Conservative refuge

Travelling in a car with young children can be a challenge. The key is to be prepared and creative in the ways you entertain them. Plan stops to give both the adults and children a short break. Dress in comfortable clothes for travelling, regardless of where they are going. The children can always get changed when the destination is reached or even at the last stop, if required. Make sure you are prepared. Remember to organise books, a few toys, a selection of CDs and of course, plenty of food and drinks to try and make the journey as pleasant as possible. DVD player, DS, ipads or the like can be used, but in the car is a great place to indulge in some old fashion travel games.

Make sure you are prepared. Remember to organise books, a few toys, a selection of CDs and of course, plenty of food and drinks to try and make the journey as pleasant as possible. DVD player, DS, ipads or the like can be used, but in the car is a great place to indulge in some old fashion travel games.

Listen to music on CDs. Vary what you are listening to- try some kid’s tunes, with both action songs and just listening music. Don’t be afraid to listen to a few cds with adult music. Children often love these too. Encourage children to join in with the singing. If appropriate and safe, open the window and let them sing into the wind. They will love the way their voice changes. Listen to short stories on CD. If available, read books along with the stories. Most children will be happy just listening to them though.

Read books. Make sure you allow your children to bring along a couple of their favourites. Draw. Provide a simple exercise book and markers or even use a magnetic drawing board, like the Magna Doodle.. Eat food. Give each child had their own special container full of goodies. It’s a good idea to have several small containers, so that snacks can be spaced out. This also ensures that the child’s entire range of snacks is not dropped all at once. Make sure it something that can be closed if they don’t eat it all.

Talk about school, kinder, life, the weather and so on. Keep an eye out on what’s happening outside- for example, if there is rain and sun around. Talk about what you might see… a rainbow. If you have several children and a few are asleep, perhaps use the time for some one on one chatting.

Most everything these days is done on the internet. In fact almost anyone can have a website in a matter of minutes. No one ever considers the legality of their website or that it even matters. The fact is you are responsible for your websites content and the legality of your posts and all content. You should ask yourself if your website is legal in order to avoid costly legal battles in the future. Website law is very important and can save you trouble, time stress and money in the long run.

Many people aren’t aware of internet and website laws and think that it is not important. However, it is very important. The legality of the content of an online site of any kind can lead to civil and criminal liability. That is why it is very important that every website owner needs to be careful and use extreme precaution when it comes to the content that will be viewed by others on their website. In the cases of civil liabilities a website may have to pay large fines in damages. Criminal liabilities, however, are more serious and may lead to large fines, a permanent criminal record and in some cases even jail time. Both civil and criminal liabilities will end up costing you time and money in the long run so it is important to understand why internet law has such a huge impact.

There are other times when website law applies. Such as in cases of e-commerce or even copyright infringement. In particular e-commerce websites should be extra careful not to overstep any legal boundaries when it comes to protecting the rights of consumers. This can lead to criminal charges. One of the most popular forms of internet legal problems is copyright infringement. The use of domain names or company branding should be verified before you use them to avoid tricky law situations. The law always favors the owners who have already registered trademarks and trademark owners will not think twice about pursuing legal matters when their property is used without permission. In such cases as copyright or trademark infringement and internet plagiarism you are liable for criminal charges so it is important to tread lightly.

Your big remodeling project might be very exciting for you and your family but have you stopped to wonder how the neighbors are going to feel about it?

It is worth taking the time to follow a few of these “remodeling etiquette” tips to make sure that you remain on good terms:

* Let your neighbors in on your remodeling plans well ahead of the first day that the contractors arrive. Tell them when the remodeling work will begin, the approximate completion date and what remodeling work you are actually having done.

* Only have the remodelers working on your home during reasonable business hours. It may be tempting to let them start before nine, or work on a Saturday morning but the neighbors are likely to be less than thrilled to be woken by the sounds of sawing and hammering on the only day they can have a lie-in.

* If there are going to be large trucks parked in the street that may affect your neighbors’ access to their homes or parking spaces discuss it with them ahead of time.

* Even though most good remodeling contractors will do their best not to scatter construction debris all over the place, keep an eye on the situation yourself as well. And if you do spot stray building materials that have found their way onto your neighbor’s property, approach them and apologize right away – before they have time to get upset about it.

* Remove ugly dumpsters from your property as quickly as possible. If you have room left in your last dumpster, why not invite neighbors to dump anything they might have lurking in their garage that needs tossing, a gesture they are sure to appreciate.

The Washington Supreme Court yesterday abolished an estate tax collected by the state, apparently wiping out an estimated $431 million that lawmakers had been counting on to help pay bills. The decision, which is expected to refund millions in back taxes, was applauded by many lawmakers. “It’s a big win for taxpayers,” said state Rep. Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake. However, Democratic state budget writers, wrestling with a projected $1.8 billion budget shortfall, were staggered by the action. “It’s a stunning blow,” said Rep. Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee. Washington residents used to pay a state estate tax and a federal estate tax. Voters repealed the state tax by initiative in 1981. However, the federal government allowed the state to keep a portion of the federal estate tax paid by Washington residents. In 2001, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, legislation phasing out the federal estate tax. But Washington officials kept collecting the state portion of the tax as if the federal law had not changed. The state Supreme Court yesterday ruled the state can’t do that. Tom Hemphill of Bainbridge Island was part of the lawsuit, arguing on behalf of his father’s estate, one of several thousand estates involved in the appeal. “I’m glad there’s justice,” he said yesterday. “The state never should have been charging us. Whether they’re in the hole [now] is irrelevant.” State politicians are becoming ever craftier in finding sneaky ways to garner more revenues. My own state of New York, with its so-called Republican governor, is probably the worst of the bunch. And the estate tax is pure evil — in my opinion the second most evil tax ever devised except for the (unconstitutional) poll tax. But the real item of note here is the hypocrisy, yet again, of conservatives who, when they lose in court, rush to invoke the “a-word” but applaud the judiciary, and checks & balances and such, when they win.

Oh for crying out loud!
Two teenage girls decided one summer’s evening to skip a dance where there might be cursing and drinking to stay home and bake cookies for their neighbors. Big mistake. They were sued, successfully, for an unauthorized cookie drop on one porch. Inside one of the nine scattered rural homes south of Durango that got cookies that night, a 49-year-old woman became so terrified by the knocks on her door around 10:30 p.m. that she called the sheriff’s department.Deputies determined that no crime had been committed. But Wanita Renea Young ended up in the hospital emergency room the next day after suffering a severe anxiety attack she thought might be a heart attack. A Durango judge Thursday awarded Young almost $900 to recoup her medical bills. She received nothing for pain and suffering. … The judge said that he didn’t think the girls acted maliciously but that it was pretty late at night for them to be out. He didn’t award any punitive damages. The girls wrote letters of apology to Young. Taylor’s letter, written a few days after the episode, said in part: “I didn’t realize this would cause trouble for you. … I just wanted you to know that someone cared about you and your family.” The families had offered to pay Young’s medical bills if she would agree to indemnify the families against future claims. Young wouldn’t sign the agreement. I hope they start some kind of collection for the girls. I’ll chip in for some cookies — it’s sure better than that shakedown the Girl Scouts engage in every year. And if I may be uncivilized for just one fraction of a blog post, I hope some less well-intentioned children T-P Young’s trees and egg her house. And what exactly is the tort here? Trespass? Negligence? Negligent infliction of emotional distress? I’m stumped. Hat tip to Overlawyered. More thoughts at Dean’s World.
POST SCRIPT: I’m teasing of course about the Girl Scouts — in fact I have an order outstanding for four boxes from a coworker’s daughter right now.
(And the Girl Scouts never discriminated against gays, either!)
UPDATE: Lots of buzz around the blawgosphere on this one –Overlawyered has a good follow-up post with links and excerpts. I, meanwhile, traded some jabs with a Crime & Federalism guest-blogger who is, in my opinion, an ass. (C&F remains a top-notch blawg, however. But people should be careful whom they let guest-blog — don’t debase your currency!)

Before anybody gets all uppity about this story, keep in mind that, in their ongoing efforts to make New York the most bass-ackward state in the Union, the powers that be have decided that “New York State Supreme Court” does NOT mean, um, the New York State Supreme Court. It actually means the lowest possible court (of general jurisdiction). What most people would call our “state supreme court” (i.e., a court of last resort) is actually the “New York State Court of Appeals.” Go figure. So, armed with precious knowledge, here’s the story: State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.
The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.
“This is a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution’s promise of equality to all New Yorkers,” said Susan Sommer, Supervising Attorney at Lambda Legal and the lead attorney on the case. “The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law. Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they’re entitled to get them the same way straight couples do.” Lambda filed the suit last March in Manhattan on behalf of 5 gay and lesbian couples. I know little nothing about the New York State Constitution, so I can’t comment until I read the decision (PDF — 62 pages). I do know that New York statutory law is riddled with references to “husband” and “wife,” which has been used to suggest that same-sex marriage is de facto proscribed in New York State. I’ll update when I have more to say. Oh, and in this era of full disclosure, I should point out that the Lambda attorney, Susan Sommer, who is not a lesbian, was my Legal Writing professor in law school. For reasons that are not relevant to this post, I was not particularly fond of her (apparently neither was the law school — from what I heard from third parties she was let go after her first year).
UPDATE #1: Slant Point makes an important observation — this judge was elected. Democracy in action — go figure. (For the record, I unconditionally oppose the popular election of judges and prefer the Article III framework for all judges — federal and state, trial and appellate.)

UPDATE #2: Apparently the relevant constitutional provision is Section 11 of the New York State Bill of Rights:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.

Under the rules of statutory interpretation, the second sentence does not limit the first, so the absence of “sexual orientation” in the list of protected groups does not mean that the first sentence cannot be interpreted to include it (i.e., think “including, but not limited to…”). But expect the opponents of the ruling to focus on the “it doesn’t say sexual orientation” straw man anyway.

UPDATE #3: Still haven’t had time to read the decision; will do so tonight. Meanwhile, more thoughts at Dispatches and Gay Orbit, d/b/aDean’s World. Unsurprisingly, Steve Miller wasted no time in rushing to playStepin Fetchit, while VichyGay GayPatriot again embarrasses himself: My prediction: A New York statewide voter referendum in 2005, which will defeat gay marriage. Just one problem: New York State doesn’t have voter referendums. A little research goes a long way.

The mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, is once again facing criminal charges for issuing gay marriage licenses in violation of state law:
Twenty-four misdemeanor counts were filed against West after he married a series of gay couples last Feb. 27 in the Hudson Valley college town of New Paltz. The charges were dismissed last summer by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages. Ruling on an appeal from prosecutors, Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn said the criminal case against West was not about the constitutionality of gay marriage, but whether West lived up to his oath of office to uphold the law.
“The town court has in effect ruled that a village mayor who has sworn to uphold the laws of the state of New York and to faithfully discharge to duties of his office, may pick and choose the laws he actually obeys,” Bruhn wrote in his decision. As I have blogged previously, this is entirely as it should be. Although there can be no such thing really as an “activist judge” abusing his position with a judicial decision overturning a law, there most certainly can be abuse of one’s position as an executive in disregarding a law. Don’t forget the famous (infamous?) contempt for the law shown by the horrendous Andrew Jackson when the Supreme Court ruled he could not steal Cherokee lands in what became known as the Trail of Tears: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Abuse of office then…abuse of office now. The New York law, today’s decision notwithstanding, was as clear as it was wrong, and Mayor West had no legal — or moral — authority to disregard it at the time. That is not what mayors do.Mayors uphold the laws — all of them. If you feel that you cannot in good conscience do the job you were elected to do, then resign. As I also blogged previously, it is totally disingenuous to describe such acts as “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience by a government official is a contradiction in terms. Civil disobedience can only be against government, never by government. “The ends justify the means” was not true in Machiavelli’s own time, let alone the Twenty-First Century. Gays and their supporters must not, under any circumstances, forfeit the moral high ground. West did, and he broke the law. He must now pay the price.