person question someone defending themselves, the questions seem to come from when does the need to self defend start, at what point does defense become offense, when does stand your ground become pursue.
Also, how much force are you allowed to use? Is deadly force allowed when, non-deadly for could work? Are warning shots allowed? Does the sides need to be evenly armed?
And, just what can you defend. Defending yourself, family or another person seems to not be in question. But, does defending personal property justify using deadly force? If so, does that extend to your neighbor’s personal property?
Is the problem in the way the laws are written or is it in how the laws are applied?
For now I am not giving my opinion, just asking questions.
How the jewelry has industry changed
I have been out of the jewelry business for about 8 years but I just saw a commercial that both brought back memories and surprised me.
Back in 1986 when I was being trained I was taught the GIA color scale D through Z with D being colorless to with Z being dark yellow to brown. Likewise I was taught those which were yellow or brown were industrial grade, used in diamond drill bits ect.
Then a few years before I changed careers I started hearing of Canary or Champagne diamond sometimes called fancy diamonds which were "very rare". But, I was told by a gemologist that these were the "trash" or industrial diamonds which were sold for a few dollars a pound rather than hundreds of dollars per carat a few years earlier.
At about the same time the company I worked for sold some 1 carat diamond tennis bracelets for $99 each, the diamonds were brown about as low on the color chart as you could go. They cost the company about $10 a piece. We used them as advertising hoping the customer would see how bad they were and decide to purchase the $299, $599 or $999 variations if not we still made $89 each and since we had what we advertised it was not bait and switch.
So the industry found a way to take yellow diamonds which were at one time almost worthless and sell them for as much or more than the near colorless and the brown diamonds to sell in really cheap jewelry getting more than the tool industry would pay.
Now I just heard a commercial advertising Chocolate diamonds I wonder if these are the brown diamonds which were part of the $99 bracelets we had for sell.
The 2nd Amendment crystal clear or as clear as muddy water?
There may not be a more confusing amendment in our constitution, yet most people "know" exactly what it means.
Also, I am fearful if you asked the average person on the street to quote the 2A, there answer is "we have the right to own guns" leaving out the beginning and end, that is after you remind them (some) 2A is about guns.
Furthermore, if you read the entire amendment to them they will look puzzled not knowing how to interpret the first part.
But remember, people "KNOW" what it means.
Even the nine people who decide what the constitution means are divided on the subject.
I may be in the minority with this opinion but most of the rhetoric I hear from the two side of the issue I think goes too far to the right and left.
A friend sarcastically said it this way, "The left winged gun control nuts want to make all guns illegal including sling shots while the right wing gun nuts want us to be able to own and carry any weapon including 500lb nuclear weapons".
OK a bit over the top but he and I feel we do have the right to own and carry some guns in some places in some circumstances but some guns, places, and circumstances should be illegal.
This seems to be a moderate position which I don't hear often, especially by politicians who seem to have to be in one camp or the other or they will be attacked by both sides and certainly lose.
Is my position really that rare or do we just not know how to get noticed?
Or, does the average citizen really not give a care?
Venomous Snakes owned as pets
I was watching Swamp Wars on Animal Planet today and it spoke of people who import, sell and own venomous snakes. Ok, I understand, there are those who do have a purpose for these animals such as research facilities, pharmaceutical uses and zoos but what surprised me was that the same way that I own cats, dogs and fish as pets some people have cobras, mambas and taipans.
I googled the subject and found although some states do ban the practice or require permits (similar to my dogs and cats) many don't have restrictions except for maybe an endangered species. In the state I live I can't own a piranha or sturgeon but I can own a king cobra or black mamba. Go figure?
I guess what surprised me most was the attitude of those who defend this practice. More than one website had people who stated the "dangers" of owning cats, dogs, and horses. I am sorry, but to compare domesticated animals to wild animals doesn't make sense to me. I do understand people do get bit by dogs, trampled by horses and the dreaded house cat can scratch and bite but if I did get bit by one of my dogs or cats I am not going to need anti venom to save my life. An anti venom of an animal which doesn't live in this area so the local hospital may or may not have it in stock.
Have I been so busy paying attention to the subject that this website addresses most that I have somehow missed the practice of keeping these snakes as pets?
Am I missing something or how can keeping a piranha be more dangerous than a cobra?
If there anyone out there who can help me understand why keep an animal which if it bites you, you will die unless you get the anti venom within a give time.
Republican Small Business Tax Cut Plan
I just heard on NPR that half of the Republican Small Business Tax Cut Plan would go to businesses with under 500 employees making over 1M per year, including law firms, lobby firms and even sports teams.
Has anyone else heard this?
Is the plan designed to be geared toward million dollar businesses or do half of the "small" businesses make that type of money?
When I hear the term "small business" I think of the person who owns the small store, restaurant, garage, or service company doing good to earn $100K a year, not a law firm with 450 employees making several million and certainly not a sports team.
If the definition of small business is simply less than 500 employees without respect to earnings is it time to change the definition?
Who would be the best Republican, no joke.
I often hear Republicans when talking about the four running for their nominee, if their favorite doesn’t win any of them would be better than President Obama. I also hear Democrats state while they may not be pleased with everything President Obama has or has not done, he is still better than any of the Republicans. Some of the Democrats who live in states which have opened primaries say they would vote Republican voting for the candidate which they feel is most easily beat by President Obama. But, too often current events 6-8 weeks before the general election decide or at least help decide who the president will be. Because of this if I were to vote in the Republican primary I must vote for the person I feel would be the best choice if a Republican must become our president.
The problem is two of the candidate I don’t trust and the other two scare the living daylights out of me. I might as well roll a die. I don’t see a good future under any of the potential Republicans
Rick Santorum means what he says and says what he means. Homosexuals will need to move to Canada and non-Christians and to some extent non-Catholics should consider the move also. Non-”Americans” shouldn’t rest too easily either. He will lead by his interpretation of the bible and those who don’t agree with his ultra christian right beliefs might as well give up. The U.S. Constitution will be enforced only for those in agreement with him.
Ron Paul while talking a lot about liberty and freedom would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Yes, his massive cuts may balance the budget, but do so by firing hundreds of thousands of government employees. Those who rely on the departments which he would cut will need to fend for themselves.
Newt Gingrich while intelligent and talks a good talk, I can’t get over his demanding President Clinton leave office for sexual misconduct, that he wasn’t moral enough to be president, while he was having an affair, marries his mistress then joins a church so all is forgiven. I don’t trust one word that comes out of his mouth.
Mitt Romney is a politician's politician. He will need to install a weather vain on the white house to each morning check which way the political wind is blowing to decide what he is for that day. Also, his business experience although may work for a company, if you don’t care who you hurt, but it won’t work for a country. You can’t sell or liquidate non producing states nor fire unproductive citizens. If we though the middle class and poor suffered and the rich prospered under other Republican presidents we haven’t seen anything like we would see under a Romney administration.
So if it must happen who would be the best Republican President?
Freedom of Religion or Freedom of THEIR Religion
As a Gay Atheist, the Republicans especially the four wanting to be the President want to deny my religious freedom to have no religion AND they want to use their religious freedoms (beliefs) to prevent me from having any rights some we have won and some we still are striving to get.
Also, I don't think I would get out of that auditorium alive from the sound of the audience. Are all Arizonians that crazy?
Probable Cause?
I had an unusual thing happen to me today and wanted to know if anyone has any thoughts.
Some background, I am the purchasing manager for a small culinary school, as such I often need to pick-up items for the school so I park behind the school where I also receive trucks (this gives me direct access to the kitchens), this area could be though of as a covered alley or tunnel. I have been parking in the area for the entire time we have been in the building which is almost two years, I have permission from the school’s dean and controller, our security company is aware of this, I do not block traffic and there are not any “No Parking” signs in the area, in fact no parking regulations at all other than do not block the alley and I am not the only tenant who parks behind the building. The area is considered private property owned by the landlord for use by the tenants.
Today as I was leaving the school a police office was passing through the alley/tunnel, he passed me without any clue he was questioning my “right” to be in the alley, but once I left the alley and was on a public road he pulled me over. When I questioned why I was being pulled over (I honestly had no clue, I knew I wasn’t speeding, I didn’t run a light or stop sign and my tag wasn’t expired), he answered “I wanted to make sure you had a reason to be in the alley”. I replied I am the Purchasing Manager for the school, I park there everyday. He replied back “How do I know that?” I then said “Here is my I.D.” and handed it to him. The I.D. is an electronic key card which has my name, position, picture and the school logo, not something easily faked. He then asked for my drivers license, which I gave him. He then told me I could go and added “I had Probable Cause”. I guess he knew he really pissed me off, but adding that statement made me move from pissed off to boiling mad.
The officer was not polite at all, all of his questions were in the tone of a demand and never addressed me as sir or mister, even after he learned my name.
My questions are;
Was that really probable cause? It seems to me if a middle aged, white man, driving a Smart Car with Democratic bumper stickers (and one Richard Dawkins), with a vanity tag, parking at the most lighted part of a alley/tunnel on private property is probable cause, those who are of a different color or nationality hasn’t a chance. Let’s face it my car stands out in a crowd, no the car to commit a crime in.
Why not ask me while I was parked in the alley? There I would have understood, and most likely would have thanked him. In fact if I thought he had any question as to why I was parked there I would have waited for him to reach my car prepared to explain, it was just that after almost two years without question it never crossed my mind an officer would think anything was wrong. And, I will admit pulling me over on a public road in front of the school was embarrassing.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 22, 2011, 01:32 PMNumber of posts: 2,307
