Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:June:04 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/6/4-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:46845 Activity:high
6/3     Ahh, that good 'ole suburban lifestyle: (Washington Post)
        \_ I spend 20 minutes commuting each way.  That's pretty short.
           Having a short commute is the only way I have time to exercise
           1+ hours/day, which is in turn the only reason I'm not
           completely fat.  (I'm only a little bit fat.)  I don't know
           how anyone can live the way this guy did.
           \_ Plenty of people are fat, stressed and ulcerated.
        \_ haven't we seen this before?  motd necromancy!
           \_ I think the last one was a NYT article.
        \_ I live so far from the city my city friends never heard of the
           place.  I also commute < 15 minutes each way, have lunch with
           my wife at least once a week and work no more than 40 hours a
           week over time.  Just because some people choose to live their
           lives poorly doesn't mean everyone has.
           \_ You must work in the same small town where you live.
           \_ Wait, so you're saying you work between 40 and 80 hrs/wk?
              What's your average, 60hrs/wk?
              \_ I mean I have an odd schedule where I work 44 hours one week
                 then 36 hours the next, so 40 hours/week averaged out.  It is
                 9 hours a day M-Th + 8 F, then 9 per day M-Th and Friday off.
                 I haven't done one of those 60-80 hour weeks in a few years.
                 I make a few $K less than I used to but not by much and have
                 a life now.
                 \_ Which company is this? We just started doing this
                    9/80 schedule as well.
           \_ To be fair, not everyone has the skills that can give them that
              kind of job.  Tech work is really nice that way.
              \_ When I used to BART into the city I'd see the same folks
                 every day and chat with a few of them.  Mostly they were non-
                 tech people who would have been better off not coming in to
                 the city for work.  One guy was a counter guy at a deli shop
                 who drove 30 minutes to BART and then another hour to the
                 city.  I don't know what he made but c'mon... counter guy at
                 the deli with a 90 minute commute.
                 \_ Bart time, while still suck, is much less suck when
                    compared to driving.
                    \_ Depends on how many hours/week you get stuck standing
                       the whole way bodily pressed against smelly people.
                 \_ At one job I worked at, I used to always come in late
                    and work late, so I got to know the janitor. Turns out
                    he drove in from Stockton (!) every day and had three
                    kids. He made $17/hr as a janitor in SF and could only
                    make $6.15 in Stockton. I guess 3X your salary is worth
                    a 2+ hr/day commute.
                    \_ Or better would be to move to another state where he
                       could live on $5.25 and not waste 2+ hr/day commuting
                       which he could spend going to school, starting a
                       business or just enjoying time with his family.
                       \_ The cost of living is less in other states, but it
                          is not 1/3 the cost of living in Stockton. This
                          guy was buying his own house, which you can't do
                          on minimum wage anywhere.
                          \_ It isn't just pure cost of living but the value
                             of his time as well.  If he spends it commuting
                             it is lost.  If he spends it in school or doing
                             something useful he can move up in society and
                             stop working as a janitor or sandwich maker.
                             \_ I think that way and you think that way,
                                but not everyone does. Once you have three
                                kids, your options narrow considerably.
                                \_ Once you have three kids, the *last* thing
                                   you should be doing is spending 3 hours a
                                   day commuting.  -tom
                                   \_ Once you have +1 kid you're whipped
                                      and your wife will forbid you to
                                      make any drastic changes to their
                                      lives. I presume you never had kids.
                                   \_ Someone deleted my response, but the
                                      best thing for the kids is if this
                                      guy triples his salary and gives his
                                      kids a better lifestyle. Do you
                                      think the kids who have parents on
                                      welfare (and who are home 100% of
                                      the time) are better off? Studies
                                      show that education and income
                                      correlate to success, not "quality
                                      time with the kids", even if that
                                      seems illogical. I presume it's
                                      because beyond a certain age kids
                                      are influenced more by teachers and
                                      peers than parents. Getting your
                                      kids away from gangsters is worth 3
                                      hours per day commuting.
                                      \_ Correlation is not causation.
                                         Kids need food, shelter, and
                                         good relationships with their parents
                                         far more than they need a huge
                                         house in Dixon or the latest
                                         Transformers toy.  -tom
                                         \_ You think this janitor is
                                            working for a huge house in
                                            Dixon and a Transformers toy?
                                            What kids need are parents who
                                            are able to care for them.
                                            That doesn't mean being with
                                            them 24/7. Do you think a 3
                                            hour commute is hurting the
                                            kids? Maybe a little, but it's
                                            a net positive considering the
                                            alternative is the dad at home
                                            and the kids in the slums. Kids
                                            need parents who care, not
                                            necessarily parents who are
                                            \_ reference please.  -tom
                                              \_ I cannot find the study
                                                 right now, but it stated
                                                 that parents' income and
                                                 education are the TWO
                                                 most important factors
                                                 for having successful
                                                 children with everything
                                                 else having just a slight
                                                 effect. Here is one paper
                                                 that states that the effect
                                                 of employment of the father
                                                 is negative, but small.
                                                 \_ uh, yeah, and how is
                                                    commuting 3 hours for
                                                    a minimum-wage job
                                                    improving parental
                                                    income or education?
                                                    You're also reading
                                                    the study wrong; it
                                                    says that the effect
                                                    of father's employment
                                                    is small--that is, if
                                                    the father is *unemployed*,
                                                    there is a small negative
                                                    effect.  It doesn't say
                                                    anything about an employed
                                                    father who is spending
                                                    12 hours a day working and
                                                    commuting.  The same study
                                                    also notes that children
                                                    who experience single
                                                    parenthood have
                                                    significantly lower
                                                    educational attainments.
                                            \_ Why is it a choice of 3 hours
                                               of commuting to a janitor job
                                               vs. welfare and slums?  He
                                               can work for lower pay in a
                                               cheaper place and spend that
                                               wasted 3 hours bettering his
                                               life so he won't be a friggin
                                               janitor forever.
                                               \_ As someone else said,
                                                  nowhere is cheap enough
                                                  to survive on minimum
                                                  wage and a lot of the
                                                  cheapest places are full
                                                  of redneck hicks, which
                                                  makes minorities
                                                  uncomfortable. (I am
                                                  assuming he is a
                                                  minority. Please correct
                                                  me if he is not.)
                                                  \_ Minimum wage and a family
                                                     of 4 puts you well below
                                                     the poverty line which
                                                     means you're getting
                                                     piles of government
                                                     assistance for food and
                                                     housing, as well as a
                                                     free education with those
                                                     2-3 saved hours a day so
                                                     you don't have to die as
                                                     a janitor or sandwich
                                                     \_ "Piles of government
                                \_ If I had 3 kids I'd definitely move far
                                   far away from the city.  My options would
                                   narrow in favor of raising my kids away
                                   from such an incredibly negative influence.
                                   \_ Even plenty of us who think that The City
                                      is an incredibly positive influence would
                                      move away, because we wouldn't be able
                                      to afford to live here. I am kind of
                                      curious, have you ever talked to anyone
                                      who was actually born and raised in
                                      San Francisco? Most of them seemed to
                                      have come out just fine.
                                      \_ Yes, I have.  What about it?
                                      \_ If fine == gay.
                                         \- you go  past 19th ave, or on top
                                         \- you know past 19th ave, or on top
                                            of twin peaks, or beyond glen park
                                            SF is a very different place from
                                            the downtown, marina, pacheights,
                                            mission, assland, western add,
                                            inner sunset, noe areas. and
                                            bayview type areas are in turn
                                            different in a different way.
                                            like someone i know who grew
                                            up in st. francis wood and then
                                            was ucb/tridelt, might as well
                                            have grown up in menlo park or
                                            mill valley. although i think
                                            people form danville or saratoga
                                            are a little different.
                                      \_ While it may not be true of all
                                         large cities, I've met
                                         disproportionately larger number of
                                         SF born/raised people who didn't
                                         know how to swim or ride a bike.
                                         While this doesn't make them "not
                                         fine," it does give them slightly
                                         different background with which to
                                         view the world.
2007/6/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46846 Activity:moderate
6/3     Dirty Congressman Jefferson finally indicted.
        \_ Good --scotsman
           \_ Seconded. --erikred
        \_ About time.  Let's see some real jail time and a felony conviction
           from this one.
        \_ He's innocent I tell ya, just like DeLay and Libby! Selfless public
           \_ Libby is going to jail for *not* leaking any secrets.  He got
              totally fucked over on some BS trumped up garbage charge and
              sent to the wolves so *someone* could take the fall.
              \_ Somehow I don't see "Free Scooter!" t-shirts being big
                 \_ You fail to understand how delusional the Bushies have
                    \_ You fail to have the facts at hand when posting.  See
                       below for what Libby was convicted of and while you're
                       at it, compare what happened to Libby vs. Sandy "Stuffed
                       Shorts" who got probation and a trivial fine for
                       stealing and destroying national security documents
                       related to the Clinton administration's policies re:
                       Al Qaeda in the 90s.  If Libby deserves jail then SB
                       deserves a treason charge with life or hanging on those
                       scales of justice.
                       \_ Thanks for making my case for me (btw, I think
                          SB got off too light as well, but that is tangential
                          to the Libby case).
                          \_ Your case was what exactly?  A vague slam against
                             all "Bushies"?  Whatever.  DailyKOS awaits your
              \_ Libby is really going to jail for obstructing justice. He
                 still doesn't understand that what he did was wrong, and
                 apparently neither do a number of his supporters.
                 \_ Libby obstructed justice how exactly?  Specifically what he
                    got nailed for was this: the prosecution asked ~8 reporters
                    for their version of events and asked Libby as well.  The
                    reporters gave varying versions, different time lines, etc
                    that didn't match each other.  Libby didn't and in fact
                    could not have matched what the reporters said so he got
                    nailed for what exactly?  Not matching all 8 reporters who
                    didn't match themselves?  Give it a rest, the man is a
                    \_ "It's important that we expect and demand a lot from
                       people who put themselves in those positions," Walton
                       "Mr. Libby failed to meet that bar. For whatever
                       reason, he got off course." From the sentencing judge.
                       They outed a spy and then obstructed the investigation
                       into it. You are right that more than just Libby
                       should have paid, but he was the only case that
                       Fitzgerald felt was going to stick in a court of law.
                       \_ Yes, and?  He's still going to prison for not having
                          the same story as 8 reporters who also had different
                          stories from each other.  And let's not forget the
                          $250k fine on top of 30 months in prison.  This is
                          not justice.
                          \- i am pretty sure he'll be "made whole"/taken care
                             for for his loyalty. obstruction of justice by
                             the powerful is a serious problem and deserves
                             serious penalties. the plea bargaining system
                             has some strage pathologies ... e.g. the guy
                             facing a serious charge with a lame public
                             defender vs. the guy who can pay his legal bills
                             though ill gotten gains or directors/officers
                             insurance or otherwise has deep resources or
                             something truly bizzare like the fbi/cia mole
                             cases where the death penalty was taken off
                             the table in return for cooperation or the
                             OLYMPIC BOMBER case where death penalty was
                             taken off the table because he hid a bunch
                             of explosives in the hills and would not
                             disclose where unless non-death ... those
                             are good candidates for waterboarding.
                             since we've decided to torture people, i think
                             there is an argument to be made that they are
                             "consenting" to torture ... i dont think these
                             people are "entitled" to this arrow in their
                             legal quiver. anyway, libby got the best of the
                             legal process. good lawyer, credible judge,
                             jury, prosecutor. if you want to claim he
                             was railroaded, the very very heavy burden is
                             on you to make the case.
                             \_ Again I ask: *exactly* what did he do that was
                                illegal, in plain English, please?
                                \- can you list you name so we can laugh
                                   at you?
                          \_ The reason he was given such a harsh sentence
                             is because he used his power and authority in
                             an effort to pervert justice and he continues
                             to show no remorse for it (much like his
                             supporters). No one is above the law, not you,
                             and not even the White House. A harsh lesson
                             to have to learn, but one that I wish more
                             WH crooks would get the opportunity to have.
                             \_ With Bush's Pardon in his pocket, Scooter
                                will be above the law.  Sucks, don't it?
                                \_ He isn't going to get a pardon.
                                \_ Well there is that. I guess he really
                                   is above the law.
                             \_ Again I ask: *exactly* what did he do that was
                                illegal, in plain English, please?
                                \_ Obstruction of justice isn't clear enough
                                   to you? He deliberately lied to the FBI and
                                        \_ no.  that's the legal charge.  it
                                           doesn't say what he *did*.
                                   the Grand Jury in an attempt to derail the
                                   investigation. According to Fitzgerald,
                                   this actually had the intended effect of
                                   making the Grand Jury unable to make the
                                   case against the true perpetrators of the
                                   crime of revealing a CIA agents identity.
                                   According to the judge the evidence was
                                   "overwhelming" and according to all 12
                                   jurors, it was "beyond a reasonable doubt."
                                   \_ I'll give you an example of "plain
                                      English": Sandy Burglar went into the
                                      national archives, stuffed a bunch of
                                      Clinton era NSA documents related to
                                      Al Qaeda in his socks and underwear,
                                      hid them a few blocks away then returned
                                      later, took them elsewhere and destroyed
                                      them.  Libby did what exactly?
                                      \- i think sandy burger is a lamer and a
                                         fool and you have to wonder "what was
                                         he thinking" but i'll be happy to
                                         see him burned at the stake IF the
                                         CIA or NSA or somebody other than
                                         a partisan player says he damaged
                                         national security, which has they
                                         took the trouble to say in the Plame
                                         case. In fact I would be kinda
                                         happy to see that. However, I'm open
                                         to the possibility that what he
                                         took out had no national security
                                         importance [as you may not know,
                                         the govt has often classifies a
                                         lot of things en masse and will only
                                         "lazily evaluate" if they should
                                         not declassified. for example there
                                         are documents that are essentualy
                                         just strings of number from sensitive
                                         simulations which are classified
                                         [possible in the relating-to-nuke
                                         classification, which is differnt
                                         from the Secret, Top Secret etc one],
                                         so just the fact that they were
                                         classified isnt quite enough for a
                                         air assessment. If Plame was say
                                         a IT Manager or Food Services manager
                                         at the CIA, even if it was strictly
                                         by the letter not legal to disclose
                                         her identity, I'd be more willing to
                                         think this might have been something
                                         unreasonable at the food of the tree,
                                         but again, the issue is you dont get
                                         to decide when to cooperate with the
                                         FBI and when you cant.
                                         \_ Sandy Burglar: it doesn't matter
                                            what value the documents had.  If
                                            you or I had done it our lives
                                            would have been destroyed over it.
                                            And since he destroyed them we
                                            *can't* know, since that is the
                                            point of destroying them.  We are
                                            forced to assume they did have
                                            value or he wouldn't have bothered.
                                            As far as Libby goes since no one
                                            here seems to actually know what
                                            he is accused of, I'll tell you.
                                            In plain English: Libby voluntarily
                                            talked to the grand jury investi-
                                            gating Plame's ID revealing.  His
                                            story didn't match ~8 reporters'
                                            stories.  Those 8 reporters'
                                            versions of events and timelines
                                            not only did not match Libby, they
                                            did not match each other, and did
                                            not match their own written notes
                                            and did not match their previous
                                            testimony when brought back and
                                            questioned again on the same
                                            topics.  Libby's only crime was
                                            trying to do the right thing.  Now
                                            here are two kickers for you on top
                                            of everything else: Richard Arma-
                                            tage was *known to the prosecutor*
                                            on *day 1* to be the Plame leaker.
                                            Before he ever talked to Libby,
                                            the prosecutor *knew* who the
                                            leaker was.  His entire investiga-
                                            tion was supposed to be about
                                            finding the leaker, but slamming
                                            Armatage wasn't politically useful.
                                            He wanted Cheney, Rove and others
                                            who we now know had *nothing* to
                                            do with it.  He couldn't get them
                                            but he was able to get Libby on a
                                            complete crap charge.  And the
                                            second kicker: Libby's lawyers
                                            tried hard to get Plame's actual
                                            official status clarified in court
                                            but the judge agreed with the
                                            prosecution that whether or not
                                            she was in fact a "secret agent"
                                            or not was not relevent to the
                                            case!  Wow.  And then in the
                                            sentencing phase, the judge then
                                            allows the same prosecutor to
                                            argue that Libby should get super
                                            smashed for revealing a "secret
                                            agent's identity" but never allowed
                                            the defendant to examine that in
                                            court or answer those charges.  A
                                            giant "fuck you" to Libby and any
                                            sense of real Justice.  *THAT* is
                                            the 'plain English' version of
                                            what happened to Scooter libby.
                                            And now we've already started to
                                            see other people refusing to
                                            testify in front of various
                                            congressional committees because
                                            they're afraid they're get Libby'd.
                                            Having one branch of government
                                            literally afraid to *talk* to
                                            another branch of government out of
                                            fear of malicious prosecution is no
                                            way to run a government.
                                            \_ Malicious prosecution, huh...
                                               Sigh.  Aren't you guys the
                                               "if they haven't done anything
                                               wrong, they have nothing to
                                               fear" crowd?  Or is that just
                                               for us laypeople?
                                             \_ To actually believe all that BS
                                                you have to believe that a
                                                guy who indicted Democrats,
                                                Al Qaeda and Republicans
                                                suddently went nuts. Libby
                                                lied and got caught. His lies
                                                totally screwed up a federal
                                                case (remember various
                                                reporters went to jail to help
                                                keep Libby's lies secret) and
                                                damaged national security and
                                                he paid the price. Get over it.
                                \_ What the above guy said:  but let me dumb it
                                   down a bit more:  he lied under oath about
                                   matters relevant to national security.
                                   \_ Yes, nice.  See my above example of
                                      "plain English".  Thanks.
        \_ Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) "So for my friends who think that
           perjury, lying and deceit are in some circumstances acceptable
           and undeserving of punishment I respectfully disagree." [House
           Judiciary Committee, 12/1/98].
           Rep. John Mica (R-FL) "If you commit perjury or obstruct justice,
           you will be held accountable. If you are a member of Congress or
           president . . . you will be held accountable. Even if you . . .
           do a thousand good deeds, you will be held accountable." [Orlando
           Sentinel, 12/20/98]
           Former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) "But Mr.
           Speaker, perjury before a grand jury is not personal and it is
           not private. Obstruction of justice is not personal and it is
           not private. Abuse of the power of the greatest office in the
           world is not personal and it is not private." [ABC Special
           Report, 12/19/98]
           Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) "Perjury and obstruction of justice
           are serious offenses which must not be tolerated by anyone in
           our society." [Washington Post, 2/12/99]
           Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) "Perjury and obstruction of justice
           are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the
           truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government."
           [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]
           Oh yeah, that was lying about a BJ, obviously a much more serious
           crime than outing a CIA agent.
2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46847 Activity:nil
6/4     In American culture, if a bride invites her parents' buddies from
        another state to attend her wedding, who usually pays for their air
        tickets and hotel rooms?  Thx.
        \_ They do. Bride's parents can if they want to. You or your parents
           can if you're filthy rich.
2007/6/4-10 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:46848 Activity:moderate
6/4     Enron exec gets only 2yr jail time for screwing up so many people's
        \- the real punishment issue is they got to "club fed" type
           prisons, not ass prisons. how many years in non-ass prison
           would you be willing to do to avoid 1 yr or ass prison?
           would you be willing to do to avoid 1 yr of ass prison?
           \_ Just send him to Iraq and tell him to patrol the city
              neighborhood for road side bomb...
           \_ As much as I hate Enron, I hate the idea that repeated gang
              rape is an acceptable punishment, especially one to joke
              around about, even more.
                \_ Quite aside from the gang rape and psych. trauma
                   there is the very high risk of infection.
              \- who is joking? i think it is a very serious inequity
                 in "the system" along the lines of the crack vs cocaine
                 sentencing disparity, some weird pathologies in the
                 mandatory sentencing guidelines etc. is your ass/non-ass
                 prison multipler less than 5? or maybe we should phrase
                 it in terms of "how many months are you willing to trade
                 for change in marginal risk of hepatitis, hiv etc." are
                 you willing to add a year to your sentence to take the
                 risk of hiv/hep from 5% to .1%?
                 \_ The prison system is broken.  The sentence itself should
                    be the punishment.  Getting raped, getting a disease, or
                    getting abused in some other way by the other inmates is
                    not justice and should not be part of the system.
                    \_ Agreed, but the solution is not softer sentencing for
                       corporate pirates.
                       \- Again, eliminating the abuses in the prison
                          system is a separate issue than the sentencing
                          disparity. For example you can feel the penalties
                          for drugs are overly harsh *across the board* but
                          it is a separate issue to look at the (racial)
                          disparate impact of the sentencing guidelines.
                          A better example, also turning on race, concerns
                          capital punishment. Again being pro/con capital
                          pusiment is a separate issue from the fact that
                          black people killing white people have VASTLY more
                          likely to get the death penalty than black people
                          "only" killing another black person. [and of course
                          this is a spearate issue than quality of repre-
                          sentation etc. but of course money makes a difference
                          whether it is law or medicine].
                          \_ OJ Simpson vs. Scott Peterson.
                           \_ The plural of ancedote is not data.
                          \_ I agree with you on the sentencing guidelines for
                             things like crack vs. cocaine.  It's all coke and
                             should be treated the same.  But is it?  Isn't
                             crack a much stronger version of the same basic
                             stuff?  Shouldn't a more serious substance get a
                             more serious penalty?  If not, then why treat
                             pot use as a decriminalised activity but send
                             coke users to jail?  Some lines?  No lines?  Or
                             just one big line that treats all drug offenses
                             the same?
                             \_ Coke and crack are both Sched. II substances;
                                as such, sentencing for possession/dealing
                                should be the same. However, judges have a
                                tendency to view coke-heads as still socially
                                redeemable, whereas crackheads are considered
                                irredeemable, and so sentences tend to be
                                harsher for crackheads. This is not consistent
                                with the espoused purpose of establing Scheds.
                                to begin with.
                                \- often there are arguments like "crackheads
                                   are more likely to commit other crimes"
                                   as opposed to upstanding wall street
                                   coke users, or suburban upper middle
                                   class coke heads etc. but it seems like
                                   you should only be able to convict people
                                   for what they did rather than statistical
                                   propensities ... like if the crack head
                                   paid for the crack by stealing car stereos
                                   you need to convict him of that rather than
                                   just infer it from "no visible means of
                                   support". on the flip side, you also have
                                   to wonder about "hate crime" laws with
                                   harsher pentalities, under the theory that
                                   hate-fuelled beatings are worse than run-
                                   of-the-mill beatings ... if a hate beating
                                   averages in 50stiches rather than 25 stiches
                                   surely there is a way to have the sentencing
                                   reflect the "actual damage" and dispense
                                   with the "thought crime" aspect. although
                                   i acknowledge something like hate-graffitti
                                   may be different from "<my gang> rules"
                                   type graffiti ... but once it advances to
                                   something like arson, i dunno if you really
                                   have to consider the "hate" element so
                                   \_ The why is always important in crime.
                                      For instance look at the difference
                                      between a premeditated mob hit and
                                      a crime of passion.
                                      \- fair point. but some whys matter.
                                         like premeditation. does it matter
                                         whether the premediated mob hit was
                                         for financial reaasons [like say
                                         remove competition/turf war ...
                                         fundamentally about money] or say
                                         to prevent a witness from testifying.
                                         but i think we agree sentencing is
                                         complicated and hard to make a
                                         determiistic function of n-variables.
                                         like for white collar crime how do
                                         you factor in the magnitude of the
                                         harm [embezzing $50k, vs $10m in
                                         some kind of securities fraud],
                                         what should be criminal vs civil
                                         penalties etc.
                                \_ Crack and coke are the same thing, one is
                                   not inherently stronger than the other,
                                   though the method they are used leads to
                                   slightly differrent effects. They may
                                   finally be eliminating the sentencing
                                   disparity, btw:
                                   \_ If the method of use of one leads to a
                                      greater (or less socially acceptable)
                                      effect then I'd claim it is "stronger".
                                      \- so for say assault, there should be
                                         different sentencing guidelines
                                         based on whether you are a welter-
                                         weight or heavyweight or a black-
                                         belt? how about just focusing on
                                         the actual damage. if somebody
                                         embezzles $2000 and buys math books
                                         vs. mexican drinking binge, should
                                         they get differnent sentences?
                                         \_ In the case of drug sentencing the
                                            charges are related to possession
                                            not your blood content.  So they
                                            have to look at the potential
                                            damage of selling 2kg of crack vs.
                                            2kg of coke.  If the potential
                                            damage is the same, then yes they
                                            should be punished the same.  If
                                            the crack is going to do more harm
                                            to the community than the coke then
                                            it should be punished more harshly.
                                            Does one actually have the
                                            potential to do more harm than the
                                            other?  I don't know.  But the
                                            judges dealing with these things
                                            seem to think so.
                                            \- drunk driving in a yugo vs a
                                               humvee are treated differently?
                                               yes, if the humvee drink driver
                                               kills somebody and the yugo
                                               driver just dents a mailbox,
                                               that should be treatement
                                               that should be treated
                                               differently but saything there
                                               are schedule I and schedule II
                                               cars for DUI, is kinda odd.
                                               \_ cars aren't drugs.  car
                                                  possession is not (yet) a
                                                  crime.  for a car wreck we
                                                  punish the effect.  for drug
                                                  possession we punish based on
                                                  potential effect.
                                                  \- in the case of drunk
                                                     driving you can go
                                                     after them without a
                                                     car wreck happening.
                                                     it's being in posession
                                                     of a car while driving
                                                     because that might lead
                                                     to a car wreck, a pot-
                                                     ential effect.
                                                     \_ And for that potential
                                                        effect, the punishment
                                                        is extremely high.  It
                                                        presumes that "this is
                                                        not your first time
                                                        doing it, so we'll
                                                        throw the book at you"
2007/6/4 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Military] UID:46849 Activity:insanely high
6/4     NWSW Chick with a big gun
        \_ Who wants to see a chick with lopsided guns?
2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46850 Activity:nil
6/4     NWSW Which manga is this?:
        \_ The Breast Tumor Awareness Week manga.
           \_ I thought it was the heads of two Martians at first.  -- !OP
2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46851 Activity:kinda low 57%like:46864
6/4     So ... are global markets going to get fucked starting tomorrow?
        \_ Nope.
        \_ Why?
           \_ Shanghai markets down three days in a row.
           \_ positive feedback loop -op
        \_ Usually if something bad is going to happen the markets will respond
2007/6/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:46852 Activity:nil
6/4     Enough with the ugly fat chicks, already.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:June:04 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>