memfree

That is the exact problem.

As a society, we don’t want to teach people that it is EVER acceptable for the authorities to break rules/laws. They already have power. Why should they go free after breaking the rules meant to control their reach? At the least, they should get charged and go to trial by jury. Ideally, those juries should then convict in all but the most benign cases.

I remember at least a couple old shows had the good old ‘sheriff’ or whatever break some rule and then had to pay for it. And they did, and good guys accept that despite meaning well, they had done wrong and should have followed the law.

If you ask society at large to accept that breaking the rules is ok THIS time because this time is special and our guy is working for Team Good, then our society starts to allow that in all kinds of stupid real-life situations and you end up with criminal cops, politicians, and all manner of officials. Worse, you might end up with random citizens who think it is ok to break the law just because their leader tells them to.

He’ll say it, but only newsy Democrats will hear him. The Republicans will say the bill didn’t go far enough, cost too much, and blah, blah, blah, glossing over the crazy powers it would have allowed. This isn’t any special ‘5d chess’, this is standard politics. Biden knows Congress won’t do ANY border deal now that Trump told them not to, so it doesn’t matter what concessions it has.

Yeah, that’s not caving, that’s DARING Congress to refuse to pass the bill.

See, they were going to pass a budget bill that has some border funding in it, and Mitch McConnell was telling the Republicans to pass the darned thing – but then Trump said it might be nice to use the border mess in his campaign, and Poof! McConnell spun around so fast, his heels were smoking! (no, not literally) Here’s a link: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-thrown-wrench-mitch-mcconnell-214452142.html

The statement from Biden is a double-dog dare to not pass the bill. Every time Republicans cry, “Waaahh! Border scary! Biden’s fault!”, Biden is going to hold up that statement and point out that he was ready, but they refused to sign it.

Heh! The pointy ones are shallots. I agree that Chinese chives or European Leeks or something equally different would have better rounded out the set.

I’m interested in Growbot. :-)

In general, I am happy to give people the right to express themselves in awful ways because it is supposed to mean that everyone’s free speech is protected, but this isn’t quite as easy:

Springfield’s commissioners voted, 5-2, to ban the flag’s display by any township employee who was on duty, as well as on township property and vehicles.

(re-ordered)

… saying that the flag had become central to tensions between marginalized communities and law enforcement, and adding that it had been adopted by white nationalists since its introduction.

That seems fair, but was probably too restrictive. They should have banned all kinds of extraneous messaging.

District Judge Karen Marston wrote in Monday’s ruling that the Springfield’s ban was an “unconstitutional restriction on employee speech under the First Amendment,” which “protects speech even when it is considered ‘offensive.’”

This sort of thing generally escalates and gets picky – down to “you must wear your uniform and nothing else” and then they get exceptions for wedding rings, crosses, hair bands, glasses, jewelry, and then people wear pins of the ‘banned’ item but since it is jewelry it becomes hard to argue that certain jewelry is OK but some isn’t.

They should still be able to completely disallow ‘defacing’ of their public propert (vehicles, etc.).

Too soon

Does the Church think it is doing itself any favors by firing the people hired to resolve their culture of abuse and protection of abusers? I realize that historically the Church has been able to ignore the issue until people get distracted by something more immediate to their lives, but with the rise of social media and the decline in religious attendance/practice, I would think this behaviour would only further weaken the Church.

Quote from article:

Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves claimed in April the Church had refused to share data with them and denied them their own computers, according to the Telegraph.

They told the newspaper there had been “clear interference” with their work and described working with church officials as “an uphill battle”.

They had also objected to the appointment of Ms Munn, who also holds a position within the Church.