Comments by rswanker
Posted on February 7 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe he can better explain his "signature accomplishment" as congressman: banning the use of horses for meat. So important that.
Posted on February 7 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"School board members refused to discuss the matter openly, but scheduled a closed-door executive session.[...] Our personnel processes and procedures and decision-making, they are designed to provide openness...he said."
Posted on January 21 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you please explain your comment zelasko?
Posted on January 9 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wmarincic, I think I'd have to agree with most (all?) of that. :)
Posted on January 4 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, wmarincic, but I have to disagree. We still have a first amendment, as bruised and beaten as it may be.
Courts around the country have repeatedly found that behavior such as this, like it or not, is not sufficient grounds for detaining or arresting an individual. This fact is known to all truly professional police officers; its only the thin skinned ones (or those looking for an excuse to harass a citizen) who choose to ignore it.
The officer's statement backs this up. Who in a domestic dispute gives the finger to random passers-by and police officers, rather than the person they're arguing with? This is a weak excuse drummed up after the fact to rationalize an illegal arrest. Clearly the officer was *not* doing his job, and knew it.
Posted on October 27 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great show. A shame more people weren't there. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of all three opening acts (Dana Falconberry's group was as capable of getting psychedelic as any of the bands that night), and the Heartless Bastards brought the house down.
I hope that better promotion will bring more people to shows like this, because I'm hoping UCH will keep bringing acts like these (and other recent indie groups like Built to Spill, Black Angels, etc)
Posted on October 16 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If these people are the owners, why should they not be able to sell? Is there a new definition of the word "owner?"
Posted on October 15 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Fritzdawg. What a waste of time and money. The state has no business 1) being in the gambling business (lottery) while 2) promoting private gambling only when they can be sure it benefits them (casinos) and at the same time 3) making it illegal for others to gamble. At minimum its hypocritical and unethical to keep gambling illegal while running the lottery.
Posted on October 9 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One follow up: who said the victim was too poor to have an iPhone, btw? Are you assuming that everyone in my city is poor? Everyone that goes to SHS is poor?
Posted on October 9 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iPhones don't cost $500 unless you buy them right from Apple and don't sign up for a plan. If you're a normal person and you go to the AT&T or Verizon store and sign up for a plan, they can be $99 or less. I'm looking at one right now on the AT&T site that costs only 99 cents – if you sign up for a 2 year contract.
This doesn't exactly negate your larger point, but certainly puts things into more accurate context. Plus, keep in mind that for poor people, a smartphone is the cheapest version of a computer/internet access they can get.