On Feb 15, 5:06 pm, " email@example.com"
Actually, in these days of identity theft, it does behoove us to cross-
cut shred papers that contain info about bank, ATM, brokerage, credit
card, insurance, etc.; all the personal stuff that some ***hole could
use to steal your identity. It's pitifully easy to do so, I have seen
on several sites and articles.
No, you're not. At least not exactly. First, there is no law that compels
you to comply with a search warrant. If there were, the cops could simply
ask "Where's the gun?"
It IS against the law to RESIST a search warrant, but the courts have held
that resistance must be active and forceful.
Consider a safe. The cops are at your place with a lawful warrant. They ask
for the combination. You decline to provide it.
The cops will haul you before a judge and the judge will order you to
provide the combination. If you still refuse, you'll be held in contempt
until you do give up the combination.
Or the cops could say, "Okay, we'll do it the hard way" and bring in the
To further expand on your statement, you are, in fact, required to
"incriminate" yourself in a CIVIL case. "Where are your assets hidden?" must
be answered and so on. The 4th and 5th Amendments apply only to CRIMINAL
As an aside, that's why some well-meaning folks are perturbed over our
guests at Gitmo. What these civil libertarians do not realize is that
terrorists are not criminals. They have broken no law and are not entitled
to the same rights as criminals. Specifically, they do not get a trial by
jury, indictment, access to an attorney, the right to remain silent, or any
of the other protections afforded in constitutional amendments that start
with "In all CRIMINAL prosecutions..."
Just one example will make this clear: There are broad classes of people in
the US that can be held against their will who are not criminals:
* Spreaders of contagion
* Those guilty of civil contempt
* Some classes of illegal aliens
* Material witnesses
* My neighbor
Point is, "rights" (in these cases) apply only to criminals. Non-criminals
are handled differently.
If I could just add to your list the category presently limited
(AFAIK) to Bradley Manning, presently held against his will in
solitary by the U.S. military . NO CHARGES HAVEhave ever been filed.
He has been tortured for nearly a year to get him to roll over on
WikiLeaks. He is deteriorating fast, mentally and physically.
As many know, Manning is the young soldier who tried in vain to bring
to his superiors' attention a war crime committed by the Marine
helicopter crews who had lotsa fun shooting innocent Afghan civilians
on the ground. These shameless Marines had the the boundless chutzpah
to VIDEOTAPE the party! (I have viewed it several times, still
incredulous that our troops could perpetrate a war crime AND VIDEOTAPE
IT! They must have thought themselves untouchable. Perhaps they were/
are; if they had thought their superiors would not tolerate such
behavior, they would not have committed the war crime.
Eventually Manning gave up on his superiors, and the tape was posted
on You Tube, to the consternation (and often horror) of people who
still had a glimmer of faith in our "purity of arms".
People may feel disconnected to this event, but I challenge them to
find any difference (except in degree) between the U.S. actions in
this matter and the actions of foreign governments which do not have
the rule of law.
This doesn't concern me, you ask? Well, if you don't see it as a
moral and ethical challenge to our way of life, think about this: If
they can do it to one, they can do it to another. When the law is no
longer respected, anything goes.
Bradley Manning was arrested on May 26th of last year. He was officially
charged six weeks later under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with
violations of articles 92 and 134 (transferring confidential information to
his computer and disclosing classified information pertinent to national
Contrary to how some think Manning SHOULD be treated, the fact remains that
every aspect of his case has been conducted according to law.
OMG! Never , NEvER" medicines in the toilet"!!! There is so much
research put there about the disastrous consequences to wildlife of
flushing, e.g. hormones and other human medicine down the toilet.
Altered sexual characteristics of marine wildlife; interference with
reproductive processes; general harm to the organism. Medicines
should be neither flushed down the toilet nor placed in the trash.
They should be disposed of in a toxic waste center. If there is
really, really no such facility available to you, suggest you contact
the doctor's office to arrange for disposal.
No point in commenting on the rest of the "suggestions" list above!
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:39:05 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
And I thought the whole purpose of CFL bulbs was to save energy. Now
I'm supposed to burn up $10 worth of gasoline, plus the wear and tear
on my car, my tires, and wear on the roads, (not to mention my time),
everytime a lightbulb burns out and I have to drive to some recycling
place. Now, lets see how this works.
All these years I could buy a common incendescent bulb for 25 cents.
When it died, I'd toss it in the garbage, leaving nothing but a very
tiny amount of glass, and a thin brass base, plus a tiny amount of
support wires. None of which was harmful to the environment.
I have to spend $4 to $7 to buy the bulb. It generally dont last any
longer than an incandescent bulb, dont work at all in cold weather,
and have a lousy color for normal lighting. When it dies, I have to
waste my time, burn up several gallons of gasoline, wear out my car,
and the roads, and in the end I know that during manufacture and/or
recycling, there will be some damage to the environment from the
The savings in electricity was half used up in the initial cost of the
bulb, and the rest of it was used up in gasoline to drive to a
recycling center, and if I'm in a rural area, the gasoline will likely
cost more than the entire savings in electricity. YEt, this still
dont take into consideration the wear and tear on my car, the roads,
and if my time is worth even as little as $20 an hour, I might end up
LOSING as little as $35, over and above the savings in electricity.
Then again, it could cost much more if I'm from a rural area, and have
to drive 30 or 50 miles to get to a recycling place.
What about "It's for the children" do you not grasp?
We're saddling them with an unmanageable debt, the least we can do is leave
them millions of broken CFLs to rehabilitate.
Though what they would do with CFLs in a world lit by candles escapes me.
I can get 4 for $5-$7, without resorting to dollar store stool specimens.
Mine average about 4,000-plus hours of life in actual home use,
including a bathroom and an enclosed kitchen ceiling fixture.
I know some that have worked well at nighttime in Philadelphia and its
suburbs through even this very harsh winter. Besides, most are used
I know plenty that don't. In what kind of fixtures do yo have bad color
experience, and what brands, models, wattages, styles and color
temperature ratings gave you trouble, in what way?
I know enough about these to probably be able to give recommendations.
Or would you rather just bitch about CFLs?
Or keep them at home or in your trunk until next time you have another
reason to go somewhere or somewhere close-to-somewhere where you can dump
your dead CFLs.
One resource for finding where to dump them:
Based on making a special car trip to dump a lightbulb and CFLs lasting
a fraction of what I see in my actual experience.
- Don Klipstein ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.