backpack warning article
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
from terrorists.
see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
The article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
out taking pictures.
Vince
It will sorry to say
Slim
More useless overtime for fatass cops.
--
"A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>
> > Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> > from terrorists.
>
> > see:
>
> The
>
>
>
> > article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
> > facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> > out taking pictures.
>
> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>
> --
> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
even come to your aid should you need them.
John Kane
> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> from terrorists.
>
>
> The article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> out taking pictures.
Dye your hair blonde and don't have a beard. It should improve your
changes anyway.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
>
> > Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> > from terrorists.
> >
> > see:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Can you still buy hydrogen peroxide in high concentrations, in the USA?
Who needs that when there are freight car loads of ready-made explosives
in many general merchandise trains?
Backpacks? Hell, if you want to cause a real big mess, go after the sewer
system. Not a terrorist attack, but remember Guadalajara?
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Vince
Take it easy now, sorry to say there are any number of cops who ARE so
overweight I would worry about what good they would do no matter what
was going on.
Point in fact checking back packs, front packs, ass packs here and there
isn't going to help anything.
Speaking in general I don't understand for the life of me why the kooks
haven't done a lot more bad things to us, 9/11 was over NINE years ago
and please don't tell me the fed has been doing that great a job.
Mind you of course I don't want anything bad to take place, but it is
sooo easy.
Vince
rsh...@gmail.com
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>
> >>> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> >>> from terrorists.
> >>> see:
> >>>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTI...
> >> The
>
> >>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
> >>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> >>> out taking pictures.
> >> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>
> >> --
> >> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>
> > Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>
> > Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>
> > But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>
> > and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>
> > one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
> > even come to your aid should you need them.
>
> Take it easy now, sorry to say there are any number of cops who ARE so
> overweight I would worry about what good they would do no matter what
> was going on.
that is a failure of command. what are the higher ups doing?
>
> Point in fact checking back packs, front packs, ass packs here and there
> isn't going to help anything.
>
> Speaking in general I don't understand for the life of me why the kooks
> haven't done a lot more bad things to us, 9/11 was over NINE years ago
> and please don't tell me the fed has been doing that great a job.
>
> Mind you of course I don't want anything bad to take place, but it is
> sooo easy.
not as easy as you think
as obviously someone talked to the federales.
that was one of the "beauties" (forgive me) of 9-11. no one knew
anything outside of a few people so fewer people had the opportunity
to talk.
more people that know, more people that can talk.
Another thing, it remains extremely difficult to obtain explosives in
the US.
That is the biggest reason there have been, I don't believe any
bombings, nothing on the scale of the Okla City and 1993 WTC
Bolwerk
> On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
>>> out taking pictures.
>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>
>> --
>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>
> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
He didn't say all cops are useless fatasses.
> Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
Any potential terrorist must know that his odds of getting searched are
pretty low. Any measure involving bag searches and the like simply
inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a bombing did happen on the
Subway, whatever cops are there would just be casualties too.
> But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>
> and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>
> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
> even come to your aid should you need them.
A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
overstretched.
rsh...@gmail.com
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
> >>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
> >>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> >>> out taking pictures.
> >> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>
> >> --
> >> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>
> > Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>
> He didn't say all cops are useless fatasses.
>
umm, what does this say?
More useless overtime for fatass cops.
only fatass cops will get the ot?
or all cops are fat ass?
or exactly what?
> > Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>
> Any potential terrorist must know that his odds of getting searched are
> pretty low. Any measure involving bag searches and the like simply
> inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a bombing did happen on the
> Subway, whatever cops are there would just be casualties too.
>
you don't remember, about 20 years ago a nut case from Scotch Plains,
NJ, attempted to set off a home made collection of bottles containing
some solvent
it was a pretty clumsy attempt, but it did start a fire in the subway
car
those cops he referred to subdued him
> > But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>
> > and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>
> > one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
> > even come to your aid should you need them.
>
> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>
> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
> overstretched.
you don't know how old "Slim" is, he could be 85 and walk with a cane.
yep, cops can be dismissive of certain things to certain people
so what is your suggestion?
Stephen Sprunk
> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>
> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>
> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
> overstretched.
That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
those crimes. Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
millions of dollars per year?
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
Bolwerk
> On Sep 23, 12:26 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>>>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>>>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
>>>>> out taking pictures.
>>>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>>> --
>>>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>>> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>> He didn't say all cops are useless fatasses.
>>
>
> umm, what does this say?
>
>
> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>
> only fatass cops will get the ot?
>
> or all cops are fat ass?
>
> or exactly what?
It implies, to me, that it gives the police union (which has its share
of useless fatasses, just like every other city agency) more work
without any tangible benefit to the public...which may be true in this case.
>>> Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>> Any potential terrorist must know that his odds of getting searched are
>> pretty low. Any measure involving bag searches and the like simply
>> inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a bombing did happen on the
>> Subway, whatever cops are there would just be casualties too.
>>
>
>
> you don't remember, about 20 years ago a nut case from Scotch Plains,
> NJ, attempted to set off a home made collection of bottles containing
> some solvent
>
> it was a pretty clumsy attempt, but it did start a fire in the subway
> car
>
> those cops he referred to subdued him
There have been much worse things than that in the past few years.
>>> But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>>> and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>
>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>> overstretched.
>
> you don't know how old "Slim" is, he could be 85 and walk with a cane.
I would guess he's in his late 30s or 40s, but I don't see how his age
affects his argument.
> yep, cops can be dismissive of certain things to certain people
>
> so what is your suggestion?
Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
good start.
And this terrorist shit has to be kept in perspective anyway. Political
terrorism has killed around 0 people in NYC since 2003 or 2004 (and I'm
being generous calling that councilman assassination "terrorism" the way
we think of it, so we can maybe say 1 since 9/11). Traffic accidents
have killed more than 400 people/year, IIRC. Guns and knives have
killed more than 500 people/year.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>
>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>> overstretched.
>
> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
> those crimes.
They probably realize there's little chance they'll catch whoever
committed the crime. However, police indifference can still harm the
victim, especially if a report number is needed for insurance purposes
(medical or otherwise).
> Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
> millions of dollars per year?
AFAIK, NYC's police force doesn't generally write parking tickets.
Traffic cops do that, and I'm sure it has created quite a successful racket.
Speeding may be another matter, but I seriously doubt much more than a
handful of the force is on speed patrol at any given time. When they do
enforce traffic rules, it often seems like an opportunity to run your
plates/name and see if any warrants come up. They usually just let you
go again, regardless of your offense (unless it's a DUI).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
> that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
> offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
> good start.
A neighbor, 19, got busted for underage drinking. While she's no
choir girl, she does have a job at a store, works very hard and well,
and will be promoted to management. Underage drinking laws do make a
person wonder.
If I recall the article, NYS uses kids as liquor agents to bust stores
that sell to kids. Kind of creepy.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>>> overstretched.
>>
>> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
>> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
>> those crimes.
>
> They probably realize there's little chance they'll catch whoever
> committed the crime. However, police indifference can still harm the
> victim, especially if a report number is needed for insurance purposes
> (medical or otherwise).
There's little chance of catching muggers, I'll agree, but a home
burglary will leave prints and other evidence that has a good chance of
resulting in a suspect. Unfortunately, if you can't get the cops to
come out and investigate, the odds of catching someone go down
significantly.
I had a credit card number stolen once, and it took me several calls to
even get them to take a report and give me a number I could give to my
bank to get the fraudulent charges reversed. I did get one call from a
detective, but that was just to tell me that they were closing the case;
they weren't even interested in seeing the video tapes that the stores
had of the perps (collected at my request, not the cops'). No wonder
the fraud rate is so high!
OTOH, I knew one guy whose roommate applied for an AmEx in his name and
ran up over $30k in charges; _they_ went after the perp with a
vengeance, and he's currently serving a 10-year sentence in federal prison.
>> Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
>> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
>> millions of dollars per year?
>
> AFAIK, NYC's police force doesn't generally write parking tickets.
> Traffic cops do that, and I'm sure it has created quite a successful
> racket.
Traffic cops are still cops, right?
> Speeding may be another matter, but I seriously doubt much more than a
> handful of the force is on speed patrol at any given time.
It varies by location, of course. Some towns in Texas were infamous for
having more cops, all of whom were assigned to traffic patrol, than they
did residents. Changes in state law have mostly wiped those out, but
many cities still have over half their cops assigned to generating
profits. The secret is that they never show up in court since it's more
profitable to have them out writing more tickets, which 80% of people
never contest...
The city I know best, Dallas, assigns each beat cop a sector (~1sqmi)
bounded by arteries or freeways; they nominally patrol the inside of
each sector for suspicious activity, but in practice they drive 'round
and 'round the border, moving from one ticket to the next, unless they
get a request from 911 dispatch. Detectives, though, are spread very,
very thin and generally only care about violent crimes and drugs, which
means they're all busy down in the inner city.
> When they do enforce traffic rules, it often seems like an opportunity
> to run your plates/name and see if any warrants come up. They usually
> just let you go again, regardless of your offense (unless it's a DUI).
This sort of practice is where allegations of arrests for "Driving While
Black" come from...
Trying to drag this back on topic, it's also a major disruption to POP
fare enforcement. You'd think folks with warrants would be more likely
to buy a ticket and avoid capture, but apparently criminal habits die
hard; most checks I've seen have netted the FIs at least one evader with
warrants.
OTOH, suburban cops tend to be pretty forgiving; a few years ago I had
one pull me over, remind me that I had a warrant for a past speeding
ticket, and then let me go. It was surreal. I doubt that would have
been the reaction had the warrant been for something more serious, though.
rsh...@gmail.com
I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not vin favor of enforcing
petty shit
but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
and what is the point of a drinking age if it is not going to be
enforced.
Vince
> On Sep 23, 1:38 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
>> that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
>> offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
>> good start.
>
> A neighbor, 19, got busted for underage drinking. While she's no
> choir girl, she does have a job at a store, works very hard and well,
> and will be promoted to management. Underage drinking laws do make a
> person wonder.
Thats a shame
> If I recall the article, NYS uses kids as liquor agents to bust stores
> that sell to kids. Kind of creepy.
That IS creepy
Being over 60 I come from the generation where the min age was 18 as was
the age a male could be drafted into the army, BUT you still couldn't vote.
You could die for the USA, but not vote for who runs it.
It was an odd thing being stationed in a state where the law was 21,
however you only had to be 18 to drink on base at the EM Club.
Do you know at one time if a man took a woman across state lines for
consensual sex he could be arrested for immoral purposes?
rsh...@gmail.com
depends, everywhere outside of NYC traffic laws are pretty strictly
enforced
for some reason in NYC if you are driving on a suspended dl, they
don't enforce it.
but regular po's in NYC do give traffic summonses. I know, I got one,
years ago.
There is a traffic division of NYPD in addition to the traffic people
that enforce the parking laws.
But those traffic people that enforce the traffic laws are not sworn
peace officers, iow they cannot make arrests
in addition to the NYPD traffic division there are the Highway patrol
units
Vince
You want to talk over use of police?
Many years ago I was having a VERY bad week, one morning getting off at
Time Sq, this jerk pushes me as I'm getting off the train and so I push
back next thing I know fists are flying. I won (trust me I didn't hurt
him much) now hes going to get a cop to press charges (sore loser)
I start to walk away a cop takes me by the wrists, he had some grip.
He starts yelling "are you looking to hit me?"
He has us go to the back of the rear staircase to wit a man ask him if
he needs help and so now there are about FIVE cops for one little fight.
In closing we had to go to court almost like a parking ticket thing.
Bolwerk
> On Sep 23, 1:38 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
>> that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
>> offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
>> good start.
>
> A neighbor, 19, got busted for underage drinking. While she's no
> choir girl, she does have a job at a store, works very hard and well,
> and will be promoted to management. Underage drinking laws do make a
> person wonder.
They're priggish.
> If I recall the article, NYS uses kids as liquor agents to bust stores
> that sell to kids. Kind of creepy.
I would guess most states/jurisdictions do somewhat.
Of course, you gotta wonder how somebody could have the capacity to work
for law enforcement if they don't have the capacity to decide whether
they want a drink!
Vince
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>
>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>> overstretched.
>
> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
> those crimes. Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
> millions of dollars per year?
>
> S
>
the cops and they do nothing?
Stephen Sprunk
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 1:38 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
>>> that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
>>> offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
>>> good start.
>>
>> A neighbor, 19, got busted for underage drinking. While she's no
>> choir girl, she does have a job at a store, works very hard and well,
>> and will be promoted to management. Underage drinking laws do make a
>> person wonder.
>
> Thats a shame
In my state, if you get busted for underage drinking (or mere possession
of alcohol), your driver's license is suspended until you turn 21.
Seems rather stupid to give kids their keys back the same day they're
allowed into bars... OTOH, that's how it works in many other countries
for everyone (both DL and drinking at 18).
> Being over 60 I come from the generation where the min age was 18 as was
> the age a male could be drafted into the army, BUT you still couldn't vote.
> You could die for the USA, but not vote for who runs it.
>
> It was an odd thing being stationed in a state where the law was 21,
> however you only had to be 18 to drink on base at the EM Club.
This is one of the best arguments for returning the drinking age to 18:
if we're going to send 18-20yo kids off to die for Big Oil^W^Wtheir
country, they should at least be allowed to drink like the assholes that
sent them...
There is also a coalition of university officials that are now pushing
to get the drinking age dropped back to 18; they claim that by making
getting alcohol illegal and thus more difficult for minors, it pushes
kids into binge drinking when they can get their hands on it. I'm not
sure I agree with the logic they're using, but I support their goal.
> Do you know at one time if a man took a woman across state lines for
> consensual sex he could be arrested for immoral purposes?
It's still illegal to transport a minor across state lines for the
purposes of sex, even if both persons are above the age of consent in
both states. Even crazier, the law applies even if _both_ persons are
minors -- they can both be prosecuted for traveling together!
This is about as dumb as prosecuting teens for manufacturing child
pornography if they take naked pictures of themselves, or possessing
child pornography if they receive such a picture from someone they have
had/could have sex with legally.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > AFAIK, NYC's police force doesn't generally write parking tickets.
> > Traffic cops do that, and I'm sure it has created quite a successful
> > racket.
>
> Traffic cops are still cops, right?
Quasi-cops. They can give tickets for only motor vehicle violations
and direct traffic in busy intersections. Basically upgraded version
of an old fashioned meter maid.
The Phila unit, "Phila Parking Authority" was featured as a reality
show on cable. They are notoriously strict, staking out spots where a
motorist will pause briefly to run into a store to write a ticket.
(Computerized ticket writers). They also search for illegally
registered vehicles on the street or vehicles with many unpaid
tickets.
The cable shows accurately depicted two sides of the issue. On the
one hand, the PPA is often overzealous. But on the other hand, a
great many of the motorists they ticket or tow (towing is a real pain
to a motorist) absolutely _deserved_ it. Before the PPA got tough,
scofflaws who ignored tickets were a huge problem.
> Trying to drag this back on topic, it's also a major disruption to POP
> fare enforcement. You'd think folks with warrants would be more likely
> to buy a ticket and avoid capture, but apparently criminal habits die
> hard; most checks I've seen have netted the FIs at least one evader with
> warrants.
Most criminals are not the brightest stars in the sky. When NYC began
tough fare evasion enforcement they found lots of people with illegal
weapons or outstanding serious warrants. Fare evasion enforcement
reduced general crime in the subway.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Do you know at one time if a man took a woman across state lines for
> consensual sex he could be arrested for immoral purposes?
Still can. They considered prosecuting Spitzer for that.
But the law was intended to catch women forced into prostitution.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Of course, you gotta wonder how somebody could have the capacity to work
> for law enforcement if they don't have the capacity to decide whether
> they want a drink!
What is the minimum age these days to be a subway motorman or
conductor, or a bus driver? Railroad train crew member? Is the
minimum set by state law or agency policy?
Vince
Based on the above if I were a crook I would be a crime lord, thanks
heaven I'm on the side of good.
Vince
Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
still have to pause every time I think of it)
Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked into a
hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
Any of the older folks here recall that one?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In my state, if you get busted for underage drinking (or mere possession
> of alcohol), your driver's license is suspended until you turn 21.
> Seems rather stupid to give kids their keys back the same day they're
> allowed into bars... OTOH, that's how it works in many other countries
> for everyone (both DL and drinking at 18).
A number of states do that, intended as a deterrent to kids.
Indeed, I don't think the neighbor kid can drive (which is probably a
good thing).
> There is also a coalition of university officials that are now pushing
> to get the drinking age dropped back to 18; they claim that by making
> getting alcohol illegal and thus more difficult for minors, it pushes
> kids into binge drinking when they can get their hands on it. I'm not
> sure I agree with the logic they're using, but I support their goal.
I think they're right. College drinking is much worse than it was in
my day, partly due to the 'zero tolerance' laws. In my day drinking
was theoretically forbidden on campus grounds but they looked the
other way unless somebody got really, really wasted or ill. Several
colleges have been sued over kids who got dead drunk and hurt or
killed themselves as a result, so they tightened up on the rules which
made things crazier and in the end made drinking worse and more
dangerous.
Larry Sheldon
> Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
> still have to pause every time I think of it)
> Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked into a
> hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
>
> Any of the older folks here recall that one?
I don't. Have you a citation?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
JG
The "contract railroad police" on Metra BNSF trains mostly stand in
the vestibules chatting or cellphoning.
JG
JG
> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> from terrorists.
>
> see: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTI...
>
> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> out taking pictures.
Not a big loss if they took out a few of the vagrants acting as
skycaps at Chicago U.S.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > But the law was intended to catch women forced into prostitution.
>
> Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
> still have to pause every time I think of it)
> Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked into a
> hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
The Mann Act is about 100 years old. I don't recall Reagan trying to
pass any such marriage license law.
However, going way, way back, respectable hotels would expect to see
something like wedding rings.
Sancho Panza
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbaa89cd-2408-4cc5...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Another thing, it remains extremely difficult to obtain explosives in
the US.
========
Better to make that "commerically available explosives "(the identifiably
traceable kind). Quite a few alternatives exist in the everyday public
sphere.
Vince
> Vince schrieb:
>
>
>> Speaking in general I don't understand for the life of me why the kooks
>> haven't done a lot more bad things to us, 9/11 was over NINE years ago
>> and please don't tell me the fed has been doing that great a job.
>>
>> Mind you of course I don't want anything bad to take place, but it is
>> sooo easy.
>
>
>
> Are there groups of people you dislike? Why don't you go and kill some
> hundreds of them?
>
I don't want to kill anyone, except maybe slap you around for insulting
me with such a remark.
> It's mostly a recruitment problem.
>
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
>
>
Vince
> On Sep 23, 4:28 pm, Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> But the law was intended to catch women forced into prostitution.
>> Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
>> still have to pause every time I think of it)
>> Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked into a
>> hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
>
> The Mann Act is about 100 years old. I don't recall Reagan trying to
> pass any such marriage license law.
>
As I understand it didn't get very far.
> However, going way, way back, respectable hotels would expect to see
> something like wedding rings.
>
OH? such places should mind their own business.
Vince
> Vince wrote:
>
>> Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
>> still have to pause every time I think of it)
>> Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked into
>> a hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
>>
>> Any of the older folks here recall that one?
>
> I don't. Have you a citation?
>
If I did I would have posted it.
I tried to research it couldn't find anything.
Maybe it was just some grand standing by some kooks
Larry Sheldon
I have done a bunch of traveling in my years, and I have never carried
my marriage license.
Never.
And I have shared quarters with wife, or one of my daughters.
I think you are confusing life with MPAA-approved movies.
And by the way, I have in my travels on numerous occasions had women in
my room. or me in theirs.
No body's business why except them, my wife, and me.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > However, going way, way back, respectable hotels would expect to see
> > something like wedding rings.
>
> OH? such places should mind their own business.
It was their business. Going way, way back, hotels/motels that
allowed that sort of thing had a bad reputation and were avoided.
Going back to the 1940s and 1950s marriage was very important and
there was considerable social pressure in many areas. Getting caught
having sex outside of marriage could cost you your job, your
apartment, credit standing, etc. There was cheating but it was kept
much quieter than is today.
Vince
Going way back what does that have to do with today?
Make no mistake I've never cheated on my wife, I'm talking mostly about
single couples, in any case its still no one business THESE DAYS or EVER.
Anyway welcome to the 21th Century.
Vince
> Vince wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> Vince wrote:
>>>
>>>> Based on the above back after Reagan first became president (sorry I
>>>> still have to pause every time I think of it)
>>>> Anyway they tried to pass a law where if a man and woman checked
>>>> into a hotel they would have to show a marriage license.
>>>>
>>>> Any of the older folks here recall that one?
>>>
>>> I don't. Have you a citation?
>> If I did I would have posted it.
>>
>> I tried to research it couldn't find anything.
>>
>> Maybe it was just some grand standing by some kooks
>
> I have done a bunch of traveling in my years, and I have never carried
> my marriage license.
>
> Never.
>
> And I have shared quarters with wife, or one of my daughters.
>
> I think you are confusing life with MPAA-approved movies.
>
I'm not confusing anything, I know what I read back then
> And by the way, I have in my travels on numerous occasions had women in
> my room. or me in theirs.
>
> No body's business why except them, my wife, and me.
>
>
On which if you read my other postings I agree with you
Bolwerk
> And by the way, I have in my travels on numerous occasions had women in
> my room. or me in theirs.
>
> No body's business why except them, my wife, and me.
Haha. Did you take pictures to share with us? :-p
Stephen Sprunk
> The cable shows accurately depicted two sides of the issue. On the
> one hand, the PPA is often overzealous. But on the other hand, a
> great many of the motorists they ticket or tow (towing is a real pain
> to a motorist) absolutely _deserved_ it. Before the PPA got tough,
> scofflaws who ignored tickets were a huge problem.
Dallas has the opposite problem: the local paper did a study and found
one _city employee_ who had over $38,000 in unpaid parking tickets; she
apparently parked illegally _every single day_ at City Hall, and the
cops never towed her, never served a warrant for failure to appear, etc.
After years of such lax enforcement, the total for all uncollected
fines rivaled the city's entire annual budget!
At the other extreme, HCTRA is infamous for tracking down people who
don't pay tolls, confiscating their cars, and selling the cars at
auction to settle the owners' debts. They _will_ get their money, one
way or another.
Larry Sheldon
> I'm not confusing anything, I know what I read back then
OK, then I'll ask again: Where did you read that?
I'm more than 70's years old, I am well, read and pretty well traveled
(49 states out of the 57--some of them many times) and I have never
carried my marriage certificate nor been asked for it.
Joseph D. Korman
of two wedding bands and an engagement ring in plastic, of course.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Going back to the 1940s and 1950s marriage was very important and
> > there was considerable social pressure in many areas. Getting caught
> > having sex outside of marriage could cost you your job, your
> > apartment, credit standing, etc. There was cheating but it was kept
> > much quieter than is today.
>
> Going way back what does that have to do with today?
Umm, didn't you bring up the marriage license requirement of the
past? The above explanation describes the social context of an
earlier time. It was quite different than today.
Back then there was an expression, "what will the neighbors think?".
Today that would be meaningless. Community standing was very
important back then. Another example--if I man was applying for a
good job (ie management), while the boss was interviewing him, the
boss' wife would take out the candidate's wife to lunch and check out
her to see if she'd be suitable, too. You want to get ahead in the
corporation, you better have a good supportive wife. In the 1950s,
marriage peaked, I believe the stat was 90% of adults were married.
(People were expected to keep their personal problems to themselves
and "tough it out", but that issue is beyond our scope.)
Rail connection--this was explicitly described in Wreck of the Penn
Central during the recruitment of executives.
One change in the opposite direction--I don't think alcohol is allowed
in the workplace in corporate offices these days, when way, way back
it was around. I was on a demonstration ride of a new train and once
we were underway the car builder broke out the booze for the guests; I
don't think that would happen today.
Another example, in railroad shops, going way, way back they had kids
working in them. The 14 y/o would be messengers, 16 y/o would be
apprentices. I think today safety labor laws or lawsuit liability
concerns would prohibit anyone under 18 from being in a shop.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> At the other extreme, HCTRA is infamous for tracking down people who
> don't pay tolls, confiscating their cars, and selling the cars at
> auction to settle the owners' debts. They _will_ get their money, one
> way or another.
A good agency finds a balance between the two extremes. Some govt
agencies will confiscate and sell a car for an allegedly unpaid 75c
toll, but others allow scofflaws to run up huge bills before doing
anything. Either extreme generates bad publicity and contributes to
the public distrust and disrespect of the agency.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sep 23, 11:46 pm, Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Going back to the 1940s and 1950s marriage was very important and
>>> there was considerable social pressure in many areas. Getting caught
>>> having sex outside of marriage could cost you your job, your
>>> apartment, credit standing, etc. There was cheating but it was kept
>>> much quieter than is today.
>> Going way back what does that have to do with today?
>
> Umm, didn't you bring up the marriage license requirement of the
> past? The above explanation describes the social context of an
> earlier time. It was quite different than today.
I read in one of those "stupid laws" email lists that one state still
has a law on the books that unmarried couples can only rent rooms with
two beds, the hotel must provide them nightclothes, and having sex on
the floor between the beds is illegal. If true, I doubt that law is
still enforced...
> One change in the opposite direction--I don't think alcohol is allowed
> in the workplace in corporate offices these days, when way, way back
> it was around.
In general that's true, but more because the executives (who often have
a private bar in their own office) don't want their employees getting
drunk and making mistakes, sexually harassing each other, or putting the
company at risk if they drive home drunk.
However, my very first professional job was pretty different; the owner
would bring a keg to the office every Friday at noon and pass out cups.
Later, after we were acquired by a megacorp, that morphed into the
entire office leaving at noon every Friday and heading down for an early
"happy hour" at a nearby bar.
> I was on a demonstration ride of a new train and once we were underway
> the car builder broke out the booze for the guests; I don't think that
> would happen today.
I don't know specifically about rail manufacturers, but in most
industries it is common for vendors to take customers out for drinks,
hold parties where free alcohol is provided, etc. This is rarely done
at a company-owned location, though, and attendance is optional, which
I'm told solves all the legal liability issues.
> Another example, in railroad shops, going way, way back they had kids
> working in them. The 14 y/o would be messengers, 16 y/o would be
> apprentices. I think today safety labor laws or lawsuit liability
> concerns would prohibit anyone under 18 from being in a shop.
There are child labor laws and education laws* that are relevant, but I
can't think of any special safety or liability issues that would prevent
a shop from employing someone under 18. I knew several kids in HS that
were part-time mechanics, which would have similar issues if any
existed. My suspicion is that the RRs have so many excess adult
employees these days that they have no _need_ to hire kids like they
used to. It's also a pain, paperwork-wise, to employ minors.
(* My state made it is illegal to employ anyone under 18 unless they are
a family member or present a HS diploma, a GED, or a letter from an
accredited school that they are currently in attendance full-time, which
must be renewed every six months. Kids can still drop out at 15, but
they can't work unless it's for a family business, e.g. a farm or ranch.
It's been very effective.)
Stephen Sprunk
> but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
> when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
>
> and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
Those kids are mostly getting it from their parents, from siblings, or
from homeless people they find outside the liquor stores. The 15-17yo
crowd has relatively little social interaction with the 18-20yo crowd
because the former are all in HS and most of the latter are not.
In any case, that was _not_ the reason for raising the drinking age to
21. It was raised because fundamentalist Christians refused to teach
their kids how to drink responsibly, so when the kids turned 18 and
could buy alcohol for themselves, they drank to excess and caused all
sorts of trouble (most notably DWI accidents). Those parents thought
that raising the age to 21 would keep their kids away from alcohol until
they were married, out of college, and back in church with their own
kids. It is obvious that this plan has been a complete failure, just
like Prohibition was (and the drug war still is).
Similar religiously-motivated plans to keep teens from having sex by
denying them education and birth control have universally resulted in
high teen pregnancy rates. Unfortunately, the nuts that back these
sorts of plans see failure as a sign they haven't gone far enough, not
that their ideology is flawed and we actually need to go in the opposite
direction...
Bolwerk
> On Sep 23, 2:01 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 1:38 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Without policy changes at higher levels of government, there's little
>>> that can be done. Stopping cops from having to chase frivolous
>>> offenses, like drug use and so-called "underage" drinking, would be a
>>> good start.
>> A neighbor, 19, got busted for underage drinking. While she's no
>> choir girl, she does have a job at a store, works very hard and well,
>> and will be promoted to management. Underage drinking laws do make a
>> person wonder.
>>
>> If I recall the article, NYS uses kids as liquor agents to bust stores
>> that sell to kids. Kind of creepy.
>
> I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not vin favor of enforcing
> petty shit
>
> but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
> when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
Younger teens still get it, same as they always did. Maybe instead of
coming directly from an 18-19yo, they get it from an 18-19yo who got it
from a 21yo. Big deal.
Anyway, fake ids are easy to get.
> and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
It's serious at any age. That's why responsible parents teach
responsible drinking.
> and what is the point of a drinking age if it is not going to be
> enforced.
The only point to begin with was to try to suppress alcohol consumption,
and it probably at least partly backfired.
Peter T. Daniels
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
> > when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
>
> > and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
>
> Those kids are mostly getting it from their parents, from siblings, or
> from homeless people they find outside the liquor stores. The 15-17yo
> crowd has relatively little social interaction with the 18-20yo crowd
> because the former are all in HS and most of the latter are not.
Their slightly older siblings -- or do you not even read what you
wrote three lines above?
> In any case, that was _not_ the reason for raising the drinking age to
> 21. It was raised because fundamentalist Christians refused to teach
> their kids how to drink responsibly, so when the kids turned 18 and
> could buy alcohol for themselves, they drank to excess and caused all
> sorts of trouble (most notably DWI accidents). Those parents thought
> that raising the age to 21 would keep their kids away from alcohol until
> they were married, out of college, and back in church with their own
> kids. It is obvious that this plan has been a complete failure, just
> like Prohibition was (and the drug war still is).
>
> Similar religiously-motivated plans to keep teens from having sex by
> denying them education and birth control have universally resulted in
> high teen pregnancy rates. Unfortunately, the nuts that back these
> sorts of plans see failure as a sign they haven't gone far enough, not
> that their ideology is flawed and we actually need to go in the opposite
> direction...
You do love to assume that the aberrant Texas lifestyle is found
throughout the US.
You are posting to NEW YORK CITY dot transit, where obviously we're
more sophisticated than your neighbors.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I read in one of those "stupid laws" email lists that one state still
> has a law on the books that unmarried couples can only rent rooms with
> two beds, the hotel must provide them nightclothes, and having sex on
> the floor between the beds is illegal. If true, I doubt that law is
> still enforced...
In the 1950s and earlier those laws were taken much more seriously.
While actual prosecutions were relatively rare, cops would regularly
intercede upon a report of "immoral activity", which included a
variety of offenses. The citizens back then demanded the police do
that. Knowledge of a married person who cheated was often used for
blackmail.
Oddly, certain practices deemed immoral today were seen as ok as long
as the people were married.
> > One change in the opposite direction--I don't think alcohol is allowed
> > in the workplace in corporate offices these days, when way, way back
> > it was around.
>
> In general that's true, but more because the executives (who often have
> a private bar in their own office) don't want their employees getting
> drunk and making mistakes, sexually harassing each other, or putting the
> company at risk if they drive home drunk.
Do high executives today still have a private bar in their office? In
the distant past that was common, but I'm not so sure of it today, for
the liability reasons you state.
Certainly the depiction on TV of alcohol and the workplace has
drastically changed. On Mary Tyler Moore, her boss Lou Grant had a
bottle in his desk, and not totally unusual in that time frame.
In the classic movie "The Apartment", the in-house office holiday
party had liquor flowing quite freely. That movie is a good
reflection of corporate and social life of that era, including the
hypocracy.
> I don't know specifically about rail manufacturers, but in most
> industries it is common for vendors to take customers out for drinks,
> hold parties where free alcohol is provided, etc. This is rarely done
> at a company-owned location, though, and attendance is optional, which
> I'm told solves all the legal liability issues.
Interesting.
> > Another example, in railroad shops, going way, way back they had kids
> > working in them. The 14 y/o would be messengers, 16 y/o would be
> > apprentices. I think today safety labor laws or lawsuit liability
> > concerns would prohibit anyone under 18 from being in a shop.
>
> There are child labor laws and education laws* that are relevant, but I
> can't think of any special safety or liability issues that would prevent
> a shop from employing someone under 18. I knew several kids in HS that
> were part-time mechanics, which would have similar issues if any
> existed. My suspicion is that the RRs have so many excess adult
> employees these days that they have no _need_ to hire kids like they
> used to. It's also a pain, paperwork-wise, to employ minors.
When I turned 16 I got a summer desk job. I heard I'd need "working
papers". I had to take a parent all the way down to a public welfare
office to get them. We both were interviewed. It was obviously the
process was to ensure that kids wouldn't be working in hazardous
environments like a meat packing plant or working long hours that
would interfere with school. My job was pushing a pencil all day long
on a coding pad which was not exactly particularly hazardous. It
turned out the employer had no interest in the working papers, so
getting them was a waste of time. The employer also hired some kids
under age 16 (under 16 is tougher under the law) plus paid us slightly
less than minimum wage.
> (* My state made it is illegal to employ anyone under 18 unless they are
> a family member or present a HS diploma, a GED, or a letter from an
> accredited school that they are currently in attendance full-time, which
> must be renewed every six months. Kids can still drop out at 15, but
> they can't work unless it's for a family business, e.g. a farm or ranch.
> It's been very effective.)
Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
'nam.
In urban areas there are too many kids dropping out or truant to be
properly checked if they comply with the labor or school attendance
laws. I think the minimum drop out is 17 unless employed, then it's
16, but again, that's mostly on paper, not necessarily in practice in
an urban district.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 24, 10:43 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
> > I read in one of those "stupid laws" email lists that one state still
> > has a law on the books that unmarried couples can only rent rooms with
> > two beds, the hotel must provide them nightclothes, and having sex on
> > the floor between the beds is illegal. If true, I doubt that law is
> > still enforced...
>
> In the 1950s and earlier those laws were taken much more seriously.
> While actual prosecutions were relatively rare, cops would regularly
> intercede upon a report of "immoral activity", which included a
> variety of offenses. The citizens back then demanded the police do
> that. Knowledge of a married person who cheated was often used for
> blackmail.
>
> Oddly, certain practices deemed immoral today were seen as ok as long
> as the people were married.
Such as smoking, or marital rape.
> > > One change in the opposite direction--I don't think alcohol is allowed
> > > in the workplace in corporate offices these days, when way, way back
> > > it was around.
>
> > In general that's true, but more because the executives (who often have
> > a private bar in their own office) don't want their employees getting
> > drunk and making mistakes, sexually harassing each other, or putting the
> > company at risk if they drive home drunk.
>
> Do high executives today still have a private bar in their office? In
> the distant past that was common, but I'm not so sure of it today, for
> the liability reasons you state.
>
> Certainly the depiction on TV of alcohol and the workplace has
> drastically changed. On Mary Tyler Moore, her boss Lou Grant had a
> bottle in his desk, and not totally unusual in that time frame.
>
> In the classic movie "The Apartment", the in-house office holiday
> party had liquor flowing quite freely. That movie is a good
> reflection of corporate and social life of that era, including the
> hypocracy.
See MadMen for depictions of everything you're talking about.
I needed working papers at 14. I had to go to the State of New York
office in Harlem (near where Bill Clinton's office is), but no parent
needed to accojmpany me.
> > (* My state made it is illegal to employ anyone under 18 unless they are
> > a family member or present a HS diploma, a GED, or a letter from an
> > accredited school that they are currently in attendance full-time, which
> > must be renewed every six months. Kids can still drop out at 15, but
> > they can't work unless it's for a family business, e.g. a farm or ranch.
> > It's been very effective.)
>
> Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
> their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
> This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
> was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
> 'nam.
The rest of us just went to college. Even the poorest could afford the
tuition at the public universities.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
> > their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
> > This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
> > was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
> > 'nam.
>
> The rest of us just went to college. Even the poorest could afford the
> tuition at the public universities.
Back then there were not as many cheap options for college for poor
kids as there are today. Even if a kid could get a scholarship, he
still had to be admitted, and many poor kids couldn't get in
academically.
In any event, at age 21 school usually was over for most people. Some
managed to push it longer by going to graduate school. Many kids with
a college degree could get a job that had deferrment. Teaching was
very popular for that reason in that era. But poor kids could only
get jobs that had no deferment.
I believe toward the end of the draft era the rules were changed to be
more fair, but the draft itself was almost over so it didn't matter.
Around 1971 the bottom dropped out of the engineer job market, which
was once extremely strong, and graduating engineers found themselves
jobless and drafted.
I wouldn't have been surprised if the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan
and a tired military necessitated a draft this year. Apparently not.
Our presence in Afghanistan is now being questioned.
James Robinson
> I was on a demonstration ride of a new train and once we were underway
> the car builder broke out the booze for the guests; I don't think that
> would happen today.
It wouldn't. The extent of alcohol bans varies by railroad, but all I know
of don't allow any alcohol anywhere near train operations, to the extent
that you can't have it on the property, even in closed bottles that you
don't intend to consume. (e.g. wine bottle in the trunk of your car in a
railroad parking lot.)
James Robinson
> I don't know specifically about rail manufacturers, but in most
> industries it is common for vendors to take customers out for drinks,
> hold parties where free alcohol is provided, etc. This is rarely done
> at a company-owned location, though, and attendance is optional, which
> I'm told solves all the legal liability issues.
Rail equipment suppliers have their own rules, but railroad employees often
work under very restrictive rules, such as not being allowed to have any
alcohol at lunch if you intend to return to railroad property after. On
some railroads, that includes all staff, including those in operations and
administration, and even those in the Marketing department. Marketing was
often the last holdout, so they could entertain customerts, but on some
railroads they can't even put alcohol on their expense accounts for
entertaining customers.
Because of past issues, the railroads had to put very draconian rules in
place to show they were serious about ending any hint of alcohol-related
problems in train operations.
Vince
printers, cardreaders had lots of moving parts and so at XMAS parties
no booze.
Vince
Unless the party was after hrs.
Vince
I worked in the same machine shop as my dad summer of 1964, matter of
fact I forgot to go for the working papers even after the boss filled
out his section.
I mostly sweeped the fl and help out the guy lifting things some of the
stuff as I think back might have been against the rules
>
>
>> (* My state made it is illegal to employ anyone under 18 unless they are
>> a family member or present a HS diploma, a GED, or a letter from an
>> accredited school that they are currently in attendance full-time, which
>> must be renewed every six months. Kids can still drop out at 15, but
>> they can't work unless it's for a family business, e.g. a farm or ranch.
>> It's been very effective.)
>
> Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
> their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
> This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
> was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
> 'nam.
>
>
I grew up in that area and I don't recall any such thing.
My friend who dropped out at 16 (poor guy couldn't read)stayed out of
the army as he was an only son.
Vince
> On Sep 23, 11:46 pm, Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Going back to the 1940s and 1950s marriage was very important and
>>> there was considerable social pressure in many areas. Getting caught
>>> having sex outside of marriage could cost you your job, your
>>> apartment, credit standing, etc. There was cheating but it was kept
>>> much quieter than is today.
>> Going way back what does that have to do with today?
>
> Umm, didn't you bring up the marriage license requirement of the
> past? The above explanation describes the social context of an
> earlier time. It was quite different than today.
>
>
No I didn't I was talking about a bill that Reagan's people wanted to
pass in 1981. Which never saw the light of day.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 24, 1:20 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
> > > their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
> > > This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
> > > was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
> > > 'nam.
>
> > The rest of us just went to college. Even the poorest could afford the
> > tuition at the public universities.
>
> Back then there were not as many cheap options for college for poor
> kids as there are today. Even if a kid could get a scholarship, he
> still had to be admitted, and many poor kids couldn't get in
> academically.
The City College of New York was FREE. (Presumably Queens, Brooklyn,
and Hunter were also. There were a few other entities that merged into
CUNY in 1965.) I don't know what tuition was at SUNY, but it was
hardly exorbitant.
> In any event, at age 21 school usually was over for most people. Some
> managed to push it longer by going to graduate school. Many kids with
> a college degree could get a job that had deferrment. Teaching was
> very popular for that reason in that era. But poor kids could only
> get jobs that had no deferment.
A typical student graduates from high school at 18 and thus from
college at 22.
> I believe toward the end of the draft era the rules were changed to be
> more fair, but the draft itself was almost over so it didn't matter.
> Around 1971 the bottom dropped out of the engineer job market, which
> was once extremely strong, and graduating engineers found themselves
> jobless and drafted.
For no reason at all (since the draft was over), I had to go to some
obscure spot in downtown Chicago in January 1973 for a draft physical
at 7 am. I took *Catcher in the Rye* to read during the ordeal -- it
seemed appropriate, and I'd never read it before.
> I wouldn't have been surprised if the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan
> and a tired military necessitated a draft this year. Apparently not.
bush had to conceal from the American people that a pointless war was
going on, remember?
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
>>> when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
>>> and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
>>
>> Those kids are mostly getting it from their parents, from siblings, or
>> from homeless people they find outside the liquor stores. The 15-17yo
>> crowd has relatively little social interaction with the 18-20yo crowd
>> because the former are all in HS and most of the latter are not.
>
> Their slightly older siblings -- or do you not even read what you
> wrote three lines above?
The lines above that I think you are referring to were written by
rshersh, not me.
>> In any case, that was _not_ the reason for raising the drinking age to
>> 21. It was raised because fundamentalist Christians refused to teach
>> their kids how to drink responsibly, so when the kids turned 18 and
>> could buy alcohol for themselves, they drank to excess and caused all
>> sorts of trouble (most notably DWI accidents). Those parents thought
>> that raising the age to 21 would keep their kids away from alcohol until
>> they were married, out of college, and back in church with their own
>> kids. It is obvious that this plan has been a complete failure, just
>> like Prohibition was (and the drug war still is).
>>
>> Similar religiously-motivated plans to keep teens from having sex by
>> denying them education and birth control have universally resulted in
>> high teen pregnancy rates. Unfortunately, the nuts that back these
>> sorts of plans see failure as a sign they haven't gone far enough, not
>> that their ideology is flawed and we actually need to go in the opposite
>> direction...
>
> You do love to assume that the aberrant Texas lifestyle is found
> throughout the US.
>
> You are posting to NEW YORK CITY dot transit, where obviously we're
> more sophisticated than your neighbors.
Despite your blatant prejudice, Texas is nowhere near as far to the
right as other red states. For instance, nobody here would seriously
propose banning birth control pills and condoms, as was done recently in
Kansas, which was also a hotbed for that Intelligent Design idiocy. And
there _are_ right-wing nuts in NYC (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) and other blue
states; they're just not the majority.
The logic above _was_ used in the 80s to block federal highway funds
unless states complied by raising their drinking age. NYS, like every
state, buckled rather than fight it -- the same way that every state
buckled when getting federal highway funds was conditioned on lowering
speed limits starting in the 70s. Remove the drinking-age condition and
I bet most states would drop it back to 18, just like most (particularly
in the western half of the US) raised their speed limits when that
condition was removed.
This is one of the reasons that I am so against having to send money to
DC and then beg for it back: getting our own money back always comes
with strings attached that wouldn't exist if we had been able to keep it
in the first place. States are perfectly able to handle these sorts of
issues on their own.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> but one of the reasons for enforcement of underaged drinking is that
> >>> when 18-19 yo do it, they get it for kids even younger
> >>> and substance/alcohol abuse is serious in 15, 16, 17 yo's
>
> >> Those kids are mostly getting it from their parents, from siblings, or
> >> from homeless people they find outside the liquor stores. The 15-17yo
> >> crowd has relatively little social interaction with the 18-20yo crowd
> >> because the former are all in HS and most of the latter are not.
>
> > Their slightly older siblings -- or do you not even read what you
> > wrote three lines above?
>
> The lines above that I think you are referring to were written by
> rshersh, not me.
Are you claiming that you did not write "Those kids are mostly getting
it from ... siblings"? If so, then your newsreader is seriously broken
when it comes to assigning chevrons.
Rational hatred of Texas does not preclude rational hatred of "red
states" that are even farther to the right.
> The logic above _was_ used in the 80s to block federal highway funds
> unless states complied by raising their drinking age. NYS, like every
> state, buckled rather than fight it -- the same way that every state
> buckled when getting federal highway funds was conditioned on lowering
> speed limits starting in the 70s. Remove the drinking-age condition and
> I bet most states would drop it back to 18, just like most (particularly
> in the western half of the US) raised their speed limits when that
> condition was removed.
There are car cards in PATH citing statistics about teen highway
deaths in New Jersey after the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21.
They declined by SEVENTY PERCENT. (Or do you think the statisticians
are lying?)
> This is one of the reasons that I am so against having to send money to
> DC and then beg for it back: getting our own money back always comes
> with strings attached that wouldn't exist if we had been able to keep it
> in the first place. States are perfectly able to handle these sorts of
> issues on their own.
Is Texas a net donor or a net recipient of federal funds?
New York is among the biggest, if not the biggest, percent donor
states. (NJ is probably way up there, too, because we have the second
highest per capita income in the country -- having somehow recently
been surpassed by Maryland.)
John Kane
> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>
> >>> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
> >>> from terrorists.
> >>> see:
> >>>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTI...
> >> The
>
> >>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
> >>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
> >>> out taking pictures.
> >> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>
> >> --
> >> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>
> > Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>
> > Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>
> > But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>
> > and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>
> > one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
> > even come to your aid should you need them.
>
> Take it easy now, sorry to say there are any number of cops who ARE so
> overweight I would worry about what good they would do no matter what
> was going on.
>
> Point in fact checking back packs, front packs, ass packs here and there
> isn't going to help anything.
>
> Speaking in general I don't understand for the life of me why the kooks
> haven't done a lot more bad things to us, 9/11 was over NINE years ago
> and please don't tell me the fed has been doing that great a job.
They've already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? They seem to
have managed to create a self-sustaining terrorist reaction in much of
the world and especially in the USA.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Larry Sheldon
> They've already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? They seem to
> have managed to create a self-sustaining terrorist reaction in much of
> the world and especially in the USA.
Isn't that the very soul of "terrorism"?
To make everybody afraid of everybody and everything all the time?
rsh...@gmail.com
> <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dbaa89cd-2408-4cc5...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Another thing, it remains extremely difficult to obtain explosives in
> the US.
> ========
> Better to make that "commerically available explosives "(the identifiably
> traceable kind). Quite a few alternatives exist in the everyday public
> sphere.
Yep, but they were caught trying to assemble explosives available in
said public sphere
James Robinson
>
> Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking in general I don't understand for the life of me why the
>> kooks haven't done a lot more bad things to us, 9/11 was over NINE
>> years ago and please don't tell me the fed has been doing that great
>> a job.
>
> They've already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? They seem to
> have managed to create a self-sustaining terrorist reaction in much of
> the world and especially in the USA.
I don't mean to belittle the people who lost their lives on 9/11, but it
seems that the average American has a warped sense of risk. We seem to be
more worried about an attack that took 3,000 lives 8 years ago, but don't
think twice about about getting into a car where highway accidents have
taken over 300,000 lives, plus ten times that in injuries. Where is the
sense of perspective?
Vince
Good point
Slim
> On Sep 22, 5:22�pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>
>>> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
>>> from terrorists.
>>
>>> see: �
>>> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECTI.
> ..
>>
>> The article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>> facilities. �I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
>>> out taking pictures.
>>
>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>
>> --
>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>
> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>
> Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>
> But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>
> and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>
> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
> even come to your aid should you need them.
Yes, I ride the Grubway.
I see tons of cops in midtown stations checking backpacks as people
enter and leave the system.
But I dont see any checking going on as people enter the system from
the outer boros especially at thge smaller local stations where ANYONE
could bring ANYTHING onto the train.
You like the show of cops and guns?
Does the show of force make you feel safe?
Its all a fucking illusion.
Slim
> On Sep 22, 11:29�pm, Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>
>>>>> Newsradio reported that authorities were worried about backpack bombs
>>>>> from terrorists.
>>>>> see: �
>>>>> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_TERROR?SITE=KYWAM&SECT
> I...
>>>> The
>>
>>>>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>>>> facilities. �I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfan
> s
>>>>> out taking pictures.
>>>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>>
>>> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>>
>>> Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>>
>>> But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>>
>>> and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>>
>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>>
>> Take it easy now, �sorry to say there are any number of cops who ARE so
>> overweight I would worry about what good they would do no matter what
>> was going on.
>
> that is a failure of command. what are the higher ups doing?
Sitting on even FATTER asses waiting so they can get a 100% disability pension.
Vince
Slim
> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
>>>> out taking pictures.
>>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>>
>> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>
> He didn't say all cops are useless fatasses.
>
>> Better terrorists murder more New Yorkers on the subway?
>
> Any potential terrorist must know that his odds of getting searched are
> pretty low. Any measure involving bag searches and the like simply
> inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a bombing did happen on the
> Subway, whatever cops are there would just be casualties too.
All anyone has to do is enter the system in a low-income area.
The cops are not putting on any shows there.
It makes great press as the cops mass at Grand Central and Penn Station
in front of all the white suburbanites.
>
>> But you don't use the "dirty, smelly subways, now do you?
>>
>> and you don't want to associate with anyone that does, now do you?
>>
>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>
> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then
> met with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>
> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or overstretched.
If you are mugged and want to go to the precinct and report it,
somebody has to do a LOT of paperwork.
thats why you are frequently met with a surly attitude at best.
Slim
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>>
>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>
>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>> overstretched.
>
> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
> those crimes. Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
> millions of dollars per year?
Exactly.
Slim
> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 12:26 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sep 22, 5:22 pm, Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-09-22 14:30:14 -0400, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com said:
>>>>>> article said police were urged to be more viligent at train
>>>>>> facilities. I hope this doesn't make it more difficult for railfans
>>>>>> out taking pictures.
>>>>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>>>> --
>>>>> "A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
>>>> Does that include the fat ass cops murdered on 9-11?
>>> He didn't say all cops are useless fatasses.
>>>
>>
>> umm, what does this say?
>>
>>
>> More useless overtime for fatass cops.
>>
>> only fatass cops will get the ot?
>>
>> or all cops are fat ass?
>>
>> or exactly what?
>
> It implies, to me, that it gives the police union (which has its share
> of useless fatasses, just like every other city agency) more work
> without any tangible benefit to the public...which may be true in this
> case.
The benefit is good PR for the cops, comissioner and the mayor as they
are all "preventing terror attacks".
Slim
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>>
>>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>>> overstretched.
>>
>> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
>> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
>> those crimes.
>
> They probably realize there's little chance they'll catch whoever
> committed the crime. However, police indifference can still harm the
> victim, especially if a report number is needed for insurance purposes
> (medical or otherwise).
>
>> Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
>> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
>> millions of dollars per year?
>
> AFAIK, NYC's police force doesn't generally write parking tickets.
> Traffic cops do that, and I'm sure it has created quite a successful
> racket.
>
> Speeding may be another matter, but I seriously doubt much more than a
> handful of the force is on speed patrol at any given time. When they
> do enforce traffic rules, it often seems like an opportunity to run
> your plates/name and see if any warrants come up. They usually just
> let you go again, regardless of your offense (unless it's a DUI).
If they run your name though the system and there is a hit for a
warrant, they have to bring you in.
Slim
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>> rsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> one more thing, idiot, it is really unfortunate the fat ass cops will
>>>> even come to your aid should you need them.
>>> A lot of cops these days really do seem to dismiss pretty serious
>>> offenses, especially when they happen to younger men (I guess it's a
>>> machismo thing) - of course, I'm going by all the stories I read in the
>>> newspaper and all the times friends have been robbed/mugged and then met
>>> with police indifference. It would be interesting to see some
>>> statistics about that, if it's even possible to find some.
>>>
>>> Some of that is probably a function of being understaffed and/or
>>> overstretched.
>>
>> That's part of it, but the _reason_ that those offenses are understaffed
>> is that the PD management understands there's no profit in investigating
>> those crimes. Why assign cops to property crime when you can instead
>> send them out to write parking/speeding/etc. tickets that bring in
>> millions of dollars per year?
>>
>> S
>>
> Yeah and how many times illegal parking etc is done right in front of
> the cops and they do nothing?
What about the cops and thier families parking anywhere they want?
Slim
And just look at all the money being spent! The overtime! The profits!!!!
Slim
> John Kane wrote:
>
>> They've already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? They seem to
>> have managed to create a self-sustaining terrorist reaction in much of
>> the world and especially in the USA.
>
> Isn't that the very soul of "terrorism"?
>
> To make everybody afraid of everybody and everything all the time?
Bush and Cheney did a real good job.,,,they learned from a Master.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels schrieb:
>
> >> I wouldn't have been surprised if the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan
> >> and a tired military necessitated a draft this year. Apparently not.
>
> > bush had to conceal from the American people that a pointless war was
> > going on, remember?
>
No one has ever suggested that the war in Afghanistan was pointless
eight years ago.
Have you forgotten that bush decided to look for his car keys under
the streetlight instead of next to the car where he dropped them?
That is, he chose to invade Iraq and ignore al-Qaeda.
> details of our intervention (USA spending a lot of money, of which
> perhaps 5% reached the ground, meaning that those gobs of money bought
> less infrastructure than the help of the Soviet Union during their
> stay; Germany adding to the history books by the innovation, to
> establish police training without trainers, and on and on), which made
> it a failure.
> But there was certainly a window of opportunity, perhaps 4 years or so,
> to make it a success story.
Sancho Panza
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53d7cbee-1479-4512...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
=======
That is, of course, if their hair wasn't naturally blond. :)
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sep 24, 10:43 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> I read in one of those "stupid laws" email lists that one state still
>> has a law on the books that unmarried couples can only rent rooms with
>> two beds, the hotel must provide them nightclothes, and having sex on
>> the floor between the beds is illegal. If true, I doubt that law is
>> still enforced...
>
> In the 1950s and earlier those laws were taken much more seriously.
> While actual prosecutions were relatively rare, cops would regularly
> intercede upon a report of "immoral activity", which included a
> variety of offenses. The citizens back then demanded the police do
> that. Knowledge of a married person who cheated was often used for
> blackmail.
Indeed. Many of those laws are still on the books, though, and
sufficiently motivated cops will try anything. Fortunately, though,
most people these days simply don't care about "immoral activity" unless
its done by politicians.
A few years ago Georgia tried a man for "fornication", i.e. having sex
out of wedlock, as a last resort after he had beaten several other
charges they had tried him for, but the court threw the case out because
nobody had been tried under that law for over two decades -- and because
they didn't charge the girl along with him.
> Oddly, certain practices deemed immoral today were seen as ok as long
> as the people were married.
That was an unfortunate side effect of the sexual revolution and the
coming out of the gay subculture. The "moral majority" has repeatedly
failed to outlaw gay sex, so they've settled for outlawing any form of
sex other than the one specific kind that requires a man and a woman.
Unfortunately, few politicians were/are willing to fight it due to fears
about it hurting their chances of being reelected, so we have to rely on
the courts to smack these laws down. The penalties are so stiff,
though, that it's tough to find people willing to be test cases.
>>> One change in the opposite direction--I don't think alcohol is allowed
>>> in the workplace in corporate offices these days, when way, way back
>>> it was around.
>>
>> In general that's true, but more because the executives (who often have
>> a private bar in their own office) don't want their employees getting
>> drunk and making mistakes, sexually harassing each other, or putting the
>> company at risk if they drive home drunk.
>
> Do high executives today still have a private bar in their office? In
> the distant past that was common, but I'm not so sure of it today, for
> the liability reasons you state.
Many of the old-school types still do, in violation of the new corporate
policies which they themselves wrote, but the younger generation not so
much. We're not as big on mixing work and pleasure; drinking during
work hours is not socially acceptable to us -- but the entire office
going to happy hour after work is. I'm sure the cultural change is
rooted in that policy shift, which is in turn due to liability, but the
new culture is now self-sustaining; it seems like a good idea, not
something forced on us.
>> (* My state made it is illegal to employ anyone under 18 unless they are
>> a family member or present a HS diploma, a GED, or a letter from an
>> accredited school that they are currently in attendance full-time, which
>> must be renewed every six months. Kids can still drop out at 15, but
>> they can't work unless it's for a family business, e.g. a farm or ranch.
>> It's been very effective.)
>
> Back during the Vietnam era poor kids would stay in school, flunking
> their classes year after year, until they hit the maximum age of 21.
> This would give them a draft deferrment for the time in school. It
> was a smart move as kids like that suffered high casualty rates in
> 'nam.
Interesting; that never occurred to me. Then again, all the folks I
know who were that age at the time got deferments by going to college.
> In urban areas there are too many kids dropping out or truant to be
> properly checked if they comply with the labor or school attendance
> laws. I think the minimum drop out is 17 unless employed, then it's
> 16, but again, that's mostly on paper, not necessarily in practice in
> an urban district.
Make the fine large enough and employers _will_ check their paperwork.
Truancy is another matter, but if legit employers check their papers,
those truant students will find themselves without papers and lose their
jobs. Unfortunately, many such students will seek illegal employment,
e.g. dealing drugs or prostitution, rather than start attending school.
We also tried ticketing parents if their kids were truant too often,
but the ones who racked up the most tickets were unemployed,
incarcerated, or absent themselves. It's a tough problem to solve
without parental support, and if you have parental support there's
rarely a problem that needs an external solution...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The City College of New York was FREE. (Presumably Queens, Brooklyn,
> and Hunter were also. There were a few other entities that merged into
> CUNY in 1965.) I don't know what tuition was at SUNY, but it was
> hardly exorbitant.
But when CCNY was free, didn't it have tough admission standards?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The logic above _was_ used in the 80s to block federal highway funds
> unless states complied by raising their drinking age. NYS, like every
> state, buckled rather than fight it -- the same way that every state
> buckled when getting federal highway funds was conditioned on lowering
> speed limits starting in the 70s. Remove the drinking-age condition and
> I bet most states would drop it back to 18, just like most (particularly
> in the western half of the US) raised their speed limits when that
> condition was removed.
IMHO interfering with state drinking laws was a violation of the 21st
Amendment which quite explicitly assigns states that power. But the
courts didn't agree and they were able to use highway money as a
leverage for drinking laws.
> This is one of the reasons that I am so against having to send money to
> DC and then beg for it back: getting our own money back always comes
> with strings attached that wouldn't exist if we had been able to keep it
> in the first place. States are perfectly able to handle these sorts of
> issues on their own.
Began with the New Deal--attaching strings to money to advance an
agenda. Historically it's been a practice of the Left, but in more
recent years the Right has utilized it too, with the Left screaming in
objection.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> There are car cards in PATH citing statistics about teen highway
> deaths in New Jersey after the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21.
> They declined by SEVENTY PERCENT. (Or do you think the statisticians
> are lying?)
In this very specific instance the raw data is very objective.
But in many other cases (see separate post) statistics are used in
extremely slanted ways. Like including transit usage at 3 am or the
cost of building an urban subway vs the cost of a rural highway.
The "life expectancy" statistic being offered to claim foreign health
care is superior has been shown to be totally bogus.
> Is Texas a net donor or a net recipient of federal funds?
I think the net donor/recipient value is an interesting number, but
given the massive complexity of Federal Govt, it's really hard to come
up with something accurate. Does the salarly of postal workers
count? Does the salary to military personnel whose home is within the
state count, even when the personnel are stationed overseas? Then it
gets really sticky with defense contractors and sub-contractors. The
military orders fighter planes, of which the individual components are
built all over the place and can represent significant economic
influence. Is that properly allocated?
If a highway contractor is based in NY, but builds a road in Mass.,
does the money count toward NY or Mass? Mass gets the benefit of the
road, but obviously NY is getting some money out of it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I don't mean to belittle the people who lost their lives on 9/11, but it
> seems that the average American has a warped sense of risk. We seem to be
> more worried about an attack that took 3,000 lives 8 years ago, but don't
> think twice about about getting into a car where highway accidents have
> taken over 300,000 lives, plus ten times that in injuries. Where is the
> sense of perspective?
I think some of that comes from 'risk adverse' attitudes of govt and
industry officials (at all levels). There was no way 9/11 could have
been predicted*. But far too many people claimed it was "obvious' and
blamed officials for letting it happen and not being prepared for it.
They claimed the towers should've withstood the force of a jet plane
hitting it, like that's a normal occurence. Plenty of lawsuits were
filed.
*Pearl Harbor was a surprise, too, because new tactics were utilized.
But at least there was a specific valid military objective in that
attack, which did not exist for 9/11. Interestingly, MacArthur--who
was expecting an attack and saw what happened at Pearl Harbor--left
his planes undefended and suffered losses, but was not questioned on
it. Ironically, the big loss at Pearl was the battleships, which were
made obsolete by the very nature of the attack--from carrier based
fighters.
Whenever something bad unexpectedly happens, officials get hammered
for "not being prepared", even if the event was not reasonably
predictable.
Peter T. Daniels
Yup.
Still does. That's why CUNY has a very large assortment of community
colleges. ("Open admissions" -- anyone with a h.s. diploma -- didn't
work for senior colleges.)
Adam H. Kerman
There's always second guessing in Washington. It's the nature of
politics. I never bought into the "failure of intelligence" accusation.
I do not expect our intelligence agencies to know everything. Besides,
they'd lie about it.
But there was a clear failure to follow through on ordinary
investigative work stemming from the first World Trade Center attack and
other attacks around the world. The lead investigator was hounded out of
the FBI, ended up getting hired to be head of security for the World
Trade Center and died at his desk when the planes struck.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 24, 5:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > There are car cards in PATH citing statistics about teen highway
> > deaths in New Jersey after the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21.
> > They declined by SEVENTY PERCENT. (Or do you think the statisticians
> > are lying?)
>
> In this very specific instance the raw data is very objective.
>
> But in many other cases (see separate post) statistics are used in
> extremely slanted ways. Like including transit usage at 3 am or the
> cost of building an urban subway vs the cost of a rural highway.
>
> The "life expectancy" statistic being offered to claim foreign health
> care is superior has been shown to be totally bogus.
It's not "being offered" by anyone in Congress. The congresscritters
never dispute the righties' insistence that "we have the best health
care system in the world."
> > Is Texas a net donor or a net recipient of federal funds?
>
> I think the net donor/recipient value is an interesting number, but
> given the massive complexity of Federal Govt, it's really hard to come
> up with something accurate.
That's completely irrelevant as long as it's figured the same way for
each state.
> Does the salarly of postal workers
> count? Does the salary to military personnel whose home is within the
> state count, even when the personnel are stationed overseas? Then it
> gets really sticky with defense contractors and sub-contractors. The
> military orders fighter planes, of which the individual components are
> built all over the place and can represent significant economic
> influence. Is that properly allocated?
>
> If a highway contractor is based in NY, but builds a road in Mass.,
> does the money count toward NY or Mass? Mass gets the benefit of the
> road, but obviously NY is getting some money out of it.
Irrelevant, as long as the MA-based contractor's work in NY is
accounted the same way.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Indeed. Many of those laws are still on the books, though, and
> sufficiently motivated cops will try anything. Fortunately, though,
> most people these days simply don't care about "immoral activity" unless
> its done by politicians.
Back in the 1950s and earlier merely being divorced was a negative for
a politician. Not total suicide, but certainly didn't help matters.
(Was Adlai Stevenson divorced?)
Through the 1960s unmarried co-habitation ("shacking up") and any gay
activity was seen as utterly immoral and participants would have
trouble getting an apartment, acceptance in the community, etc.. In
the 1970s, among great controversy, attitudes changed.
While I think we're better off that many of the old 1950s taboos are
gone and people are given more privacy, I also think society lost
'something' when people ceased caring about their community standing
or "what will the neighbors think". Without question, in the 1980s
many people became very disrespectful of their neighbors by being
noisy or causing other property problems and nuisances since they
didn't care what other people thought of them. Before that community
pressure helped enforce 'quality of life' standards.
> > Do high executives today still have a private bar in their office? In
> > the distant past that was common, but I'm not so sure of it today, for
> > the liability reasons you state.
>
> Many of the old-school types still do, in violation of the new corporate
> policies which they themselves wrote, but the younger generation not so
> much. We're not as big on mixing work and pleasure; drinking during
> work hours is not socially acceptable to us -- but the entire office
> going to happy hour after work is. I'm sure the cultural change is
> rooted in that policy shift, which is in turn due to liability, but the
> new culture is now self-sustaining; it seems like a good idea, not
> something forced on us.
IMHO it's a good thing that work life and personal life are separated.
> Make the fine large enough and employers _will_ check their paperwork.
A few years there was a labor shortage and fast food joints were
hiring 14 y/o's. The chains were very strict about keeping to their
limited work hours since they are more visible. But mom 'n pop type
retail or industry (like a small factory) weren't quite as careful.
There are many tiny businesses out there that are pretty sloppy about
compliance with the many govt regulations, like paying business
taxes. There are also many cash businesses that don't comply with
anything.
> We also tried ticketing parents if their kids were truant too often,
> but the ones who racked up the most tickets were unemployed,
> incarcerated, or absent themselves. It's a tough problem to solve
> without parental support, and if you have parental support there's
> rarely a problem that needs an external solution...
The city mayor ordered truant parents be brought into an arena where
he read them the riot act for being irresponsible, the importance of
education for their kids to get out of the slums (as he did), etc.
Instead of thinking how to be better parents, the parents were
outraged at this treatment and booed the mayor. With a parental
attitude like that, it becomes a really, really tough problem. Sad.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Indeed. �Many of those laws are still on the books, though, and
>>sufficiently motivated cops will try anything. �Fortunately, though,
>>most people these days simply don't care about "immoral activity" unless
>>its done by politicians.
>Back in the 1950s and earlier merely being divorced was a negative for
>a politician. . . .
It's funny how being a malicious gossip never made one an object of
scorn or derision or being run out of the community.
danny burstein
>But there was a clear failure to follow through on ordinary
>investigative work stemming from the first World Trade Center attack and
>other attacks around the world. The lead investigator was hounded out of
>the FBI, ended up getting hired to be head of security for the World
>Trade Center and died at his desk when the planes struck.
If you look a bit more closely at the sanitized record
regarding John O'Neill, his situation isn't quite
that clearcut.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Stephen Sprunk
> I don't mean to belittle the people who lost their lives on 9/11, but it
> seems that the average American has a warped sense of risk. We seem to be
> more worried about an attack that took 3,000 lives 8 years ago, but don't
> think twice about about getting into a car where highway accidents have
> taken over 300,000 lives, plus ten times that in injuries. Where is the
> sense of perspective?
Numerous studies have shown that people underestimate common risks and
overestimate rare ones. This is exacerbated by the media and people's
misunderstanding of "news".
As one expert I follow puts it, "if it's unusual enough to make the
news, don't worry about it; worry about the stuff that _doesn't_ make
the news because it's so common."
One of the unfortunate parts of a democracy is that when you have a
stupid, reactionary populace, the politicians will act stupid and
reactionary to appease them -- even if they themselves know better.
Bolwerk
> On 2009-09-23 12:26:44 -0400, Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> said:
>> Any potential terrorist must know that his odds of getting searched
>> are pretty low. Any measure involving bag searches and the like
>> simply inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a bombing did happen
>> on the Subway, whatever cops are there would just be casualties too.
>
> All anyone has to do is enter the system in a low-income area.
>
> The cops are not putting on any shows there.
>
> It makes great press as the cops mass at Grand Central and Penn Station
> in front of all the white suburbanites.
Perhaps, but Arab terrorists generally prefer to dress western casual.
Except for being a little bit brown, they blend in pretty well even in
Middle America. In New York, you simply wouldn't notice them. They
aren't wearing baggy pants and bling.
Bolwerk
> Is Texas a net donor or a net recipient of federal funds?
Texas is a net donor, but not by an impressive margin. I think that's a
fairly recent development though.
> New York is among the biggest, if not the biggest, percent donor
> states. (NJ is probably way up there, too, because we have the second
> highest per capita income in the country -- having somehow recently
> been surpassed by Maryland.)
MD is major beneficiary of federal funds. Imagine a government-related
activity involving a change of $: lobbying, contracts (any kind),
government employees living in droves in the area, and anything else I
can't think of. Maryland and Northern Virginia are ground zero for that.
And that's not even considering all the large corporate activities that
must be only indirect to government (restaurants, theaters, expensive
schools).
New Jersey, OTOH, pays for a lot of that.
Adam H. Kerman
>>But there was a clear failure to follow through on ordinary
>>investigative work stemming from the first World Trade Center attack and
>>other attacks around the world. The lead investigator was hounded out of
>>the FBI, ended up getting hired to be head of security for the World
>>Trade Center and died at his desk when the planes struck.
>If you look a bit more closely at the sanitized record
>regarding John O'Neill, his situation isn't quite
>that clearcut.
He was in disgrace! Who would have sanitized his record?