Every morning and every evening, rain or shine, hot or cold, Ivy Harris walks one mile from her apartment on Decker Lane in Northeast Austin to the nearest bus stop to get to her job downtown.Here's one case where "tough love" is encouraging the right decision. Relying on the State to provide your personal transportation may leave you without such transportation and unable to fulfill your own responsibilities. The appropriate response, rather than quitting your job, is to take steps to become responsible for yourself. In fact, the article closes on this note:
"I was going to quit, but I talked to my job and they cut my hours, unfortunately, to get me home before it gets dark. Because one night I walked home and it was dark I couldn't see my hand in front of me," Harris said.
Her plan is to save up for a car and insurance so she can work more hours and fulfill her other responsibilities to her children. Right now, she must rely on cabs to get to the grocery store at a cost of $25 each way.
Some subjects interviewed for this article have since found ways to purchase vehicles, at times at the expense a tighter budget for food and other basic bills.Heavens, you don't say that they are making cost-benefit tradeoffs!
Thanks for the compliments. It's stuff like this that keeps me blogging.
I dont know why I take TriggerFinger Feed. But I do have some interesting conversations there. In fact, I am learning a lot about the policies / law about them nasty things called as "guns". I am beginning to see mulitple sides to this complex issues.
Here's a little factiod : "Do the math: there are 21 million people in Texas, and 223584 permits, so about 1% of the population is licensed to carry. That means, if you are in a place with at least 100 people nearby, and you are in Texas, and you're not in a location where concealed firearms are forbidden, then someone around you is probably carrying."
Word of advice, take the feed someday it jus may save you darn life. I mean the knowledfe that you can cull there is awsome. Nope- and I ant got a gun or even fancy having one !
1. I will grant, very reluctantly, the fact that occasionally the police will require extraordinary powers in order to catch serious criminals.He's almost right. I have two quibbles.
2. However, on the basis that extreme measures also require extreme caution, I will also stipulate that if a LEO (or more than one LEO) gets shot during a no-knock raid which has been made at the wrong address, that the homeowner MAY NOT BE CHARGED with any felony.
Nowhere in that resolution does it restrict the Bush administration from conducting its war operations within the US, and contrary to what Russ Feingold and Tom Daschle would have Americans think, laws do not enable government power but restrict them. That which is not explicitly forbidden is therefore assumed to be legal, and not the other way around, as a moment's thought will clearly show.This flatly contradicts the enumerated powers doctrine. Our constitution authorizes a limited federal government to take certain specified actions. While a case could be made for State governments operating in that fashion, the Federal government is explicitly limited by the Constitution and doubly so by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."Is this the sort of government official we want? I think not.
On September 8th, 2005, defendants, acting under color of State law in an official capacity, and in violation of federal and state law, wrongfully trespassed on premises legally occupied by plaintiff at [address withheld], and committed the following additional torts against plaintiff, her person and her property:
a) Assault and battery, including using excessive force under the circumstances;
b) False imprisonment by illegally taking plaintiff into custody and transporting her to South Carolina, from which she did not return to New Orleans until October 13th, 2005;
c) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
d) Conversion of legally owned property, to wit, a chrome 32 caliber Colt Revolver, with a pearl handle, which has not been returned to plaintiff.
By virtue of having committed the above-identified torts against plaintiff and her property, defendents violated rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1983.
In addition, certain of the defendents conspired to deprive plaintiff of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff by the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1985.
Further, certain of the defendants, who had full knowledge of their colleagues' conspiring to violate, and actually violating, plaintiff's constitutional rights, and committing torts against plaintiff's person and property, failed to intervene, all in violation of 42 USC 1986.
Defendants' acts and omissions were practiced with malice and/or with reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally protected rights, as well as her rights under state law.
As a direct result of the above-described tortious and illegal conduct by defendants, plaintiff sustained severe and disabling personal injuries, including injuries to her face, nose, left eye, left shoulder, left arm, and chest, among other injuries to her mind and body, for which surgery may be necessary, and causing plaintiff excruciating pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarassment.
Y'know, just as a hunch, I don't think letting the news cameras in to record the incident was wise of the officers involved.
The defendents in the case are:
Folks, we have a jackbooted-thugs-gun-confiscation case headed to court with a sympathetic plaintiff making 2nd Amendment claims.
Let me say that again. The significance may not be immediately clear.
HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST JACKBOOTED THUGS KICKING
DOWN DOORS AND CONFISCATING LEGALLY-OWNED FIREARMS FROM LITTLE OLD
LADIES ON CAMERA.
Why, yes, I will be following this case in detail.
And speaking of which, the complaint (which was filed 11/30/2005) is
not the only action in the case. The court has issued a summons
for the defendants.
The case is before Judge Martin Feldman and Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles III.