The left, of course, will deem this legislation as "toothless" but its harmful "unintended consequences", that hallmark of all new legislation, are easily predictable: increasing paperwork, handing more power to bureaucrats, further burdening the ailing economy with onerous regulations while doing nothing to punish anyone except the taxpayer and consumer (aka you and me).

keynes was wrong. and remains wrong.

>> ^Porksandwich:

From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.
There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.
They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways.

I guess I see a problem with both of these suggestions. First, how do you restore checks and balances? If the police refuse to comply with written instructions from a judge, what's supposed to happen? If the police refuse because the judge didn't use a particular form the police expect for a particular type of legal request, who settles the dispute? For that matter, who's supposed to take action to resolve the dispute?

I'd also point out that isn't really a question of checks and balances so much as trouble with inefficient communications.

Second, the problem with all law is that it's still written in English, which is not a formal language, free of all ambiguity. I mentioned in another thread that so-called "legalese" is usually about trying to make law more precise, so that it reduces the ambiguity of its meaning. But even then, there's often still room for interpretation, because legalese is still just technical English, and is therefore bound to include ambiguous elements.

For example, if you're going to ban "drunk driving" you have to come up with rigorous, objective standards for what constitutes being "drunk", and also what constitutes "driving". Is a separate law needed for boats and aircraft, for example? What about farm machinery? Is drunkenness determined by a test for impaired function, or by some sort of biochemical standard? In either case, you need to set a standard for what constitutes a valid test, how you verify the authenticity of the test, and how you document the test.

If the law defines "driving" as operating a gasoline-powered vehicle with 2 or 4 wheels, and someone is driving around with an ethanol-fueled car or a trike, should he be exempt from the law?

As for legal precedent, a lot of times that comes into play because the law was intentionally written to leave room for judges to make their own interpretation on the meaning of things that could never be exhaustively defined (e.g. "reasonable suspicion"). Over time you do start building up a more regular definition of "reasonable suspicion" by the way cases have been decided in the past, and so you'll find that the topic of precedent will naturally come up whenever a prosecutor or defense wants to challenge (or defend) the way one of those ambiguous standards was applied.

As for the way the courts tend to screw you if you try to file claims, I think part of that is because the court system is perpetually starved for resources, and they want to try to stave off frivolous lawsuits by making the process a pain in the ass.

@NetRunner,
From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.

There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.

They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways. A lot of the new anti-terror laws were used in such a way to bust drug dealers, hackers, etc that had no affiliation with terrorists.....simply because this interpretation and power struggle has went on for so long that it's second nature. The real problem with this second nature attitude is that more often than not the judicial branch takes a "blind trust" attitude toward police submitted evidence and reports so the check against corruption/common sense/legality there is lost completely without a lawyer to point it out.

And this leads into that you are granted representation in the constitution, they should make sure your representation is fit for duty and has the necessary information to give you a fair trial. Not delay getting you a public defender until the third court date and you only meet him 5 minutes before you go up in front of a judge. There's no reasonable expectation there of anything besides having a very limited time to make some very big decisions concerning plea offers and the implications of one action over the other.

It says you are granted a speedy trial, not that the courts are granted a speedy trial....but right now, the courts put forth the minimal effort but maximize your time investment if you don't admit guilt/pay the fee early on. Hell even small claims court takes multiple months to get you in, and they will hear your trial in about 5 minutes with no one else waiting to go up after you. Saw my dad get screwed there by someone because he was expecting the court to read the submitted material, other guy didn't even show up. And the mistake was the police departments fault for telling him false information (overstepping authority), court didn't care that the police department had aided this other person in essentially stealing 1500 bucks in costs due to their mishandling. This particular court would not allow you to file in small claims court and bring in a lawyer, you had to represent yourself if you were going into small claims. And they would not take the time to ferret out more information that may be pertinent to the trial because as soon as the question was asked the judge said they read it, even though by the comments it was a very brief reading if read at all. This kind of system encourages upstanding citizens to not file to recoup costs because it's time consuming with almost no return for their efforts even if it's a legitimate claim. But allows for criminals and fly-by nights to rip everyone off a few grand at a time and move on. ESPECIALLY if the person who committed the crime is on government support because they won't force them to pay it out of their benefits and you can't take their tax returns until they cash it..and if it never makes it into their bank account you can't get it period.

On the other hand, if the police actually had investigated and found out they gave misinformation and this other person benefitted from it at my dad's expense, and made it clear to the court that the other person owed the money or property back.....or "Admitted they screwed up"....some justice may have been done. But now he has to try to recoup a small pittance from someone who is probably a crackhead and is definitely on welfare..who has already sold the property and made and spent the money from the sale.


>> ^NetRunner:

so what's your answer to all this? How do we fix the system?
I'm all for leveling the playing field so the reality of the justice system hews more closely to its founding principles.
I just don't think trying to preemptively pass judgment on both the cops and the legal system helps. If you're looking for a watershed moment that turns public opinion towards wanting a better justice system, surely there are cases in the past that have more of a pull.
It seems to me that the big problem isn't these officers who maybe intentionally killed some people, and likely covered it up, the big problem is that the people at the top of our social order (e.g. Bush and Wall Street bankers) seem utterly immune to even being investigated, much less charged and convicted.
I'm really disheartened that we can't even seem to come up with a consensus of public opinion that these things need to be investigated, much less that it's of vital importance for our nation's future that we do so.

My point is not to dispute that they are contracted people with licenses by the state or some such. I only wonder if you bunch all people into the prejudice "same thing to me" mind frame you apply to rent-a-cops. I mean, if you apply blanket concepts to them, can you really blame others for just as irrational applications to other peoples or occupations? Are all black people the same? All Jews? All farmers of the south? All..., wait, did I say you applied a prejudice assumption? Of course I did... You look at their uniform and your opinion---that they are all rent-a-fake-cops or rent-a-cops---is already set. Isn't that prejudice?
Okay, so back to my point. I never try and apply "same thing to me" principles to anyone or anything...

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Well, somehow I do not believe this monkey-of-a-non-special-police-officer has taken law enforcement training, and that he is given city wide jurisdiction which falls on this beach. Soooo, he is not a Company Police or Special Police as such. In other words, he has no arrest nor detention powers even in Virginia. In more other words, he does NOTHING of what a police officer does. In even more other words, he is not a rent-a-cop. If you want to specifically denote rent-a-cops to special and company police, so be it. I cannot refute that logic. Same as rent-a-teachers and all companies that use contractors.
In fact, by the same logic you used, the electricians and computer IT guys in Iraq could be considered rent-a-soldiers by your definition...
Problem is, regular security does not do what police do--in practice or by law. Same with IT and other contractors for the military. They provide different services. Even if they carry guns for protection---like class G security guards in Florida.
Yes, I know about class G and all the stuff you point to as "evidence" to your point of view. However, it is moot. You are too intellectual for this meaningless point behind the debate. I am not trying to be the rightest here---just trying to get rid of a degrading term applied to a working class of individuals who are not all bad.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.
In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.
As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.
Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurit
yOfficer.cfm


I never said he had the legal right or obligation to do jack shit. All security officers have to abide by state law and federal laws.
If you had read my comment more carefully you would see just how much you are reading into my opinion which was created fully in your head.
In order to be a lawfully licensed security guard(officer) you have to have abide by the states laws, and take their required classes. IT, and Soldiers that do not hold licenses issued by a state, which requires it, are in violation of that state's law.
Half the time security guards don't know the first thing about Civil Rights, or the difference between Private Property and Public Property or where the lines between private and public blur (like the side walks in front of a building).
Now to the point, I maintain that is exactly what they are. Contracted personnel to do a job. Call it rent-a-fake-cop, or call it a contracted security officer. Means the same to me. Words are just words, until they are made into something which they are not.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Well, somehow I do not believe this monkey-of-a-non-special-police-officer has taken law enforcement training, and that he is given city wide jurisdiction which falls on this beach. Soooo, he is not a Company Police or Special Police as such. In other words, he has no arrest nor detention powers even in Virginia. In more other words, he does NOTHING of what a police officer does. In even more other words, he is not a rent-a-cop. If you want to specifically denote rent-a-cops to special and company police, so be it. I cannot refute that logic. Same as rent-a-teachers and all companies that use contractors.
In fact, by the same logic you used, the electricians and computer IT guys in Iraq could be considered rent-a-soldiers by your definition...
Problem is, regular security does not do what police do--in practice or by law. Same with IT and other contractors for the military. They provide different services. Even if they carry guns for protection---like class G security guards in Florida.
Yes, I know about class G and all the stuff you point to as "evidence" to your point of view. However, it is moot. You are too intellectual for this meaningless point behind the debate. I am not trying to be the rightest here---just trying to get rid of a degrading term applied to a working class of individuals who are not all bad.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.
In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.
As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.
Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurit
yOfficer.cfm



I never said he had the legal right or obligation to do jack shit. All security officers have to abide by state law and federal laws.

If you had read my comment more carefully you would see just how much you are reading into my opinion which was created fully in your head.

In order to be a lawfully licensed security guard(officer) you have to have abide by the states laws, and take their required classes. IT, and Soldiers that do not hold licenses issued by a state, which requires it, are in violation of that state's law.

Half the time security guards don't know the first thing about Civil Rights, or the difference between Private Property and Public Property or where the lines between private and public blur (like the side walks in front of a building).

Now to the point, I maintain that is exactly what they are. Contracted personnel to do a job. Call it rent-a-fake-cop, or call it a contracted security officer. Means the same to me. Words are just words, until they are made into something which they are not.

Well, somehow I do not believe this monkey-of-a-non-special-police-officer has taken law enforcement training, and that he is given city wide jurisdiction which falls on this beach. Soooo, he is not a Company Police or Special Police as such. In other words, he has no arrest nor detention powers even in Virginia. In more other words, he does NOTHING of what a police officer does. In even more other words, he is not a rent-a-cop. If you want to specifically denote rent-a-cops to special and company police, so be it. I cannot refute that logic. Same as rent-a-teachers and all companies that use contractors.

In fact, by the same logic you used, the electricians and computer IT guys in Iraq could be considered rent-a-soldiers by your definition...

Problem is, regular security does not do what police do--in practice or by law. Same with IT and other contractors for the military. They provide different services. Even if they carry guns for protection---like class G security guards in Florida.

Yes, I know about class G and all the stuff you point to as "evidence" to your point of view. However, it is moot. You are too intellectual for this meaningless point behind the debate. I am not trying to be the rightest here---just trying to get rid of a degrading term applied to a working class of individuals who are not all bad.


>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.

Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.
In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.
As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.
Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurityOfficer.cfm

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I hate the term rent-a-cop. It is like saying rent-a-teacher for subs, rent-a-doctor for RNPs, or rent-a-fags for bi-sexual men. There is no such thing as a rent-a-cop. There is a security guard... Some have complexes but that goes with being human.


Contracting Security Officer. Exactly what it is. Rent-A-Cop. There are several varieties of them; which vary from state to state. Generally there are two types of Security Officers; the unarmed kind and the armed kind. They come in many colors. There's the BDU or Fatigue color, the ugly sports coat gray slacks color, and the polo shirt tactical khaki pants color. Although in the wild many different version of these colors can be observed.

In the District of Columbia there are Special Police which are known as Smithsonian Museum Special Police in NY & DC. For a basis on how security officers work see the second link to the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice.

As an independent contractor you can go through the hoops yourself, but most people choose to join companies, which sort out all of the paperwork for each employee.

Make no mistake about it. These are privately owned corporate entities. I was going to say that they are bound to the law just as much as a Peace Officer but, of course, the trends of late could prove differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_police#United_States
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/pss/howto/registrations/armedSecurityOfficer.cfm

There's not much more I can add to what John Cole said:

I can’t get over those assholes that shot that man’s pets over a miniscule amount of pot (and more than likely based on faulty information from an informant with whom they cut a deal). I’ve only had Lily 11 months (today!), but I would be out for blood if someone shot her, cop or otherwise. I’d be a helluva lot less rational than that guy was. At the very least there would have been a tasing on that video or another shooting (of me) as I lost my shit all over the place.

And why don’t we get to see pictures of these brave servants to the community? Why aren’t pictures of cops who do this in every newspaper and on every nightly show when it happens? They are obviously tough guys, of course they would want the press! Here’s Butch McCraskin, local member of the SWAT team. He likes football, Nascar, reads Soldier of Fortune, loves no-knock raids, and has tazed a teen-ager and bagged three corgi’s. He drives a big Dodge Ram truck with an NRA sticker to compensate for his tiny penis. Can’t you smell the macho? I wonder what he has cooking?

I’m wondering at what point Americans are finally going to have enough of this shit. They cut pensions slightly to keep the nation from going completely broke in Greece, and they are fire-bombing shit in protest. Here, unless you are a member of the elite you are a third class citizen, subject to any number of abuses to your life, property, and dignity, and no one seems to care or is too preoccupied.

Is Dancing with the Stars on tonight?

*** Update ***

The pit bull these tough guys shot and killed was crated. The corgi they shot survived was loose, but could hardly be considered a threat. This isn’t about law enforcement or safety to officers, this is about terrorizing people.

Not much I can add other than I'd be out for blood if anyone shot either of my dogs too.

I dunno what's broken in America that people feel so resigned about this kind of thing.

I guess it's that whole individualism thing -- it didn't happen to me, just some other poor dumb fuck, why should I care about it? Why should I stick my neck out, he was using illegal drugs! Plus, as we know from Arizona, it's completely okay to violate people's rights if you think they might be doing something illegal, like being here without the right paperwork.

Oh, and Joe Lieberman is talking about stripping citizenship from people who the government thinks might be associated with a terrorist group...

I'm sure this will all be made better when the Republicans take control of congress, because we all know they're serious limited government guys, right?

A secondary use would be to provide padding to keep all of your paperwork comfortable.

I agree. But I still like cake.

>> ^dag:

why should tax dollars be used to prevent obesity?
Because it's smart. $1 spent on prevention now stops $100 in tax money spent for hoist crane to deliver fatty to ER.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^dag:
We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shows, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.
Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.
At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

why should tax dollars be used to prevent obesity?

Because it's smart. $1 spent on prevention now stops $100 in tax money spent for hoist crane to deliver fatty to ER.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dag:
We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shows, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.
Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.
At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

>> ^dag:

We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU



Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shoes, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.

Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.

At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

wait, so are you against people having their jobs protected while they take a short sabbatical to care for a family member?
are you against having a place for women to pump breast milk on their breaks?
we need to talk.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.

You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993

But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.

You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU