tvc184

Interesting. Is it punishment or just a feel good endeavor. Basically a coach gets full pay to not coach for a week. He gets to stay out of the heat and watch the game while another coach assistant coach takes over his duties. In fact he may watch the game from the press box. Suspend me please!!! 😎

How would you punish the other coaches? If you suspend them from football coaching duties, you have effectively killed the season for the players. Some kind of probation?

I got it. 🤔 A family can lie if it’s open enrollment or not.

They had just as well be 6-A though. PNG with about 1,600 students and possibly larger than Strake Jesuit. PNG probably has about 800 male students though as opposed to a school with an enrollment of 1,500 that has 1,500 males. A 3,000 enrollment public school would probably have the same 1,500 male students.

Hot!

The smoke screens are always there. Maybe 15 years ago, there was a case of police officers with a valid warrant went into a guy’s home looking for marijuana. After entry was made the suspect went for a gun that was shot and killed. The narrative in some media accounts and the usual anti police crowd was that the resident was killed for selling marijuana. How ludicrous can they be? Apparently quite a lot. The guy wasn’t killed because he possessed marijuana. He was killed because he went for a gun to shoot the police. How many police shootings start off as a minor traffic offense, but the driver, unbeknownst to the officer, has just committed a major crime somewhere and is getting away or perhaps it’s committing a felony at that moment in the car? In such cases the drivers weren’t shot because they were speeding or had an expired license plate. It’s like the same in some of these cases. The media makes a big deal of, “He wasn’t the target of the investigation!”. What has that got to do with the use of force? That’s a trick question. The answer is absolutely nothing. If the officers are wrong, then I hope they get indicted. It needs to come from the facts of the situation and not whether he was the target or simply because he was fleeing. The smoke screens are a targeted response to keep from getting at the facts.

The agents’ use of force.

Then the point went over your head. Mat said that it’s not fair to judge a whole program due to a couple of agents. In agreement I noted that we shouldn’t criticize the medical profession There are about 1 million doctors according to google and about 900,000 law enforcement officers so roughly the same. So almost a million law enforcement officers kill about 1,300 (most of which aren’t really controversial) and about a million doctors kill as much as 400,000 who weren’t causing the circumstances by violating the law. Then when we narrow it to ICE agents it’s a couple of people. Are that directly related? No but to not see the comparison is to ignore Mat’s comment that I was referring to. It’s hard to believe that you can’t seen the comparison or analogy when referring to his comment.

👍🏼 I did a simple Google search of how many people are killed every year by medical malpractice in the US. The answer was 250,000 to 440,000. I asked how many people every year were killed by the police and it was about 1,300. So the average person is more than 300 times more likely (30,000%) to be killed by a doctor or nurse than the police. Also note that nearly anyone can be killed by medical malpractice but the number of people who come into dangerous confrontations with the police are extremely limited. The situation is almost always initiated by a criminal suspect, not the police. So for the average citizen he/she is probably 500 times more likely a person dies at the hands of a doctor than the police (and most are justified unlike medical malpractice) yet do the medical professions get disparaged because of those statistics?

Self defense or a defense of others is not murder.

Comments like he was not the target or he was pulled over for a minor traffic charge and so on are smoke screens. It has no bearing on the use of force.

Also, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter. Articles I, II and III in the Constitution list the separation of powers. Article II gives the president complete control over the Executive Branch of government. The FTC is under the authority of the Executive Branch. It is therefore controlled by one person, the president. Trump came into office and fired two members of the FTC because they were appointed by Democrats and they did not agree with Trump‘s position. For that reason, Trump said, you’re fired! One of them, Rebecca Slaughter did not like that. He filed a lawsuit saying that you can’t fire me. A 1935 lawsuit ruled on by the Supreme Court said that Congress funds and created the FTC so the president cannot fire anyone on a commission that he and only he is ahead of. So basically, he cannot fire his own employee even though the his employee said, I don’t agree with your agenda, Mr. President. So Trump took to court and the circuit court said, yes, Mr. President, you were prohibited from finding members of a commission that you and only you are ahead of. You are forced to work with people that do not want to work for you or for your agenda Trump has been appealed to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision said, what kind of nonsense is this. Sure, a president can fire a member of an executive commission that he alone controls. Who wants to work with a subordinate who can basically tell you to get screwed? So just because Congress does not like it, under the separation of powers, they do not control executive committees and commissions. Congress can create committees but once created, they are under the authority of the president and can be terminated. Again, the vote was 6 to 3 that the president alone in Article II, controls the Executive Branch. Any guesses on which 3 justices said to heck with Article II, the president should not be able to control all aspects of his administration?

The Supreme Court just granted certiorari or review to two cases for the next term. These cases deal with the ban on AR-15 and other “assault” rifles. The Supreme Court has finally decided to step in and rule whether a government can prohibit semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. By the time they schedule oral arguments to hear the cases and then write an opinion, it will probably be near the end of the term at about this time next year. So the can is no longer going to be kicked down the road. We are about to soon find out if about half a dozen states are violating the Constitution by prohibiting the possession of certain semi automatic weapons. Did I mention that I think this is huge?

That was a forgone conclusion.

This morning the Supreme Court issued another ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. WV was being sued by a biological male (B. P. J.) wanting to play on female teams. The question was, does Title IX of federal law on sex based discrimination, keep states from banning biological males from female sports. Title IX wasn’t originally for sports but at least that seems to be where the main impact and attention has been. The law says that in educational benefits from grade schools through college, sexes must have an equal access in educational programs. For example if a high school had 10 boys sports and only 2 girls sports, it was seen as not having equal access. It has obviously improved funding for girls sports in schools and in college and that’s a good thing. Look at some of the popularity of some female sports now. But this case was not about that. West Virginia, Texas, Idaho and other states have passed laws banning biological males from female sports. Also the NCAA recently banned males from female sports. Lawsuits were filed saying that banning males from female sports violated Title IX by discriminating against the males by denying them access to sports. So a West Virginia case made it to the Supreme Court to see if it was a constitutional violation of male rights by banning them from female sports. To me it seemed like a simple answer. Men are not denied access to sports. They are only banned from joining female teams. So a male does not have to be allowed to join a female basketball team. He has equal access to sports and can join the men’s team. It’s so simple, right? Not so fast!! The Supreme Court had to settle this decision. It was not unanimous. The vote was 6-3 that banning males from female sports was not discrimination against males. This is like beating a dead horse…. 🫪 Can anyone guess which three justices voted that it is discrimination if a boy is denied playing on a girl’s team by claiming that he is a girl and he apparently has no access to sports? Is he denied educational (usually sports) access? Here is a hint and this is a spoiler alert. One of the justices who voted that males should be able to play on female teams and it is guaranteed in federal law and the Constitution by way of Title IX, is not sure what a male or female is anyway.