JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who opposes legalizing marijuana, doesn’t mind the drug being used in cooking, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.
“It’s alright to use it as a food seasoning, but it should not be fully legalized,” Kalla was quoted as saying by the Jakarta Post daily.
Kalla was commenting on a recent study by two Indonesian agencies dealing with drug abuse that recommended the government review its policy to outlaw the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the Post said.
Many of dishes in Aceh province, where hemp plants are grown, such as mutton and beef curry are said to be laced with marijuana seeds to give them a distinctive local flavor.
A drug expert from the National Narcotics Agency reportedly said Indonesia should follow the example of countries like the Netherlands, where marijuana is legal, because it is not as harmful as people thought.
Ratna Dwikora, the owner of an Acehnese food restaurant in Jakarta, told the Kompas newspaper “marijuana is available in any Acehnese kitchen just like coriander.”
“Marijuana is a widely-accepted cooking spice there,” she told the newspaper.
Indonesia imposes harsh penalties, including death, for narcotic offences as the country faces a growing drug menace.
Five Chinese nationals, a Dutchman and a Frenchman who appealed against the length of their convictions on drug charges were instead sentenced to death last month.
Six young Australians were sentenced to death last year for heroin smuggling on Bali, sparking anger in Australia where capital punishment has been abolished.
Don’t you love the headline in today’s paper? Be careful with fireworks.Tomorrow’s headline: Please wipe when you are through.Saturday’s headline: Do not run with scissors.
Fleet sadly every year there are those that try out for the stupidest humans on earth. The classic is who did not know coffee was hot? Of course we will know we arrived the day that gun manufacturers have to put the following warning out: WARNING, putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger can cause death and or disfigurement. We strongly advise not putting a loaded weapon in your mouth or pointing it at anyone you love. You ever questioned why it was humans that deemed that humans are the smartest animals on the planet.
“… every year there are those that try out for the stupidest humans on earth. The classic is who did not know coffee was hot?”
Was it common knowledge in 1992 that a 49 cent of coffee could cause large areas of 3rd degree burns?That you’d spend a week in the hospital, have skin grafts, and $11,000 in medical bills? 2 years of disability, and very large areas of permanent scars?
If you are not smart enough to know that coffee is hot, you should not drink coffee. It was a freakin accident. SHE spilled the coffee on herself. McDonald’s didn’t do anything but what she asked, served her a hot cup of coffee. Had the coffee NOT been hot, you can bet you’re a$$ she would have complained.
By show of hands, who here thinks that spilling a fresh cup of coffee on themselves will NOT burn you?
There is a purpose to those blatently obvious dangers: accidents are nature’s way of weeding out the stupid.
Anyone who does not recognize that Preparation H is not to be taken internally is clogging up the gene pool. We can only hope that if their natural stupidity is to do them in, they dispose of themselves before they dilute the gene pool any further.
BTW - the hot coffee case, while yes it’s obvious coffee is hot, was not the legal insanity commonly believed. When all the facts are known, to be blunt, MickyD’s had it coming.
Ok, GMC, McDonalds served incredibly hot coffe in paper thin flimsy plastic cups, I remember that. And ok, award damages in the amount of the victim’s loss, and some reasonable pain and suffering.
$2.9 million awarded to this woman, later reduced to $640,000 by the judge, if my quick web search is accurate. Isn’t that a little too high?
“If you are not smart enough to know that coffee is hot, you should not drink coffee. It was a freakin accident. SHE spilled the coffee on herself. McDonald’s didn’t do anything but what she asked, served her a hot cup of coffee. Had the coffee NOT been hot, you can bet you’re a$$ she would have complained.
By show of hands, who here thinks that spilling a fresh cup of coffee on themselves will NOT burn you?”
NOT third degree burns. Coffee that hot is undrinkable. It is not a reasonable expectation that if you spill hot coffee on yourself, you will recieve burns of such severity that skin grafts are required. The idea that someone would return a cup of coffee that is 140 degrees instead of 185 degrees is laughable.
But then, there are always people who think they can second guess juries who have actually heard and seen the evidence.
having seen some of the juries verdicts after they have “heard and seen the evidence” I can tell you that quite a few juries give shit about real guilt, all they care is that the big nasty company has money, and the poort victim has none.
Okay, I can;t remember all of the details of the “coffee case” but didn;t she put it between her legs to hold it?
Why would you do that?
And two, wasn;t she old? Nothing wrong with old, but skin, and underlying tissue, damages much easier when old. If she was old, it would have been a contributing factor in the damage
Accidents have consequences. No one questioned that as a result of the coffee spilling on her lap, she would get burned.
The severity of the burn, however, was caused by the temperature that McDonald’s served through a drive through window. Cars are a likely venue for coffee spillage accidents. McDonald’s knew this, knew the coffee they served was too hot to be drunk upon serving, knew the increased risks of severe injury due to spilled coffee accidents.
Third degree burns.
Skin grafts.
McDonald’s was not responsible for the spill, but they were responsible for the severity of the injuries due to the spill, and that severity was avoidable.
That’s why they lost.
It’s like the Ford Pinto years back. If someone stops unexpectedly, an accident with severe damage to the car and injury is likely to occur. The manufacturer is not responsible for the accident.
But if the car explodes, the manufacturer is held responsible for the defect that made the accident much more severe than it should have been.
And McD’s lied, claiming customers wanted the coffee extra hot because they drank it later — when their own survey showed customers drank it right away.
SolDevVB,
“SHE spilled the coffee. It was not spilled on her by a McD’s employee.”
There were 700 lawsuits. One woman had similar burns caused by an EMPLOYEE.
McD’s could have 1) warned customers OR 2) lowered the coffee temperature. They refused to do either, so the jury sent them a “message”.
Warned customers that the coffee was hot. Hmmmm. Seems like a no brainer. Fresh coffee is hot.
“Also, McD’s made the jury angry. McD’s said the # of customers burned was insignificant compared to the # of coffees sold — after the jury had seen GRUESOME photos of her burns.”
Kind of lets you know why the jury convicted. They were mad. And do the math cosmos, if the # of coffees sold were high, then wouldn’t that lead to customers liking the taste and temperature of the coffee? That would appear to be the way the customers wanted it.
If an employee spilled the coffee, then yes, you can go after the company.
Nikki, I cannot answer that question right now. I’ve not read the opinion. One factor in the Wichita busing situation which did not exist, as far as I am aware, in the Louisville case (the Seattle case has different facts) is the consent order with the Office of Civil Rights under which the district here has been operating for over 30 years.
A bit more on the SCOTUS decision on race and public school assignment of students. Again, I’ve not read the opinion. From the synopsis reported on http://www.abcnews.go.com, it would seem to me that in the absence of the consent order mentioned supra, the current USD 259 policy of use of race as a factor in admission of students to magnet schools would fail. Again, there is the consent order to consider in the local situation, the effect of the decision on which is not known to me.
According to the cited media report, the “vote” was 5-4, but there is no one majority opinion. There is a plurality opinion, a concurring opinion, and at least one dissenting opinion.
“I know that a car holds gasoline. I know that gasoline explodes. I drive carefully so as not to have an accident. Responsibility.”
Uhm Sol, do you KNOW anything about the history of the Ford Pinto? Or how typical it is for a car to explode outside of an action movie?
You are totally ignoring the point I am trying to make. You don’t even acknowledge it.
Starbucks is a red herring. They label their extra hot coffee extra hot. Therefore, the consumer has a better understanding of the consequences (although the customer is going to have to wait to drink the cup any way, so I wonder about the sense of what s/he is doing unless they so plan to drink it later).
McDonald’s–>generic cup of coffee, NOT labeled extra hot, and sold primarily to people in cars.
Again, being burned due to a coffee spill is a reasonable expectation. Receiving third degree burns is not. Especially when it is a generic cup of coffee purchased at a drive through window. There is a difference between “damn that hurts” and the emergency room.
Your Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour is brought to you today by Halliburton Industries.
Doing for dollars what government used to do for pennies, and doing it badly . . . that’s today’s Halliburton!
Scandal Du Jour–Worst. President. Ever. says “F YOU!” to Congressional supoenas
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers
Okay, you heard it from the pResident, folks. Stop obeying any laws that you find inconvenient.
Don’t like somebody’s politics? Fire ‘em! (or get ‘em fired.) That’s what our president does.
When accounting wants your paper work to support your expense account, just tell ‘em “hey, the president doesn’t have to justify anything, why should I?”
Stop paying your taxes. Tell the IRS “I don’t feel like telling you anything. It’s what the president does.”
cap’n agreed…hot coffee versus scaldingly hot coffee - a big difference. Imagine instead staying at a hotel where the boiler was set to have the hot water tap produce water just below boiling. You go to prepare a shower, turn the knobs to the ‘expected’ position for a warm shower, test the water with a hand and receive a burn…clearly at least some negligence on the part of McD’s in the one case and the hotel in the other.
Wow, values boy really has his whine on today, no?
He’s riding that “poor persecuted majority” horse for all it’s worth, and it is lathered up and breathing hard right now.
Poor persecuted christians. Should we call the waaaaaaaambulance for them? Do they need more money from “faith based initiatives” to make them feel loved?
Poor persecuted majority.
And I noticed the hate values boy never answered the question.
Why DOESNT he go take his snake handling venom to the south?
Sol many people will not drink coffee when it’s hot like that. I am not a coffee drinker, but my mom was, and she’d always order ice water with her coffee in order to plop a few ice cubes into it.
I have spilled hot coffee onto someone’s lap- an elderly person’s lap at that. I dumped a glass of ice water on top of it. She didn’t even have a red mark because my actions stopped the burning immediately.
I used to think that McDonalds should have won that lawsuit, but I don’t any longer after reading what really went behind it.
Reminds me of when I worked in the nursing homes and the state demands that the food be served at a certain temp- hot enough to burn their mouth. It made no sense to me- I realize the food germs have to be killed, but isn’t it just as bad to burn them? Not everyone who worked was conscietious about cooling the food before trying to feed it- especially when there were so many to feed.
As I noted elsewhere, for values boy and his taliban cohorts, karma is SUCH a bitch, aint she?
What goes around comes around. If I were a values boy, I’d be buckling up. Given how he and his taliban breatheren have treated others, I think it’s going to be a bumpy ride as the backlash builds.
Hee hee hee. And I cant wait to buy ringside seats to the show.
Lj, the WE runs values boy (a MISnomer if ever there was one) on its… wait for it….
EDITORIAL page. Like he is a real columnist or something other than a republican shill who works the jesus crowd. You can find him there, masquerading as a writer intstead of the head of the kansas taliban propaganda machine.
“Values Boy” is a nick name that KFGrrl came up with for the new op-ed columnist, Brent Castillo. The rest of us Libs embraced the nick whole-heartedly.
He’s always harping on family values. Probably his most infamous column “proved” that Libs were doomed because CONs have much bigger families. Like his family, for instance.
Never mind that Rush Limbaugh, though married and divorced thrice, has no children. Who can think about love-making when you’re hopped up on all that morphine, eh?
Or Ann Coulter, who is already some 45 years old and never married, while haranguing other women to stay home and raise a family.
Nor did ValuesBoy consider the simple fact that millions immigrate from RURAL to URBAN areas every year, and urban voters are more liberal voters.
Yup, old ValuesBoy. Don’t confuse him with the facts. He already knows what he believes.
It must be true that the WE, like ann coulter, can NOT be shamed.
If they are not shamed by putting the values republican shill on their EDITORIAL page instead of their church page, they absolutely have NO shame at all.
LJ, it isnt just my opinion of him. It is the explanation of him.
And I said you could find him on the editorial page. Just look there and TELL me you cant pick out the “values” boy.
He sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the REAL columnists. You cant miss him. I promise. The best I can say about him is that his whining and drivel are unique.
MSNBC had that Armstrong guy on Hardball and he was saying it was perfectly ok for Coulter to say what she did about Edwards- about him having a bumper sticker “ask me about my dead son.” Apparently he thought there really was a sticker. Falling all over himself saying that Ann doesn’t represent the right. Whatever! He tried to say that Coulter and Edwards were of the same mould. I DON’T THINK SO. augh. That’s the right- flipping idiots.
Back after skimming the 183 page PDF of the various opinions in the race as a factor in public school assignment cases.
To GMC: If you have time to read these, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the analysis contained in the various opinions. Mine are that Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion is best; I am in both agreement and disagreement with the analysis applied in the plurality opinion, for the reasons best stated in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence; Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion seemed to me to primarily be a shot at Justice Breyer’s dissent, and that dissent itself is off the mark in most, if not all areas.
Turning to the Wichita situation, it seems to me that the consent order is crucial here. Reading the plurality opinion, and Kennedy’s concurrence, it is clear to me that if the consent order was based upon the earlier de jure maintenance of a nonunitary school system, then the current decision, in and of itself, does not automatically mean the local busing program is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If, however, such order is like the Memorandum executed by Seattle with OCR in the 1990s (if memory serves), then flatly, the busing program is dead in the water.
I base the above “quick and dirty” thought upon the plurality’s recognition that Louisville, although under a deseg order from 1970 or so through 1990, when dissolved by the District Court, was operating a unitary school system when the allegations underlying the current case arose. Seattle had never been found to have operated a mandatory nonunitary, e.g., racially discriminatory, system.
The point made is that basing assignment decisions on racial factors alone where a unitary system exists is unconstitutional, except in the limited case where the prior existence of a de jure nonunitary system had resulted in unlawful discrimination based upon the race of the students, and the current system of assignment was designed to overcome the effects of this specific, legally mandated or authorized discrimination. Thus, the importance of the consent order to USD 259’s situation, IMHO.
Similarly, if the current consideration of racial “goals” (in this case, African-American vs. Caucasian only) in the admission of students to the various magnet programs extant in 259 grows out of the actual content of the consent order, then that policy, as it now exists, is not automatically overturned by today’s decision. If, however, the current policy is designed to adhere, as best the district can, to the requirements of the said order, but the order itself does not on its face apply to magnet programs, then, as stated above, this policy must fail.
Having now exercised my Constitutional Law scholarship, back to the somewhat more mundane but ever so important tasks of the day.
The House is going to vote on a $4,400 pay raise. Guess how Tiahrt will be voting? Despite a huge record of incompetence the Republicans will be more than happy to line their pockets. However, won’t that conflict with their beliefs about minimum wage laws? Tiahrt claimed that if we raise the minimum wage then there will be higher unemployment. So if the Congress gets paid more then will some Representatives have to be laid off? I can think of one. Tiahrt can be sent packing to his old home on the East coast.
Yea, it’s KFG’s nickname. Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.
Suggestion, KFG. Cancel your subscription to the Eagle. Voila - problem solved.
Otherwise, quite whining. Or write your own column.
Posters here have pretty much covered it. Let’s see . . .
1) is it reasonably forseeable that coffee served in moving vehicles may be spilled? Yup.
2) is it reasonably forseeable that coffee served a few degrees below boiling, when spilled, could lead to serious burns? Yup.
(here, her nylon hose fused into her skin, the coffee was so hot. Surgury, scarring, etc. It don’t matter if she was old, or had tender skin, it’s the egg-shelled skull theory - you take your victim as you find him.)
3) Was McD’s aware of the problem? Yup. Testimony was that there had been a number of complaints of burns from coffee, just nothing nearly this serious.
4) Could McD’s have reasonably prevented the problem? Yup - serve coffee at drinkable temperatures (that is the point, isn’t it, to drink it). But cheap coffee is easier to pass off if it’s too hot.
Add to that the arrogance of McD’s in front of the jury and - voila - verdict for plaintiff. BTW - the jury’s award was not pulled out of thin air; it was ONE DAY’S gross coffee sales for McD’s.
Not hard to see how the jury got where it did. And it was upheld, though the award was lowered.
There are outrageous stories in the judicial system, to be sure. But this isn’t one of them.
My favorite: a case in New Jersey, where a plaintiff - a college senior - sued because there was no warning label that if he rolled out of the top of a bunk bed, he could fall. It got to the appeals court (after a jury awarded 6 figures) before a judge threw it out, finding that plaintiff can be reasonably expected to understand gravity without a warning label.http://volokh.com/posts/1159851881.shtml
” Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.”
If that is what you got from my posts, you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought. I wonder how you ever got through law school.
They can print values boy all they want. I object to him being on the editorial page when indeed, he is a “republican shill who just works the jesus crowd”.
You say that “no one may disagree with me” shit all the time GMC.
I think it could be said the same about you and your all guns all the time posts.
No one may disagree with your OPINION on guns without a tirade and feeble tongue lashing from you.
Pot meet kettle.
Of course, I rarely respond to GMC. Ya know his fake indian name could be:
But, I thought we wanted equal protection under the law.Unless you think equal protection means special treatment. Than it would make sense. Kind of like hate crime laws.
” Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.”
If that is what you got from my posts, you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought. I wonder how you ever got through law school.
They can print values boy all they want. I object to him being on the editorial page when indeed, he is a “republican shill who just works the jesus crowd”.
You say that “no one may disagree with me” shit all the time GMC.
I think it could be said the same about you and your all guns all the time posts.
No one may disagree with your OPINION on guns without a tirade and feeble tongue lashing from you.
Pot meet kettle.
Of course, I rarely respond to GMC. Ya know his fake indian name could be:
I bet if values boy wanted to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases like gmc, he’d QUICKLY be whining about the republican shill who works the jesus crowd.
Ever met a gun control proponent you didnt trash gmc?
I’ve still not read the Morse case; haven’t had the time, I’m afraid. I probably should read these cases; they are important. Perhaps later this evening . . .
Mike, I disagree with your statement regarding Brown. I would argue that the plurality opinion tracks squarely with Brown in finding that assignment to schools based purely on race is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, much as Brown held.
As is set forth in the various opinions, the de facto segregation of schools which may occur due to society’s voluntary segregated housing patterns is not violative of the Constitution, absent state action enforcing the same.
Do I wish this de facto segregation was not occurring? Yes, I do. Is there any action being taken by any government to legally (by statute, regulation or ordinance) cause this segregation? Not to the best of my knowledge.
The only way, IMHO, to overcome the voluntary living choices of the members of the society in a public school setting is to have but one grade school, one middle school, and one high school per district, which all must attend without exception, if the students are to be educated in the public schools. I don’t think that would be palatable to most.
Good post on the McD’s case, GMC. I enjoyed that. Thanks.
I don’t think it’s fair to tell KFGrrl to “quit whining or cancel her subscription to The Eagle.”
That’s the “either - or” fallacy.
I think KFGrrl wants what all of us Libs want and that is, if The Eagle is going to have a voice of the American Taliban on paid staff, can’t we have a left-of-center columnist on staff for balance?
What The Eagle seems content to do is run these fire-breathing right-wingers like Cal Thomas and Values Boy — and Thomas Sowell and Kathleen Parker (Idiot) and that San Antonio guy and that National Review guy etc. etc. — with centrists and moderates like Randy Schoefield, David Broder, and Trudy Rubin.
That’s not “balance.”
Hell, they wouldn’t even run Molly Ivins for the last couple of years because they got so much hate mail from the wing-nuts.
Keep track of the columnists The Eagle runs for the next two weeks. Right-wingers will be totally over-represented by anyone’s definition . . .
So… what the hell are you voters in butler county going to do about this unsupervised republican nut case pretending to work in the county attorney’s office?
Do you want to re-elect the woman who approves of him doing this instead of the work the taxpayers pay him to do?
Also, if The Eagle were running a columnist who argued that basic civil rights should be denied to lawyers, let’s say . . . as in “we should have a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage by making it impossible for anyone to get married to someone who practices the profession of law,” you might find those “values” a little harder to accomodate.
It’s so easy for Republicans to endure OTHER PEOPLE’S pain, isn’t it?
GMC is sitting at a taxpayer funded desk, using a taxpayer funded computer, in a taxpayer funded building on taxpayer funded internet service, during the time his taxpayer funded paycheck says he should be working.
If he is not working, he is still using his computer for political activity. And the last I checked, politicians have been BOOTED from office for doing political personal business using taxpayer funded facilities.
I think those descriptions fit GMC and the Butler County Attorney’s office perfectly. And his activity here is CLEARLY political. Read his posts. You think shilling for the republican gun lobby is NOT political?
It’s just him exercising his free speech? During working hours?
Hell, I got FIRED for doing the same thing.
But of course, being the ada for butler county makes GMC above the law.
If I were a taxpayer in butler county, I’d be more than a little upset at how the county attorney is spending my hard earned tax money.
Promoting all guns al the time.
IF gmc wants to do political work, dont you think he should LEAVE the office and blog from home? Take some comp time if he is working as much as you ASSUME he is?
Or is he just too cheap to have his own computer and internet service at home? He just HAS to use the equipment the taxpayers paid for to shill for all guns all the time?
heheheheh. nathan. The moral authority of the blog. Who approves of theft of time and services from the taxpayer.
I think you should turn in your John Birch card right now…
So when you cant refute the truth, you just whine?
So..Jesus must have belonged to the NRA, the John Birch Society, the Republican Party, the Moral Majority…he must have been packing concealed. He must have had a pet dinosaur or two. He must have slandered people and groups fairly often. He must have been a rabid supporter of Tiberius, Pilate, and Caiphus. He probably fought in a few wars and tortured some prisoners. And he probably came from Kansas.
That’s what I get from what I read from the holier-than-thou other side.
“I think its pretty cheap for a liberal to try to attack a man for posting his opinions on a BLOG.”
He can dance the hokey pokey and post his opinions all he wants.
I just want to know why he has to do it during taxpayer funded working hours, on a taxpayer purchased machine, using a taxpayer funded internet service during the time he is supposed to be working at his taxpayer funded job drawing his taxpayer funded paycheck.
He can blog on his own time using his own stuff all he wants.
I object to theft of public service and equipment for political purposes. During working hours.
GMC needs to observe the law before practicing it. And clearly, the duly elected County Attorney for Butler county doesnt CARE what gmc does on his taxpayer funded job.
She obviously doesnt supervise him. Or how he spends his time at work or how he uses public equipment and services.
If I were a voter in Butler county, I’d sure be looking into that abuse of office…
Most employers whether public or private, wouldn’t condone blogging during work hours. I wonder how many bloggers here blog on their computer at work. I don’t blog during working hours. The only time I blog at work is during lunch.
While I dissagree with a lot of what GMC posts, I find his stuff well written and thought out. I rather like his style as opposed to some of the conservative bomb-throwers and one-line artists.
I’m not a lawyer and dont pretend to be one. Unlike some folks here.
So nathan, you cant use the google?
This is from an AG’s opinion 96-6.
“You also question whether the county policy violates free speech rights. The first amendment to the United States constitution prohibits abridging freedom of speech. An overbroad statute making conduct punishable that is constitutionally protected may be struck down, however, the government may regulate free speech with narrow specificity. City of Wichita v. Huges, 12 Kan.App.2d 621 (1988). In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Court held that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and “the speech of its employees that differ(s) significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” See also Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 140-141, 92 S.Ct. 849, 854-855, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10-11, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
“Not all public employee speech is protected . . . . Only that speech which both lies within the general protection of the first amendment (e.g., is not obscene) and is ‘upon a matter of public concern’ may be entitled to that particular protection . . . . Public employee speech not on matters of ‘public concern’ simply enjoys no protection against public employer disciplinary action. . . . As to such speech, the state’s interest as public employer in managing its personnel and internal operations is sufficiently weighty that the public employee’s first amendment rights in the speech are no greater than would be those of a private employee.” Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 998 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986).
Thus, governmental employers may place some restrictions upon employees speech. See also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 147, 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987); Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1994).
“Most employers whether public or private, wouldn’t condone blogging during work hours.”
My point exactly XXX. And for all the right wing whining about taxpayer dollars being misspent, I find it highly amusing that these same folks think it is ok for gmc to be blogging during taxpayer funded times.
Like I said, if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time available, he can go home to blog. Or to a coffee shop, or somewhere else.
I never said he shouldnt blog. I just object to him doing it on the taxpayer dime. So nice to know that the Butler County Attorney is funding a pro-gun political activist on the public dime.
Like I said, if I were a voter in Butler County, I’d sure have some questions for the county attorney and the county commissioners.
But then, I wouldnt have voted for those tax payer money stealing bozos anyway….
Can you show some case law that ALLOWS such activity on the public dime?
I said if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time for all those “hours” he works, he should take his comp time and leave the building and the public computers and blog on his own comp time and computer.
If I were you nathan, I’d observe the first rule of holes here. You are digging your self in really deeply here about political activity on public time.
And regarding libel and slander? Truth is an absolute defense. It is on record here, forever, that he blogs on time he is being paid for out of the taxpayers’ till.
“I said if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time for all those “hours” he works, he should take his comp time and leave the building and the public computers and blog on his own comp time and computer.”
If he is in the building and working on public computers he is not on his own time.
And nathan? COMP TIME is how salaried employees take personal time for all those extra hours they put in.
I wonder if GMC is asking for and documenting his “comp time” while blogging during business hours?
Smells like labor law trouble to me if the county attorney doesnt require documentation for her employess taking comp time.
I just said it, I didn’t mean to imply that you said it.
However, when you guys left the WE BLOG in a huff wasn’t one of items in your manifesto to not threaten a man at work?
GMC70, first of all, may or may not be at work. I imagine that as a AG he is on salary. I know several attorneys that are either in the Sedgwick Co AG office or they work for the city. They go to work early, and come home late many days.
You are accusing a man of wrong doing based only on your biased assumptions. You may be right, but even if you are right it would be a coincidence.
Shameful. Really shameful. But only if you have a sense of right and wrong.
“I blogged on tax payer funded computers, with tax payer funded internet, during “working hours” when I was in Iraq.”
OMG, just keep digging boy!
If you mean “working hours” as 8-5, that means nothing.
I think the real question for you soldier boy is were you blogging during a regularly scheduled duty shift?
Instead of doing your duties?
heheheheh. I think we have a new name for nathan.
Beetle Bailey, the king of screwing off during working hours….
If you were bloggin on your own time, off duty, who cares? Using military computers? I think that is for your superiors to decide.
I wonder how that all plays into the military ban on blogs. Maybe guys like nathan are the reason the military restricts blogging? Using too many computers and bandwidth for play?
Just keep digging nathan. You’ll hit china or leavenworth sooner or later…
Raisin’ hell or tryin’ to with Butler County ain’t gonna get Values Boy thrown off the WE’s OpEd page.
I doubt it’ll even get GMC fired. Really all it accomplishes is it makes you look mean, petty, and small. And I don’t think you’re any of those.
I may not always agree with GMC70, but rarely, and I mean maybe NEVER, have I read anything of his that wouldn’t engender reasonable discourse. Often, in fact, GMC is the very voice of sanity here.
Surely you haven’t forgotten the first rule of holes?
“However, when you guys left the WE BLOG in a huff wasn’t one of items in your manifesto to not threaten a man at work?”
Please post where that was any part of the boycotters position.
You must have a copy of the “manifesto” if you know it so well.
And I think publicy funded time and equipment is a little different than outing someone at work.
Especially since GMC outed himself from the very beginning with his email addy.
I mean really. He used his BUTLER COUNTY email addy for his political activity here on the blog.
You might want to grab a shovel and join your son hank. That hole isnt getting deep enough fast enough.
I dont hear gmc or anyone in his office refuting my “assumptions”. I’m sure if gmc were blogging off hours, on his own time and equipment, he would have said so.
But the silence is deafening.
And you? YOU assume what he is doing is legal and ethical.
I’ve yet to see you or yours post FACTS regarding that.
Dueling assumptions but mine dont count? Typical conservative republican thinking…
This Marine had a conceal carry permit. “Oh, the chaos!”Suck it, anti-gun nuts.
“A retired United States Marine disrupted a robbery in progress when he shot two men who attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop, fatally wounding one of them, police said.”
Nathan, it’s pretty obvious what he is doing. But you like to argue about the meaning of the word is, so I’m hardly surprised that you want to mince words here.
If gmc is posting off company time and off public computers he should say so.
You’re getting a little shrill. I didn’t say anything based on an assumption. I did not assume that GMC70 was legal, ethical or even moral. I merely raised the possibility that you were full of crap.
Because you have no proof that GMC70 is in any way violating any laws, ethics rules or even violating current Butler Co. AG office policy I pointed out your personal attack was based on a biased assumption.
OK all… thanks for the further explanations of the McD’s coffee spill… I can understand the argument that the jury must have been thinking, that McD’s was not responsible for the spill, but for the severity of damages after it did spill…
Their decision on the Coffee case, is a bit similar to the Dram Shop laws, regarding the serving of alcoholic beverages to those who might appear to be already intoxicated… I had to learn that one when I did substitute bartending in Grad. School… It isnt SELLING the booze that is illegal, it is knowing a conseuence of what can happen when an intoxicated person further intoxicates themselves…
KFG — take a big deep breath… I tend to agree with you, so far as you state the case… Suppose(just suppose) GMC is working on company time, as you suggest… BUT… suppose(just suppose) that he is using his OWN laptop for the BLOG time he uses…
I normally work out of my own home office, when I am on the field… And that means that my WORK pages, and the Blog page, is on the same computer… It is fairly easy to switch back and forth between the pages… Just as it would be if GMC is using his own laptop for his personal use, and an office computer for ADA work…
If that is indeed the case, then I guess I dont have nearly as much of a problem with it, as if he is using the ADA computer to do his own Blogging(political work, etc.)
“I normally work out of my own home office, when I am on the field…”
Big difference between you Chas, and gmc.
Are you in a taxpayer funded job? Does your employer approve of what you do? Are you self employed? What is your company policy on this?
Does gmc’s employer approve of this? Do the Butler county commissioners approve of this?
Most of the counties and cities I know have POLICY that forbids personal use of the internet on public equipment during working hours. I dont know if Butler county has a policy on that.
But you can bet your sweet ass if this was some low level secretary blogging on the taxpayer’s dime, they’d be reprimanded at a minimum.
I guess his lofty position makes him above the law and county policy? Or Butler county has no such policy?
If THAT’s the case, I would damn sure want to know what’s going on with the county employees if I paid taxes in Butler county.
Perhaps you see something I don’t in that mess you posted. So please, from this mess you posted, highlight where it outlines blogging as a public employee at work is against the law in butler county:
“This is from an AG’s opinion 96-6.
“You also question whether the county policy violates free speech rights. The first amendment to the United States constitution prohibits abridging freedom of speech. An overbroad statute making conduct punishable that is constitutionally protected may be struck down, however, the government may regulate free speech with narrow specificity. City of Wichita v. Huges, 12 Kan.App.2d 621 (1988). In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Court held that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and “the speech of its employees that differ(s) significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” See also Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 140-141, 92 S.Ct. 849, 854-855, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10-11, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
“Not all public employee speech is protected . . . . Only that speech which both lies within the general protection of the first amendment (e.g., is not obscene) and is ‘upon a matter of public concern’ may be entitled to that particular protection . . . . Public employee speech not on matters of ‘public concern’ simply enjoys no protection against public employer disciplinary action. . . . As to such speech, the state’s interest as public employer in managing its personnel and internal operations is sufficiently weighty that the public employee’s first amendment rights in the speech are no greater than would be those of a private employee.” Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 998 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986).
Thus, governmental employers may place some restrictions upon employees speech. See also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 147, 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987); Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1994). “
No, I dont get paid with tax payer funds… I do get paid with Parish funds… I am kind of sort of self employed, depending on which IRS person you ask… Although I file as self employed…
I know in bigger parishes, or denominational offices, personal internet use on office machines is generally not done… However, if the person working in the office has their own laptop, or on lunch break, etc., then nobody gets terribly upset… I know of a few denominational office folks who have been given strong verbal and written warnings to NOT use office machines for personal email, web surfing, or games, etc.
As I said, I do understand your point…
Nathan, IF the County personnel manual says “no use of internet in office for personal use,” then THAT would be the rule of Law for any County office…
Suppose you worked in a County Office… Your task that day is to send out a County-wide circular in email, to all those owing property tax on vehicles that are delinquent… When your supervisor strolls past your desk, you are playing, oh say, Solitaire on your office computer that is connected to an online game program, like, say, Pogo…
You can bet you will be at the least reprimanded… and if it has happened before, you might be given a written warning as well…
290 Comments
Anybody care for some brownies?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070627/od_nm/indonesia_marijuana_dc;_ylt=ApAYEXa8JTi1xGY5koeFVrbMWM0F
Politician okays marijuana in food
Wed Jun 27, 12:20 PM ET
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla, who opposes legalizing marijuana, doesn’t mind the drug being used in cooking, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.
“It’s alright to use it as a food seasoning, but it should not be fully legalized,” Kalla was quoted as saying by the Jakarta Post daily.
Kalla was commenting on a recent study by two Indonesian agencies dealing with drug abuse that recommended the government review its policy to outlaw the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the Post said.
Many of dishes in Aceh province, where hemp plants are grown, such as mutton and beef curry are said to be laced with marijuana seeds to give them a distinctive local flavor.
A drug expert from the National Narcotics Agency reportedly said Indonesia should follow the example of countries like the Netherlands, where marijuana is legal, because it is not as harmful as people thought.
Ratna Dwikora, the owner of an Acehnese food restaurant in Jakarta, told the Kompas newspaper “marijuana is available in any Acehnese kitchen just like coriander.”
“Marijuana is a widely-accepted cooking spice there,” she told the newspaper.
Indonesia imposes harsh penalties, including death, for narcotic offences as the country faces a growing drug menace.
Five Chinese nationals, a Dutchman and a Frenchman who appealed against the length of their convictions on drug charges were instead sentenced to death last month.
Six young Australians were sentenced to death last year for heroin smuggling on Bali, sparking anger in Australia where capital punishment has been abolished.
What, no Tiahrt comment today?
Come on Eagle, you haven’t attacked Tiahrt or the 2nd Amendment for a couple of days now. You slippin up?
Don’t you love the headline in today’s paper? Be careful with fireworks.Tomorrow’s headline: Please wipe when you are through.Saturday’s headline: Do not run with scissors.
Fleet sadly every year there are those that try out for the stupidest humans on earth. The classic is who did not know coffee was hot? Of course we will know we arrived the day that gun manufacturers have to put the following warning out: WARNING, putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger can cause death and or disfigurement. We strongly advise not putting a loaded weapon in your mouth or pointing it at anyone you love. You ever questioned why it was humans that deemed that humans are the smartest animals on the planet.
writerdog,
“… every year there are those that try out for the stupidest humans on earth. The classic is who did not know coffee was hot?”
Was it common knowledge in 1992 that a 49 cent of coffee could cause large areas of 3rd degree burns?That you’d spend a week in the hospital, have skin grafts, and $11,000 in medical bills? 2 years of disability, and very large areas of permanent scars?
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx
Cosmos,
If you are not smart enough to know that coffee is hot, you should not drink coffee. It was a freakin accident. SHE spilled the coffee on herself. McDonald’s didn’t do anything but what she asked, served her a hot cup of coffee. Had the coffee NOT been hot, you can bet you’re a$$ she would have complained.
By show of hands, who here thinks that spilling a fresh cup of coffee on themselves will NOT burn you?
writerdog -
There is a purpose to those blatently obvious dangers: accidents are nature’s way of weeding out the stupid.
Anyone who does not recognize that Preparation H is not to be taken internally is clogging up the gene pool. We can only hope that if their natural stupidity is to do them in, they dispose of themselves before they dilute the gene pool any further.
BTW - the hot coffee case, while yes it’s obvious coffee is hot, was not the legal insanity commonly believed. When all the facts are known, to be blunt, MickyD’s had it coming.
cosmo = defending idiots
P.S. gmc = ditto
When all the facts are known, to be blunt, MickyD’s had it coming.
Posted by: GMC70 | June 28, 2007 at 09:06 AM
You want to expound a bit more on that one, GMC?? How could anybody NOT know that coffee is HOT?? And the financial pay out was certainly extreme!!
Where are the lawsuits against Starbucks? You can order your coffee ‘extra hot’ - around 180 degrees.
Ok, GMC, McDonalds served incredibly hot coffe in paper thin flimsy plastic cups, I remember that. And ok, award damages in the amount of the victim’s loss, and some reasonable pain and suffering.
$2.9 million awarded to this woman, later reduced to $640,000 by the judge, if my quick web search is accurate. Isn’t that a little too high?
“If you are not smart enough to know that coffee is hot, you should not drink coffee. It was a freakin accident. SHE spilled the coffee on herself. McDonald’s didn’t do anything but what she asked, served her a hot cup of coffee. Had the coffee NOT been hot, you can bet you’re a$$ she would have complained.
By show of hands, who here thinks that spilling a fresh cup of coffee on themselves will NOT burn you?”
NOT third degree burns. Coffee that hot is undrinkable. It is not a reasonable expectation that if you spill hot coffee on yourself, you will recieve burns of such severity that skin grafts are required. The idea that someone would return a cup of coffee that is 140 degrees instead of 185 degrees is laughable.
But then, there are always people who think they can second guess juries who have actually heard and seen the evidence.
Warning: Do not iron clothes while wearing them.
Again, who thinks a fresh cup of coffee will not burn you. Try pouring your cup in your lap right now…
having seen some of the juries verdicts after they have “heard and seen the evidence” I can tell you that quite a few juries give shit about real guilt, all they care is that the big nasty company has money, and the poort victim has none.
Fleetwood= troll who never posts anything beyone shallow one liners.
“Again, who thinks a fresh cup of coffee will not burn you. Try pouring your cup in your lap right now…”
I have, by accident. It hurt…a lot. My skin even peeled.
Even once accidently spilled french fry grease on my foot, that hurt more. I went to the doctor.
Both instances were my own damn fault.
But I didn’t get third degree burns, however.
“Both instances were my own damn fault. ”
As was it hers. SHE spilled the coffee. It was not spilled on her by a McD’s employee.
An ACCIDENT that she caused = 2 million? Rediculous.
Okay, I can;t remember all of the details of the “coffee case” but didn;t she put it between her legs to hold it?
Why would you do that?
And two, wasn;t she old? Nothing wrong with old, but skin, and underlying tissue, damages much easier when old. If she was old, it would have been a contributing factor in the damage
You’re ignoring the point, Sol.
Accidents have consequences. No one questioned that as a result of the coffee spilling on her lap, she would get burned.
The severity of the burn, however, was caused by the temperature that McDonald’s served through a drive through window. Cars are a likely venue for coffee spillage accidents. McDonald’s knew this, knew the coffee they served was too hot to be drunk upon serving, knew the increased risks of severe injury due to spilled coffee accidents.
Third degree burns.
Skin grafts.
McDonald’s was not responsible for the spill, but they were responsible for the severity of the injuries due to the spill, and that severity was avoidable.
That’s why they lost.
It’s like the Ford Pinto years back. If someone stops unexpectedly, an accident with severe damage to the car and injury is likely to occur. The manufacturer is not responsible for the accident.
But if the car explodes, the manufacturer is held responsible for the defect that made the accident much more severe than it should have been.
I know that a car holds gasoline. I know that gasoline explodes. I drive carefully so as not to have an accident. Responsibility.
So to the other point. Why no lawsuits against starbucks? You can order your coffee extra hot.
Libs = wrapping themselves in the warm, fuzzy blanket of victimhood.
fleettwood = defending the indefensible.
Chas,
Read the link,http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspxAlso, McD’s made the jury angry. McD’s said the # of customers burned was insignificant compared to the # of coffees sold — after the jury had seen GRUESOME photos of her burns.
And McD’s lied, claiming customers wanted the coffee extra hot because they drank it later — when their own survey showed customers drank it right away.
SolDevVB,
“SHE spilled the coffee. It was not spilled on her by a McD’s employee.”
There were 700 lawsuits. One woman had similar burns caused by an EMPLOYEE.
McD’s could have 1) warned customers OR 2) lowered the coffee temperature. They refused to do either, so the jury sent them a “message”.
Vaughn or any other lawyer-type that reads this….can you please respond.
Does the Supreme Court ruling make it illegal for Wichita to continue to bus students? That’s kind of my impression of the ruling…
Warned customers that the coffee was hot. Hmmmm. Seems like a no brainer. Fresh coffee is hot.
“Also, McD’s made the jury angry. McD’s said the # of customers burned was insignificant compared to the # of coffees sold — after the jury had seen GRUESOME photos of her burns.”
Kind of lets you know why the jury convicted. They were mad. And do the math cosmos, if the # of coffees sold were high, then wouldn’t that lead to customers liking the taste and temperature of the coffee? That would appear to be the way the customers wanted it.
If an employee spilled the coffee, then yes, you can go after the company.
GMC and cosmos are right.
When I first heard about this case, I thought it was ridiculous. And then I read up on it.
There’s a big difference between “hot” coffee of 135-150 degrees F and scalding dangerously hot coffee a few degrees below boiling.
McD’s served scalding hot coffee because it was a way to make its cheap brew taste somewhat better.
Good coffee doesn’t need to be drunk at tongue-boil temperatures.
And since the lawsuit, McD’s has improved their coffee quality and lowered the temp . . .
Please note: It’s the you peoples who are defending this outragous lawsuit. Typical.
Nikki, I cannot answer that question right now. I’ve not read the opinion. One factor in the Wichita busing situation which did not exist, as far as I am aware, in the Louisville case (the Seattle case has different facts) is the consent order with the Office of Civil Rights under which the district here has been operating for over 30 years.
A bit more on the SCOTUS decision on race and public school assignment of students. Again, I’ve not read the opinion. From the synopsis reported on http://www.abcnews.go.com, it would seem to me that in the absence of the consent order mentioned supra, the current USD 259 policy of use of race as a factor in admission of students to magnet schools would fail. Again, there is the consent order to consider in the local situation, the effect of the decision on which is not known to me.
According to the cited media report, the “vote” was 5-4, but there is no one majority opinion. There is a plurality opinion, a concurring opinion, and at least one dissenting opinion.
Thanks Vaughn! I was just wondering what the local effect might be of the ruling! Thanks again!
“I know that a car holds gasoline. I know that gasoline explodes. I drive carefully so as not to have an accident. Responsibility.”
Uhm Sol, do you KNOW anything about the history of the Ford Pinto? Or how typical it is for a car to explode outside of an action movie?
You are totally ignoring the point I am trying to make. You don’t even acknowledge it.
Starbucks is a red herring. They label their extra hot coffee extra hot. Therefore, the consumer has a better understanding of the consequences (although the customer is going to have to wait to drink the cup any way, so I wonder about the sense of what s/he is doing unless they so plan to drink it later).
McDonald’s–>generic cup of coffee, NOT labeled extra hot, and sold primarily to people in cars.
Again, being burned due to a coffee spill is a reasonable expectation. Receiving third degree burns is not. Especially when it is a generic cup of coffee purchased at a drive through window. There is a difference between “damn that hurts” and the emergency room.
SolDevVB
“Warned customers that the coffee was hot. Hmmmm. Seems like a no brainer.”
No… warned customers that McD’s coffee could cause 3rd degree burns in only a few seconds, because it was hotter than normally sold.
McD’s, for obvious reasons, did not want to do that — many customers would go elsewhere.
“Kind of lets you know why the jury convicted. They were mad.”
They based their decision on the facts. And the judge, a self-described conservative Republican, agreed with the jury.
Your Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour is brought to you today by Halliburton Industries.
Doing for dollars what government used to do for pennies, and doing it badly . . . that’s today’s Halliburton!
Scandal Du Jour–Worst. President. Ever. says “F YOU!” to Congressional supoenas
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-bush-subpoenas_N.htm
*****
Okay, you heard it from the pResident, folks. Stop obeying any laws that you find inconvenient.
Don’t like somebody’s politics? Fire ‘em! (or get ‘em fired.) That’s what our president does.
When accounting wants your paper work to support your expense account, just tell ‘em “hey, the president doesn’t have to justify anything, why should I?”
Stop paying your taxes. Tell the IRS “I don’t feel like telling you anything. It’s what the president does.”
See how that works out for you . . .
cap’n agreed…hot coffee versus scaldingly hot coffee - a big difference. Imagine instead staying at a hotel where the boiler was set to have the hot water tap produce water just below boiling. You go to prepare a shower, turn the knobs to the ‘expected’ position for a warm shower, test the water with a hand and receive a burn…clearly at least some negligence on the part of McD’s in the one case and the hotel in the other.
So they put a label on the cup - HOT - and everybody is happy.
It’s just senseless.
Wow, values boy really has his whine on today, no?
He’s riding that “poor persecuted majority” horse for all it’s worth, and it is lathered up and breathing hard right now.
Poor persecuted christians. Should we call the waaaaaaaambulance for them? Do they need more money from “faith based initiatives” to make them feel loved?
Poor persecuted majority.
And I noticed the hate values boy never answered the question.
Why DOESNT he go take his snake handling venom to the south?
Sol many people will not drink coffee when it’s hot like that. I am not a coffee drinker, but my mom was, and she’d always order ice water with her coffee in order to plop a few ice cubes into it.
I have spilled hot coffee onto someone’s lap- an elderly person’s lap at that. I dumped a glass of ice water on top of it. She didn’t even have a red mark because my actions stopped the burning immediately.
I used to think that McDonalds should have won that lawsuit, but I don’t any longer after reading what really went behind it.
Reminds me of when I worked in the nursing homes and the state demands that the food be served at a certain temp- hot enough to burn their mouth. It made no sense to me- I realize the food germs have to be killed, but isn’t it just as bad to burn them? Not everyone who worked was conscietious about cooling the food before trying to feed it- especially when there were so many to feed.
Libs = Refusing to take responsibility for ones self.
Caution: Pencils could poke your eye out. Then you will fall down and break your neck.
…and as far as being persecuted for who you are…
As I noted elsewhere, for values boy and his taliban cohorts, karma is SUCH a bitch, aint she?
What goes around comes around. If I were a values boy, I’d be buckling up. Given how he and his taliban breatheren have treated others, I think it’s going to be a bumpy ride as the backlash builds.
Hee hee hee. And I cant wait to buy ringside seats to the show.
ksfarmgrrl–Okay, now I am completely lost-some say that is not unusual-but who is values boy and where is the whining?
Hehe, yup, KGrrl.
Did you see Cal Thomas whining about “divisive partisanship” yesterday?
Holy hypocrisy, Batman! That was rich.
The king of the radical right hate-mongers asks plainatively for both sides to work together and help each other.
Okay, good idea, Cal.
If you bend over, it’ll help me to kick your sorry ass . . .
Plick.
Lj, the WE runs values boy (a MISnomer if ever there was one) on its… wait for it….
EDITORIAL page. Like he is a real columnist or something other than a republican shill who works the jesus crowd. You can find him there, masquerading as a writer intstead of the head of the kansas taliban propaganda machine.
And some say the WE is to the left of center?
Heheheheheheheheheheheheh. Choke. Inhale. Heehehehehehehehehehehehe!
Give me a call when they stop publishing this republican hack who disguises himself as a christian writer.
Values my ass. The only value he holds is how many republicans he can help elect.
Heh. How’s THAT working for him?
Bonbon Huy anyone?
ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehheeheh!
SolDevVB
McD’s didn’t just “put a label on the cup” — they lowered the coffee temperature.And the cup already a label, but it wasn’t very prominent.
fleettwood,
You’re overlooking the fact that McD’s ADMITTED that Liebeck’s jury was right, by lowering the coffee temperature.
LJ–
“Values Boy” is a nick name that KFGrrl came up with for the new op-ed columnist, Brent Castillo. The rest of us Libs embraced the nick whole-heartedly.
He’s always harping on family values. Probably his most infamous column “proved” that Libs were doomed because CONs have much bigger families. Like his family, for instance.
Never mind that Rush Limbaugh, though married and divorced thrice, has no children. Who can think about love-making when you’re hopped up on all that morphine, eh?
Or Ann Coulter, who is already some 45 years old and never married, while haranguing other women to stay home and raise a family.
Nor did ValuesBoy consider the simple fact that millions immigrate from RURAL to URBAN areas every year, and urban voters are more liberal voters.
Yup, old ValuesBoy. Don’t confuse him with the facts. He already knows what he believes.
“McD’s ADMITTED that Liebeck’s jury was right,…”
Now, that’s just silly.
“Yup, old ValuesBoy. Don’t confuse him with the facts. He already knows what he believes.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM”
Yup. And he KNOWS what WE should all believe as well.
CapnAmerica-
Thanks for your explanation. I had no idea who or what whe was talking about
Ksfarmgrrl-
I still don;t know what the heck you are talking about. Your explanation didn;t explain anything but your opinion of him.
It must be true that the WE, like ann coulter, can NOT be shamed.
If they are not shamed by putting the values republican shill on their EDITORIAL page instead of their church page, they absolutely have NO shame at all.
Or editorial integrity.
LJ, it isnt just my opinion of him. It is the explanation of him.
And I said you could find him on the editorial page. Just look there and TELL me you cant pick out the “values” boy.
He sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the REAL columnists. You cant miss him. I promise. The best I can say about him is that his whining and drivel are unique.
Unless you read phred phelps…
“And I said you could find him on the editorial page. Just look there and TELL me you cant pick out the “values” boy.”
Sorry I missed that. My bad
“Unless you read phred phelps…”
You know i don;t. Your bad
MSNBC had that Armstrong guy on Hardball and he was saying it was perfectly ok for Coulter to say what she did about Edwards- about him having a bumper sticker “ask me about my dead son.” Apparently he thought there really was a sticker. Falling all over himself saying that Ann doesn’t represent the right. Whatever! He tried to say that Coulter and Edwards were of the same mould. I DON’T THINK SO. augh. That’s the right- flipping idiots.
Values boy should hook up with Coulter.
Back after skimming the 183 page PDF of the various opinions in the race as a factor in public school assignment cases.
To GMC: If you have time to read these, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the analysis contained in the various opinions. Mine are that Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion is best; I am in both agreement and disagreement with the analysis applied in the plurality opinion, for the reasons best stated in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence; Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion seemed to me to primarily be a shot at Justice Breyer’s dissent, and that dissent itself is off the mark in most, if not all areas.
Turning to the Wichita situation, it seems to me that the consent order is crucial here. Reading the plurality opinion, and Kennedy’s concurrence, it is clear to me that if the consent order was based upon the earlier de jure maintenance of a nonunitary school system, then the current decision, in and of itself, does not automatically mean the local busing program is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If, however, such order is like the Memorandum executed by Seattle with OCR in the 1990s (if memory serves), then flatly, the busing program is dead in the water.
I base the above “quick and dirty” thought upon the plurality’s recognition that Louisville, although under a deseg order from 1970 or so through 1990, when dissolved by the District Court, was operating a unitary school system when the allegations underlying the current case arose. Seattle had never been found to have operated a mandatory nonunitary, e.g., racially discriminatory, system.
The point made is that basing assignment decisions on racial factors alone where a unitary system exists is unconstitutional, except in the limited case where the prior existence of a de jure nonunitary system had resulted in unlawful discrimination based upon the race of the students, and the current system of assignment was designed to overcome the effects of this specific, legally mandated or authorized discrimination. Thus, the importance of the consent order to USD 259’s situation, IMHO.
Similarly, if the current consideration of racial “goals” (in this case, African-American vs. Caucasian only) in the admission of students to the various magnet programs extant in 259 grows out of the actual content of the consent order, then that policy, as it now exists, is not automatically overturned by today’s decision. If, however, the current policy is designed to adhere, as best the district can, to the requirements of the said order, but the order itself does not on its face apply to magnet programs, then, as stated above, this policy must fail.
Having now exercised my Constitutional Law scholarship, back to the somewhat more mundane but ever so important tasks of the day.
When I grew up in Indiana, people always used to tell me, “it’s hot in Kansas, but it’s a DRY HEAT.”
I’ve lived here for fifteen years, and I’m still waiting for that “dry heat.”
Sheesh . . .
The House is going to vote on a $4,400 pay raise. Guess how Tiahrt will be voting? Despite a huge record of incompetence the Republicans will be more than happy to line their pockets. However, won’t that conflict with their beliefs about minimum wage laws? Tiahrt claimed that if we raise the minimum wage then there will be higher unemployment. So if the Congress gets paid more then will some Representatives have to be laid off? I can think of one. Tiahrt can be sent packing to his old home on the East coast.
lj–
re: “values boy”
Yea, it’s KFG’s nickname. Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.
Suggestion, KFG. Cancel your subscription to the Eagle. Voila - problem solved.
Otherwise, quite whining. Or write your own column.
Well, we’ll see how things turn out after this decision. I’m sure that there will be major problems down the line as with many of their decisions.
“”it’s hot in Kansas, but it’s a DRY HEAT.”"
An oven has dry heat, too.
Again conservatives are turning back the clock. Today SCOTUS basically spit in the face of Brown v the Board of Education
http://kansas.com/news/updates/story/108941.html
Thanks alot!
“An oven has dry heat, too.”
Not all of them…
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-steam-oven.htm
And re: McD’s suit
Posters here have pretty much covered it. Let’s see . . .
1) is it reasonably forseeable that coffee served in moving vehicles may be spilled? Yup.
2) is it reasonably forseeable that coffee served a few degrees below boiling, when spilled, could lead to serious burns? Yup.
(here, her nylon hose fused into her skin, the coffee was so hot. Surgury, scarring, etc. It don’t matter if she was old, or had tender skin, it’s the egg-shelled skull theory - you take your victim as you find him.)
3) Was McD’s aware of the problem? Yup. Testimony was that there had been a number of complaints of burns from coffee, just nothing nearly this serious.
4) Could McD’s have reasonably prevented the problem? Yup - serve coffee at drinkable temperatures (that is the point, isn’t it, to drink it). But cheap coffee is easier to pass off if it’s too hot.
Add to that the arrogance of McD’s in front of the jury and - voila - verdict for plaintiff. BTW - the jury’s award was not pulled out of thin air; it was ONE DAY’S gross coffee sales for McD’s.
Not hard to see how the jury got where it did. And it was upheld, though the award was lowered.
There are outrageous stories in the judicial system, to be sure. But this isn’t one of them.
My favorite: a case in New Jersey, where a plaintiff - a college senior - sued because there was no warning label that if he rolled out of the top of a bunk bed, he could fall. It got to the appeals court (after a jury awarded 6 figures) before a judge threw it out, finding that plaintiff can be reasonably expected to understand gravity without a warning label.http://volokh.com/posts/1159851881.shtml
Good God.
Please post where I said this GMC:
” Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.”
If that is what you got from my posts, you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought. I wonder how you ever got through law school.
They can print values boy all they want. I object to him being on the editorial page when indeed, he is a “republican shill who just works the jesus crowd”.
You say that “no one may disagree with me” shit all the time GMC.
I think it could be said the same about you and your all guns all the time posts.
No one may disagree with your OPINION on guns without a tirade and feeble tongue lashing from you.
Pot meet kettle.
Of course, I rarely respond to GMC. Ya know his fake indian name could be:
He who regularly huffs off the blog.
What a maroon….
“Again conservatives are turning back the clock.”
But, I thought we wanted equal protection under the law.Unless you think equal protection means special treatment. Than it would make sense. Kind of like hate crime laws.
Please post where I said this GMC:
” Of course, KFG considers no opinion other than hers acceptable. Apparantly, no paper should be permitted to post opinions contrary to her own.”
If that is what you got from my posts, you are an even bigger idiot than I first thought. I wonder how you ever got through law school.
They can print values boy all they want. I object to him being on the editorial page when indeed, he is a “republican shill who just works the jesus crowd”.
You say that “no one may disagree with me” shit all the time GMC.
I think it could be said the same about you and your all guns all the time posts.
No one may disagree with your OPINION on guns without a tirade and feeble tongue lashing from you.
Pot meet kettle.
Of course, I rarely respond to GMC. Ya know his fake indian name could be:
He who regularly huffs off the blog.
What a maroon….
I bet if values boy wanted to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases like gmc, he’d QUICKLY be whining about the republican shill who works the jesus crowd.
Ever met a gun control proponent you didnt trash gmc?
Jesus wept.
VT -
I’ve still not read the Morse case; haven’t had the time, I’m afraid. I probably should read these cases; they are important. Perhaps later this evening . . .
“I probably should read these cases; they are important. Perhaps later this evening . . .”
Yeah, he’s WAY too busy blogging during working hours to tend to his legal profession.
And you do know he gets paid on the taxpayer dime while he is blogging?
Sounds like sam brownback. I guess taking taxpayer money and NOT working when being paid really IS a conservative republican value.
Just ask gmc.
Is there a whining noise from the west? Oh, yea, there it is. Jesus is bored to tears again.
Funny that gmc cant do legal reading during the day and blogging at night.
Maybe he only uses his PUBLIC computer to blog? Maybe he cant blog at home?
At any rate, you know where to find him. Right here on the WE blog during working hours.
Mike, I disagree with your statement regarding Brown. I would argue that the plurality opinion tracks squarely with Brown in finding that assignment to schools based purely on race is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, much as Brown held.
As is set forth in the various opinions, the de facto segregation of schools which may occur due to society’s voluntary segregated housing patterns is not violative of the Constitution, absent state action enforcing the same.
Do I wish this de facto segregation was not occurring? Yes, I do. Is there any action being taken by any government to legally (by statute, regulation or ordinance) cause this segregation? Not to the best of my knowledge.
The only way, IMHO, to overcome the voluntary living choices of the members of the society in a public school setting is to have but one grade school, one middle school, and one high school per district, which all must attend without exception, if the students are to be educated in the public schools. I don’t think that would be palatable to most.
Good post on the McD’s case, GMC. I enjoyed that. Thanks.
I don’t think it’s fair to tell KFGrrl to “quit whining or cancel her subscription to The Eagle.”
That’s the “either - or” fallacy.
I think KFGrrl wants what all of us Libs want and that is, if The Eagle is going to have a voice of the American Taliban on paid staff, can’t we have a left-of-center columnist on staff for balance?
What The Eagle seems content to do is run these fire-breathing right-wingers like Cal Thomas and Values Boy — and Thomas Sowell and Kathleen Parker (Idiot) and that San Antonio guy and that National Review guy etc. etc. — with centrists and moderates like Randy Schoefield, David Broder, and Trudy Rubin.
That’s not “balance.”
Hell, they wouldn’t even run Molly Ivins for the last couple of years because they got so much hate mail from the wing-nuts.
Keep track of the columnists The Eagle runs for the next two weeks. Right-wingers will be totally over-represented by anyone’s definition . . .
I wonder why butler county PAYS a public attorney to promote all guns all the time?
Their county commissioners must have a real agenda there. And it doesnt include a professional county attorney office if gmc’s job is to blog.
Does gmc even HAVE a boss? Or does she agree and support his blogging here?
She must. He clearly isnt sanctioned for wasting the public’s money during working hours.
Welfare state at its finest.
So… what the hell are you voters in butler county going to do about this unsupervised republican nut case pretending to work in the county attorney’s office?
Do you want to re-elect the woman who approves of him doing this instead of the work the taxpayers pay him to do?
Sam brownback anyone?
Also, if The Eagle were running a columnist who argued that basic civil rights should be denied to lawyers, let’s say . . . as in “we should have a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage by making it impossible for anyone to get married to someone who practices the profession of law,” you might find those “values” a little harder to accomodate.
It’s so easy for Republicans to endure OTHER PEOPLE’S pain, isn’t it?
Typical liberals,
If you can’t debate, try to shut down those you disagree with.
Uh nathan, I think it was gmc who was shutting me down first.
Typical conservative. Dont agree with them? Accuse them of not allowing anyone else’s opinions.
And THEN shut them down.
Pot meet kettle.
Well, if that’s what we’re doing, we’re failing miserably and you people are succeeding marvelously, Nathan.
You’re the ones that shut down Molly Ivins on The Eagle Op-ed page.
Who have we shut down?
Uhh . . . that’d be no one that I know of.
…and so nathan, you think it is ok for a butler county employee to spend his work time blogging?
You think it is just fine for gmc to draw a full paycheck, courtesy of the taxpayers in butler county, while he is doing political shilling here?
I thought political activities using public facilities during working hours was against the law?
I guess not if you are gmc.
You butler county taxpayers are getting ripped off. A highly paid attorney is getting paid to do politics here. During working hours.
What are you going to do about it?
Call sam brownback? Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheh!
Like I said, working part time and drawing a full time taxpayer funded paycheck really IS a conservative republican value….
Back to bringing in others real life again eh KFG? I’m extremely disappointed. Hand me back the “Gold Star” I gave you.
“It’s so easy for Republicans to endure OTHER PEOPLE’S pain, isn’t it?”Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 28, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Are you in pain Capn? Or are you just “feeling it” for another person?
KFG,
I don’t know what GMC’s work hours are.
I bet you he spends more time working in a week than you give him credit for.
Being an attorney isn’t a 9-5 job.
They work at all hours of the day preparing for a case and doing research.
As long as he is managing his time to perform his job that is on him.
I think it is pretty cheap for you to sit here and make the characterizations about his work ethic when you don’t really know.
Talking on a blog is not “political activity” either. Unless you really stretch the definition.
Which is what you liberals love to do.
“If you can’t debate, try to shut down those you disagree with.”
That would be called the Equal Time Provision. If you can’t compete, make a law.
Ok. so…
GMC is sitting at a taxpayer funded desk, using a taxpayer funded computer, in a taxpayer funded building on taxpayer funded internet service, during the time his taxpayer funded paycheck says he should be working.
If he is not working, he is still using his computer for political activity. And the last I checked, politicians have been BOOTED from office for doing political personal business using taxpayer funded facilities.
I think those descriptions fit GMC and the Butler County Attorney’s office perfectly. And his activity here is CLEARLY political. Read his posts. You think shilling for the republican gun lobby is NOT political?
It’s just him exercising his free speech? During working hours?
Hell, I got FIRED for doing the same thing.
But of course, being the ada for butler county makes GMC above the law.
If I were a taxpayer in butler county, I’d be more than a little upset at how the county attorney is spending my hard earned tax money.
Promoting all guns al the time.
IF gmc wants to do political work, dont you think he should LEAVE the office and blog from home? Take some comp time if he is working as much as you ASSUME he is?
Or is he just too cheap to have his own computer and internet service at home? He just HAS to use the equipment the taxpayers paid for to shill for all guns all the time?
heheheheh. nathan. The moral authority of the blog. Who approves of theft of time and services from the taxpayer.
I think you should turn in your John Birch card right now…
So when you cant refute the truth, you just whine?
KFG,
Talking on a blog is not illegal political activity unless he is campaigning for a party.
He is not on here advertising for us to vote for a certain party.
He is sharing his opinions, many time legal ones at that.
There is nothing wrong with using his computer at work to do this.
Hell, I got FIRED for doing the same thing.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 28, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Not exactly. You got fired for talking WHILE ON AN EARNED AND SCHEDULED VACATION DAY.
How dare you.
“He is sharing his opinions, many time legal ones at that.”
That didn’t come out right…
sounds like GMC has illegal opinions too (which he darn well may have).
I think you meant he shares his opinions, and some of those opinions involve the law.
When gmc posts anything remotely resembling “fair and balanced” you can say he isnt shilling.
He regularly expounds on how voters and elected officials should vote on gun issues.
Politics involves issues, not just elected positions.
Everytime he advocates more guns and guns all the time, he is advocating a stance on a political issue.
Of course, stretching definitions, twising words, and mincing the minutia to come to an absurd conclusion is nathan’s stock in trade. And gmc’s.
Please raise your hand if you think gmc is NOT doing political activities on public time, on the public dime, using public facilities.
I bet only the gun nuts here support him.
Dear farmgrrl,
The boy doesn’t know who John Birch was. I’m the one that has the John Birch card. I’m almost as ancient as you.
Hank
True enough Tom. And you forget, my board of directors, my employers, approved it.
But of course, how dare I express an opinion, on my own time and at my own expense, if it disagrees with the taliban rulers…
Oh, by the way, my hand is raised.
I think its pretty cheap for a liberal to try to attack a man for posting his opinions on a BLOG.
Aren’t you breaking one of the ‘fisters’ commandments?
Just wondering.
Hank
KFG,
You would have been tortured and executed by now if you were at the mercy of any taliban rulers.
Quick brownlee, open up a new thread on Morrison’s charges of Tiller.
KFG,
Since you seem so intent on going after GMC, put your money where your mouth is. Or should I say legal ability.
What specific law is GMC breaking?
Can you also cite any case law examples of this type of illegal activity being punished or ruled on by the courts?
Imitatio Dei
So..Jesus must have belonged to the NRA, the John Birch Society, the Republican Party, the Moral Majority…he must have been packing concealed. He must have had a pet dinosaur or two. He must have slandered people and groups fairly often. He must have been a rabid supporter of Tiberius, Pilate, and Caiphus. He probably fought in a few wars and tortured some prisoners. And he probably came from Kansas.
That’s what I get from what I read from the holier-than-thou other side.
Hank, please repost where I said this:
“I think its pretty cheap for a liberal to try to attack a man for posting his opinions on a BLOG.”
He can dance the hokey pokey and post his opinions all he wants.
I just want to know why he has to do it during taxpayer funded working hours, on a taxpayer purchased machine, using a taxpayer funded internet service during the time he is supposed to be working at his taxpayer funded job drawing his taxpayer funded paycheck.
He can blog on his own time using his own stuff all he wants.
I object to theft of public service and equipment for political purposes. During working hours.
GMC needs to observe the law before practicing it. And clearly, the duly elected County Attorney for Butler county doesnt CARE what gmc does on his taxpayer funded job.
She obviously doesnt supervise him. Or how he spends his time at work or how he uses public equipment and services.
If I were a voter in Butler county, I’d sure be looking into that abuse of office…
I guess both gmc and his boss are just following the sam brownback playbook for public service.
Work part time and get paid for working full time.
Nice little racket ya got going there…
Most employers whether public or private, wouldn’t condone blogging during work hours. I wonder how many bloggers here blog on their computer at work. I don’t blog during working hours. The only time I blog at work is during lunch.
While I dissagree with a lot of what GMC posts, I find his stuff well written and thought out. I rather like his style as opposed to some of the conservative bomb-throwers and one-line artists.
I’m not a lawyer and dont pretend to be one. Unlike some folks here.
So nathan, you cant use the google?
This is from an AG’s opinion 96-6.
“You also question whether the county policy violates free speech rights. The first amendment to the United States constitution prohibits abridging freedom of speech. An overbroad statute making conduct punishable that is constitutionally protected may be struck down, however, the government may regulate free speech with narrow specificity. City of Wichita v. Huges, 12 Kan.App.2d 621 (1988). In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Court held that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and “the speech of its employees that differ(s) significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” See also Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 140-141, 92 S.Ct. 849, 854-855, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10-11, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
“Not all public employee speech is protected . . . . Only that speech which both lies within the general protection of the first amendment (e.g., is not obscene) and is ‘upon a matter of public concern’ may be entitled to that particular protection . . . . Public employee speech not on matters of ‘public concern’ simply enjoys no protection against public employer disciplinary action. . . . As to such speech, the state’s interest as public employer in managing its personnel and internal operations is sufficiently weighty that the public employee’s first amendment rights in the speech are no greater than would be those of a private employee.” Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 998 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986).
Thus, governmental employers may place some restrictions upon employees speech. See also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 147, 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987); Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1994).
KFG,
Do you know how many hours GMC works a week?
How on earth do you have the audacity to accuse him of working part time for his money.
You are doing little more than libel.
You are basically a liar.
KFG,
Typical. Post a bunch of things which have no actual relevance to the accusations you make here.
“Most employers whether public or private, wouldn’t condone blogging during work hours.”
My point exactly XXX. And for all the right wing whining about taxpayer dollars being misspent, I find it highly amusing that these same folks think it is ok for gmc to be blogging during taxpayer funded times.
Like I said, if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time available, he can go home to blog. Or to a coffee shop, or somewhere else.
I never said he shouldnt blog. I just object to him doing it on the taxpayer dime. So nice to know that the Butler County Attorney is funding a pro-gun political activist on the public dime.
Like I said, if I were a voter in Butler County, I’d sure have some questions for the county attorney and the county commissioners.
But then, I wouldnt have voted for those tax payer money stealing bozos anyway….
KFG,
Do you know how GMC is paid? I am guessing it is salary.
It is not an hourly job. He probably get paid the same whether he works 80 hours in a week or just 40.
So, what proof do you have to show his blogging is taking away from the amount of work he does?
What part of the law is irrelevant nathan?
Can you show some case law that ALLOWS such activity on the public dime?
I said if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time for all those “hours” he works, he should take his comp time and leave the building and the public computers and blog on his own comp time and computer.
If I were you nathan, I’d observe the first rule of holes here. You are digging your self in really deeply here about political activity on public time.
And regarding libel and slander? Truth is an absolute defense. It is on record here, forever, that he blogs on time he is being paid for out of the taxpayers’ till.
That’s a fact jack!
Guess what?
I blogged on tax payer funded computers, with tax payer funded internet, during “working hours” when I was in Iraq.
I also worked 12-16 hours a day.
You should contact the government at this outrageous abuse of tax payer money!
What a maroon!
“I said if he is all caught up on his work and has comp time for all those “hours” he works, he should take his comp time and leave the building and the public computers and blog on his own comp time and computer.”
If he is in the building and working on public computers he is not on his own time.
And nathan? COMP TIME is how salaried employees take personal time for all those extra hours they put in.
I wonder if GMC is asking for and documenting his “comp time” while blogging during business hours?
Smells like labor law trouble to me if the county attorney doesnt require documentation for her employess taking comp time.
I bet Butler County has a policy about that.
Hey farm girl,
I just said it, I didn’t mean to imply that you said it.
However, when you guys left the WE BLOG in a huff wasn’t one of items in your manifesto to not threaten a man at work?
GMC70, first of all, may or may not be at work. I imagine that as a AG he is on salary. I know several attorneys that are either in the Sedgwick Co AG office or they work for the city. They go to work early, and come home late many days.
You are accusing a man of wrong doing based only on your biased assumptions. You may be right, but even if you are right it would be a coincidence.
Shameful. Really shameful. But only if you have a sense of right and wrong.
Hank
“I blogged on tax payer funded computers, with tax payer funded internet, during “working hours” when I was in Iraq.”
OMG, just keep digging boy!
If you mean “working hours” as 8-5, that means nothing.
I think the real question for you soldier boy is were you blogging during a regularly scheduled duty shift?
Instead of doing your duties?
heheheheh. I think we have a new name for nathan.
Beetle Bailey, the king of screwing off during working hours….
If you were bloggin on your own time, off duty, who cares? Using military computers? I think that is for your superiors to decide.
I wonder how that all plays into the military ban on blogs. Maybe guys like nathan are the reason the military restricts blogging? Using too many computers and bandwidth for play?
Just keep digging nathan. You’ll hit china or leavenworth sooner or later…
I for one ain’t with you on this one, ksfarmgrrl.
Raisin’ hell or tryin’ to with Butler County ain’t gonna get Values Boy thrown off the WE’s OpEd page.
I doubt it’ll even get GMC fired. Really all it accomplishes is it makes you look mean, petty, and small. And I don’t think you’re any of those.
I may not always agree with GMC70, but rarely, and I mean maybe NEVER, have I read anything of his that wouldn’t engender reasonable discourse. Often, in fact, GMC is the very voice of sanity here.
Surely you haven’t forgotten the first rule of holes?
KFG,
You obviously have no idea how things work.
When you are on call for 16 hours a day you use whatever time you can to go do laundry, eat, take care of personal things, blog…
I didn’t have shifts. I worked all hours of the day constantly in Iraq.
When I had a moment to blog, I did.
It is obvious that you are being absurd now.
“However, when you guys left the WE BLOG in a huff wasn’t one of items in your manifesto to not threaten a man at work?”
Please post where that was any part of the boycotters position.
You must have a copy of the “manifesto” if you know it so well.
And I think publicy funded time and equipment is a little different than outing someone at work.
Especially since GMC outed himself from the very beginning with his email addy.
I mean really. He used his BUTLER COUNTY email addy for his political activity here on the blog.
You might want to grab a shovel and join your son hank. That hole isnt getting deep enough fast enough.
I dont hear gmc or anyone in his office refuting my “assumptions”. I’m sure if gmc were blogging off hours, on his own time and equipment, he would have said so.
But the silence is deafening.
And you? YOU assume what he is doing is legal and ethical.
I’ve yet to see you or yours post FACTS regarding that.
Dueling assumptions but mine dont count? Typical conservative republican thinking…
Well, that’s your opinion pedant.
You think it is ok for him to do this while he is at work at his taxpayer funded job?
This has nothing to do with values boy. And the point that gmc is NOT fired for doing this on government time IS the point.
Clearly his bosses approve of it. It’s up to the voters of Butler county to say if THEY approve of this too.
Maybe they should know about it BEFORE the next election?
And how is this different from sam the sham brownback?
I don’t pay taxes in Butler County. I couldn’t care less what he does.
I am also very, very happy with my decision of a year or so ago to never, and I mean NEVER, post here on my work PC.
I’m also pretty freakin’ happy with WE’s “hide your email addy” rule, too.
KFG,
If you notice, I used the word probably many times…
You on the other hand seem to know exactly what hours he works and are making accusations that he is not working full time.
Where is your proof?
It is not our job to come up with evidence to show him innocent.
You say he is not fulfilling his duties or is cheating the tax payers on time.
Where is your proof?
Put up or shut up already.
Care to answer my questions Pedant?
Put up or shut up.
This Marine had a conceal carry permit. “Oh, the chaos!”Suck it, anti-gun nuts.
“A retired United States Marine disrupted a robbery in progress when he shot two men who attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop, fatally wounding one of them, police said.”
Nathan, it’s pretty obvious what he is doing. But you like to argue about the meaning of the word is, so I’m hardly surprised that you want to mince words here.
If gmc is posting off company time and off public computers he should say so.
(crickets chirping)
Now, now, farm girl,
You’re getting a little shrill. I didn’t say anything based on an assumption. I did not assume that GMC70 was legal, ethical or even moral. I merely raised the possibility that you were full of crap.
Because you have no proof that GMC70 is in any way violating any laws, ethics rules or even violating current Butler Co. AG office policy I pointed out your personal attack was based on a biased assumption.
You’re better than that.
Hank
KFG,
Where is your evidence that GMC is not fulfilling his duties because he is blogging?
What do you want me to put up? He’s blogging during the office hours of the Butler County Attorney’s office.
If he is off using comp time or vacation time, he should say so. I think his silence here is telling.
If he works a different shift? He should say so. If he not using public computers? He should say so.
It isnt a big leap that if he is blogging during office hours he is using an office computer.
I’ve worked “on salary” too. In public employement, it is still usual and customary to DOCUMENT your comp time, both earned and used.
You have a lot to learn about the real world nathan.
KFG,
It is obvious. He has some free time here and there and he blogs.
Big deal?
What law is he breaking?
“If gmc is posting off company time and off public computers he should say so.”
Who cares? He doesn’t have to do any such thing. Mind your own.
I already told you what lawS I think he is breaking.
Are you unable to read as well as unable to tell time?
Like a damn bull dog on a ham bone…
“I’m sure if gmc were blogging off hours, on his own time and equipment, he would have said so.”
Really? Really! You’re sure! You continue to display you’re ignorant bias.
He might just be back at ‘work’.!
Hank
OK all… thanks for the further explanations of the McD’s coffee spill… I can understand the argument that the jury must have been thinking, that McD’s was not responsible for the spill, but for the severity of damages after it did spill…
Their decision on the Coffee case, is a bit similar to the Dram Shop laws, regarding the serving of alcoholic beverages to those who might appear to be already intoxicated… I had to learn that one when I did substitute bartending in Grad. School… It isnt SELLING the booze that is illegal, it is knowing a conseuence of what can happen when an intoxicated person further intoxicates themselves…
I’m on my own time fleetie. Using my own computer and internet service in my own home.
And you?
He’s a public servant fleetie. You demand accountablility from democrats, why not from gmc?
Pot meet kettle.
What he is doing violates every principle of public employment.
If any other public employee were doing it, they would have to be held accountable.
But then, we already know what the cons here think of the rule of law.
This is just a great example.
KFG,
You threw up a bunch of stuff which didn’t show any law he was breaking.
Typical…
KFG,
What “rule of law” are you talking about?
KFG —
take a big deep breath… I tend to agree with you, so far as you state the case… Suppose(just suppose) GMC is working on company time, as you suggest… BUT… suppose(just suppose) that he is using his OWN laptop for the BLOG time he uses…
I normally work out of my own home office, when I am on the field… And that means that my WORK pages, and the Blog page, is on the same computer… It is fairly easy to switch back and forth between the pages… Just as it would be if GMC is using his own laptop for his personal use, and an office computer for ADA work…
If that is indeed the case, then I guess I dont have nearly as much of a problem with it, as if he is using the ADA computer to do his own Blogging(political work, etc.)
Opinion??
Did you read the statutes referenced in the KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL’s OPINION?
But since YOU declare it irrelevant, it is?
hehehehehehehehehehehehe……
“You demand accountablility from democrats, why not from gmc?”
I demand accountability from people I am in charge of. I’m not in charge of gmc. I think you are drunk.What happened to leaving people alone?
I hope that was intended for nathan??
“I normally work out of my own home office, when I am on the field…”
Big difference between you Chas, and gmc.
Are you in a taxpayer funded job? Does your employer approve of what you do? Are you self employed? What is your company policy on this?
Does gmc’s employer approve of this? Do the Butler county commissioners approve of this?
Most of the counties and cities I know have POLICY that forbids personal use of the internet on public equipment during working hours. I dont know if Butler county has a policy on that.
But you can bet your sweet ass if this was some low level secretary blogging on the taxpayer’s dime, they’d be reprimanded at a minimum.
I guess his lofty position makes him above the law and county policy? Or Butler county has no such policy?
If THAT’s the case, I would damn sure want to know what’s going on with the county employees if I paid taxes in Butler county.
“I demand accountability from people I am in charge of”
OMG fleetie, you need to button up ’cause your hypocrisy is showing.
You arent in charge of any democrats yet you constantly feel free to question their accountability.
This is gettng funnier and funnier watching you guys spin and defy your own positions to defend gmc.
Funny stuff.
KFG,
Perhaps you see something I don’t in that mess you posted. So please, from this mess you posted, highlight where it outlines blogging as a public employee at work is against the law in butler county:
“This is from an AG’s opinion 96-6.
“You also question whether the county policy violates free speech rights. The first amendment to the United States constitution prohibits abridging freedom of speech. An overbroad statute making conduct punishable that is constitutionally protected may be struck down, however, the government may regulate free speech with narrow specificity. City of Wichita v. Huges, 12 Kan.App.2d 621 (1988). In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Court held that the government has an interest in regulating the conduct and “the speech of its employees that differ(s) significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.” See also Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 93 S.Ct. 1245, 36 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 140-141, 92 S.Ct. 849, 854-855, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10-11, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968).
“Not all public employee speech is protected . . . . Only that speech which both lies within the general protection of the first amendment (e.g., is not obscene) and is ‘upon a matter of public concern’ may be entitled to that particular protection . . . . Public employee speech not on matters of ‘public concern’ simply enjoys no protection against public employer disciplinary action. . . . As to such speech, the state’s interest as public employer in managing its personnel and internal operations is sufficiently weighty that the public employee’s first amendment rights in the speech are no greater than would be those of a private employee.” Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 998 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986).
Thus, governmental employers may place some restrictions upon employees speech. See also Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. at 147, 148, 103 S.Ct. at 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987); Eberhardt v. O’Malley, 17 F.3d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1994). “
“…if I paid taxes in Butler county.”
You just stepped in it. You don’t. Mind your own. Who’s the biggest shrieker about “stay out of my business”?
Answer: the irritating hehehehehe girl
“You arent in charge of any democrats yet you constantly feel free to question their accountability.”
You’re drunk and high and off-balance. How ’bout civil unions for the mentally ill?
No, I dont get paid with tax payer funds… I do get paid with Parish funds… I am kind of sort of self employed, depending on which IRS person you ask… Although I file as self employed…
I know in bigger parishes, or denominational offices, personal internet use on office machines is generally not done… However, if the person working in the office has their own laptop, or on lunch break, etc., then nobody gets terribly upset… I know of a few denominational office folks who have been given strong verbal and written warnings to NOT use office machines for personal email, web surfing, or games, etc.
As I said, I do understand your point…
Nathan, IF the County personnel manual says “no use of internet in office for personal use,” then THAT would be the rule of Law for any County office…
Suppose you worked in a County Office… Your task that day is to send out a County-wide circular in email, to all those owing property tax on vehicles that are delinquent… When your supervisor strolls past your desk, you are playing, oh say, Solitaire on your office computer that is connected to an online game program, like, say, Pogo…
You can bet you will be at the least reprimanded… and if it has happened before, you might be given a written warning as well…
I believe that would be “rule of Law”
Hehehehe. Nice try to defend the indefensible. I dont drink fleetie.
Nathan, I already did your research for you. If you are too lazy to read the statutes, I’m not going to do it for you.
You wanted to know which laws he was breaking. I told you.
Oh and