Tag Archives: state

Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison …

Posted: July 21, 2016 at 2:24 am

When we talk about the war on drugs, which is increasingly turning into areal war, we often overlook the fact that the criminals involved in the drug trade arent actually violating anyones rights. When a drug dealer is hauled before a judge, there is no victim standing behind the prosecutor claiming damages. Everyone participating in the drug trade does so voluntarily.However, there area lot more crimesfor which this is also true. Millions upon millions of Americans have been thrown into cages without a victim ever claiming damages. It is important to look at the burden this mass level of incarceration places upon our society.

In light of that, let us review some statistics which demonstrate just how destructive the mass incarceration of victimless criminals has become to our society.The 2011 federal prison population consisted of:

Drug offenses are self-explanatory as being victimless, but so too are public-order offenses, which also fall under the victimless crimes category. Public order offenses include such things as immigration, weapons charges, publicdrunkenness,selling lemonade without a license,dancing in public,feeding the homeless without a permitetc..

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world. Presently756 per 100,000of the national population is behind bars. This is in contrast to an average world per-capita prison population rate of145 per 100,000(158 per 100,000 if set against a world prison population of 10.65 million), based on 2008 U.N. population data. In other words, the U.S. incarcerates its citizens at a rate that is 5 times the world average.

In 2008, according to the Department of Justice, there were 7,308,200 persons in the US corrections system, of whom 4,270,917 were on probation, 828,169 were on parole, 785,556 were in jails, and 1,518,559 were in state and federal prisons. This means that the U.S. alone is responsible for holding roughly 15% of all the prisoners in the world.

In other words, 1 in 42 Americans is under correctional supervision. This constitutes over 2% of the entire U.S. population. That percentage jumps up drastically if we limit the comparison to working aged adult males, of which there are around 100 million. Over 5% of the adult male population is under some form of correctional supervision, alternatively stated, 1 in 20 adult males are under correctional supervision in the U.S.

According to 2006 statistics, 1 in 36 adult Hispanic men are behind bars, as are 1 in 15 adult black men. If we limit the data to black males between the ages 20 to 34,1 in 9 are behind bars. Keep in mind that 86% of those men in federal prisons are there for victimless crimes. They have not stolen any property, damaged any property or harmed anyone directly by their actions. Of course, if you are reading this and live in the US, you are paying for all those people to subsist on a daily basis. Roughly34% of all prisoners in the U.S. are incarcerated for victimless crimes.

In California in 2009 it cost an average of $47,102 a year to incarcerate an inmate in state prison. In 2005 it cost an average of $23,876 per state prisoner nationally. In 2007, $228 billion was spent on police, corrections and the judiciary. That constitutes around 1.6% of total U.S. GDP.

Of course, being the good economists that we are, we must not just look at the cost to incarcerate and police, but also at the opportunity cost to society that putting all those able-bodied men behind bars creates. When a man is put behind bars he is obviously incapable of contributing anything to society. He becomes a complete burden to society while producing nothing in return for the expenses he creates. He becomes a black void of resource destruction. Its important to remember that moneys value is directly related to the consumer goods that a society produces. If a society produces nothing of value, the money it uses will also be worth nothing of value. If a huge portion of able bodied workers is locked behind bars, society is effectively penalized twice once for the resources that are diverted into the prison industry and it is penalized again for the opportunity cost of the lost labor of those prisoners.

I find some dark humor in the fact that those who engage in victimless crime dont create any real victims until they are put behind bars, at which point they cause the State to steal $47,000 a year from the tax paying public. In our justice system today, victims are victimized twice; once by the perpetrator of the crime against them, and the other by the State which then forces the victim to pay for the punishment of their assailant. Clearly our societys notion of justice is logically ridiculous. Its apparently not OK for someone to steal from you, but its perfectly acceptable for the State to steal from you if the State is going to use that money to punish the person who stole from you. what kind of asinine system of justice is that?

What is justice? Isnt justice making a victim whole once again? Isnt justice punishing a criminal for the damages he imposed upon his victims?I propose that the only real justice that can be enacted in a free society is monetary punishment in the form of taking the perpetrators property and handing it to their victim, or ostracism by defamation of character.

I know some people will cry that under such a system violent criminals will be left free to roam the streets, but isnt that what our system is doing now? Consider that if a man commits a violent crime today, he is put behind bars for some arbitrary length of time with hundreds of other violent criminals, after which he is released back on to the streets. Do you think that criminal is going to be more dangerous to society after spending years locked in a cage with other violent criminals or less dangerous? Numerous studiesshow that prison eitherincreases, or has no impact on, recidivism. Thus, it all comes down to punishment. Isnt being branded a criminal, along with monetary punishment to make a victim whole once again, enough? How difficult do you think your life would be if you were convicted of murder, everyone knew about it and half your assets and income were being handed to your victims family? The rest of your life would be a living hell.

Putting people behind bars does nothing but squander resources. It deprives society of able-bodied workers and costs society massive amounts of resources which are stolen from the general public through the coercive theft of taxation. Consider how much richer American society would be today if it had an additional 5% of the male population working to produce goods and services in the private sector labor force.

Economist David Friedman has put together a fantastic presentation on how society could be organized in such a way as to eliminate all victimless crime while simultaneously eliminating the necessity of the State to steal from the victims of crimes to pay for their assailants punishment. After youre done watching Friedmanspresentation, check out thisfantastic comicput together by the Real Cost of Prisons project.

If you are interested in learning more about private law and private defense, listen to thisseries of essaysby economist Robert Murphy andthis lectureby economist Hans Hoppe.

The statistics cited in this article can be verified atDrug War Facts.org

Originally posted here:

Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison …

Posted in Victimless Crimes | Comments Off on Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison …

Libertarian Party of Texas

Posted: July 18, 2016 at 3:39 pm

The Libertarian Party was created in 1971 by dissatisfied Republicans searching for an alternative to the two-party system. In 1972, Texas became one of the thirteen original founding state parties at the first Libertarian Party convention. Since then, the party has enjoyed rapid growth. In the 2010 election, there were over 150 candidates on the ballot in Texas.

The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) is the third largest political party in the state of Texas, and the only party that is consistently committed to a platform of peace, prosperity and freedom for all Americans. The Libertarian Party is sometimes described as the party of both fiscal responsibility and social tolerance, the best of both worlds approach to political policy that doesn’t accept or require the false choice between liberal and conservative. LPTexas represents liberty, justice, equality, privacy, independence, non-aggression, and the rule of law – the founding principles of our great nation – and is committed to a mission of political action to restore these core principles to our government and chart a future course based on voluntary cooperation, mutual respect, free markets, and the realization of human potential.

The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPTexas) is governed by theState Libertarian Executive Committee (SLEC), which is comprised of two representatives from each state senatorial district and four state officers. At the local level, the state party is divided intocounty affiliates, governed by a County Chair and officers. Each county affiliate is divided further into four districts, with representatives from each. Within these districts are voting precincts, managed by Voting Precinct Chairs. LPTexas is a bottom-up, grassroots organization that highly values the important work done locally to spread the Libertarian message. If youd like to get involved in a leadership role or as a volunteer or donor, pleasecontact us.

LPTexas is an affiliate of theLibertarian National Committee. Our mission is to serve as a watchdog over the state legislature and advocate for passage or defeat of proposed legislation, inform our membership of political issues, maintain the partys ballot access, recruit candidates, encourage strong Libertarian voter turnout and assist county affiliates in increasing party membership.

Go here to read the rest:

Libertarian Party of Texas

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian Party of Texas

Gambling Law US – State Gambling Laws United States

Posted: June 29, 2016 at 6:38 pm

US Federal Gambling Laws

State Gambling Laws

State Charitable Gaming Laws

State Law Summary

Gambling Law Articles

Useful Sites

State Gambling Agencies

Search-Site Map

Contact

Gambling Related Websites

Poker Vibe

Gambling Directories on the Web Internet Library Georgetown Law Library Gambling Links Joeant Gambling Directory

Statutory anti-gambling laws in each state are presented in full text. A chart answering common state gambling law questions is included, as are articles explaining different aspects of gambling laws.

This Website is an effort to make available a wide range of information on gambling laws at both the State and Federal levels governing the legality of various forms of gambling and gaming. Currently the website includes:

Gaming and gambling in the United States have undergone a great boom. During the past decade most states have expanded legalized gaming, including regulated casino-style games and lotteries. There has been an explosion in opening Native American casinos. The popularity of online gambling and betting has increased exponentially. Gambling-Law-US.com presents, explains and analyzes the patchwork of state and federal and state gambling laws that apply to the boom.

The words “gamble” and “gambling” are generally used to discuss an activity that may run afoul of applicable criminal laws. The word “gaming” is usually reserved for those instances where the activity has been specifically legalized by applicable laws or where the activity is exempted from the criminal laws. Thus, playing a casino-style game at a for-profit website online in the United States is referred to as gambling, since no state has yet to finalize any gambling law that specifically authorizes a for-profit website operator to offer any casino games.

The two words are not mutually exclusive. That is, a gaming activity could turn out to be gambling where applicable laws regulating that particular gaming are violated. Similarly, a gambling activity may turn out to be gaming if it is exempted from a given criminal statute. For example, playing a card game for money in a purely social setting where no one earns anything from the game other than as a mere player would be gaming if such social games were excluded from the reach of the criminal anti-gambling laws in the state where the game takes place. For the history of gambling laws on a state-by-state basis, see the individual state entries on Pokerwebsites.com.

Presented By

Chuck Humphrey

In 1999 he became the principal investor in and one of the founders of the Tournament of Champions of Poker and the manager of Team Pegasus, an association of professional tournament poker players.

He is admitted to practice law in Colorado, Michigan and Texas, currently being active in Colorado, where he lives. He was a staff attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. early in his legal career. Chuck holds BBA, MBA and J.D (cum laude) degrees, all from the University of Michigan. He is an AV-rated attorney, a peer-awarded honor given by Martindale-Hubbell.

Chuck continues his law practice, which principally focuses on gambling law, business matters, and structuring transactions.

Please click on “Contact” in the left hand column to reach Chuck.

See more here:

Gambling Law US – State Gambling Laws United States

Posted in Gambling | Comments Off on Gambling Law US – State Gambling Laws United States

Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician …

Posted: June 13, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Euthanasia Facts, including graphs of data on people who attempted suicide, facts sheets, FAQs, debate points, books, videos etc.

Medical Articles, including charts of poll data, pain control, physician issues, etc.

People Articles, including abuse of the elderly and women.

Statements by Individuals, Nat Hentoff, Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader, and others.

“This website opposes laws that make it is legal for one class of people to kill another class of people . . . in the case of so-called “Death With Dignity,” the people killed are the suicidal.”

“The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana. Assisted suicide is a homicide in Montana. Our MT Supreme Court ruled that if a doctor is charged with a homicide they might have a potential defense based on consent. The Court did not address civil liabilities. No one in Montana has immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. Does that sound legal to you? Oregon model bills have been rejected by our legislature in 2011, 2013 and 2015 because of gaping loopholes that allow exploitation of elders and people with disabilities of all ages by predators and predatory corporations.” . . . Montana resident Bradley Williams.

“Euthanasia is a long, smooth-sounding word, and it conceals its danger as long, smooth words do, but the danger is there, nevertheless. “… American author Pearl S. Buck

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”… Thomas Jefferson

“There is no quality of life when the patient is dead.”… a nurse

“the terminally ill are a class of persons who need protection from family, social, and economic pressures, and who are often particularly vulnerable to such pressures because of chronic pain, depression, and the effects of medication.”… from the State of Alaska’s arguments that assisted suicide is dangerous. Subsequently (Sampson et al. v State of Alaska, 09/21/2001), the Alaska Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state laws punishing assisted suicide as manslaughter are to be upheld.

“Beware movements that feel the need to resort to feel-good euphemisms to hide the reality of their agendas and goals. Assisted suicide is suicide. The term is descriptive and accurate. And when it is legalized, it amounts to state-approved suicide. Lets deal with that reality and stop the pretense.”… Wesley J. Smith, 2013.

See the article here:

Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician …

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician …

Euthanasia – The New York Times

Posted: June 12, 2016 at 12:44 am

Latest Articles

As the state begins to allow what has come to be known as aid in dying, two patients and two doctors explain how it will affect them and how they are preparing for the changes.

By JENNIFER MEDINA

Canadas Supreme Court overturned criminal laws banning assisted suicide last year, and new legislation has not been put into place.

By IAN AUSTEN

Advocates on both sides of the issue respond.

Its important to provide a humane option to the dying. Its also essential that people have access to palliative and hospice care.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

On Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada unveiled a new bill that would legalize doctor-assisted suicides for people suffering from serious medical ailments.

By REUTERS

The prime minister has introduced legislation to address the legal void left after Canadas Supreme Court overturned a ban on doctor-assisted death.

By IAN AUSTEN

Researchers who looked at doctor-assisted deaths in the Netherlands found that some patients had declined treatment that might have helped.

By BENEDICT CAREY

Doctors, it turns out, arent much different than everyone else when it comes to where they die.

By DANIELLE OFRI, M.D.

Although Mr. Hooker repeatedly lost his races for elective office in Tennessee, he managed to advance a progressive agenda through his candidacies and as a plaintiff.

By SAM ROBERTS

The magazines ethicist on a siblings struggle, favors in the workplace and secrets between friends.

By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

Shared Belief, a gelding, won 10 of 12 career starts and had earnings of more than $2.9 million.

As Holocaust survivors, my parents insisted on being in control of their own deaths.

By ANN M. ALTMAN

When it comes to the end of life, what role should patients play in deciding the terms of their own death?

By SUSAN GUBAR

A son in Colombia helps his mother die while making plans of his own.

CARLOS FRAMB

Un hijo ayuda a su madre enferma y enfrenta su propio destino

CARLOS FRAMB

In signing legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide, the California governor reflected on what he would want in the face of his own death.

By PHILIP M. BOFFEY

The law allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs for terminally ill patients is expected to take effect sometime next year.

By IAN LOVETT and RICHARD PREZ-PEA

End of Life Choices New York writes that such actions are not a suicide or assisted suicide.

The governor should sign into law a bill that would allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

If Gov. Jerry Brown signs the measure, the state will become the fifth to allow doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to some patients.

By IAN LOVETT

As the state begins to allow what has come to be known as aid in dying, two patients and two doctors explain how it will affect them and how they are preparing for the changes.

By JENNIFER MEDINA

Canadas Supreme Court overturned criminal laws banning assisted suicide last year, and new legislation has not been put into place.

By IAN AUSTEN

Advocates on both sides of the issue respond.

Its important to provide a humane option to the dying. Its also essential that people have access to palliative and hospice care.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

On Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada unveiled a new bill that would legalize doctor-assisted suicides for people suffering from serious medical ailments.

By REUTERS

The prime minister has introduced legislation to address the legal void left after Canadas Supreme Court overturned a ban on doctor-assisted death.

By IAN AUSTEN

Researchers who looked at doctor-assisted deaths in the Netherlands found that some patients had declined treatment that might have helped.

By BENEDICT CAREY

Doctors, it turns out, arent much different than everyone else when it comes to where they die.

By DANIELLE OFRI, M.D.

Although Mr. Hooker repeatedly lost his races for elective office in Tennessee, he managed to advance a progressive agenda through his candidacies and as a plaintiff.

By SAM ROBERTS

The magazines ethicist on a siblings struggle, favors in the workplace and secrets between friends.

By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

Shared Belief, a gelding, won 10 of 12 career starts and had earnings of more than $2.9 million.

As Holocaust survivors, my parents insisted on being in control of their own deaths.

By ANN M. ALTMAN

When it comes to the end of life, what role should patients play in deciding the terms of their own death?

By SUSAN GUBAR

A son in Colombia helps his mother die while making plans of his own.

CARLOS FRAMB

Un hijo ayuda a su madre enferma y enfrenta su propio destino

CARLOS FRAMB

In signing legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide, the California governor reflected on what he would want in the face of his own death.

By PHILIP M. BOFFEY

The law allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs for terminally ill patients is expected to take effect sometime next year.

By IAN LOV
ETT and RICHARD PREZ-PEA

End of Life Choices New York writes that such actions are not a suicide or assisted suicide.

The governor should sign into law a bill that would allow some terminally ill patients to hasten their death.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

If Gov. Jerry Brown signs the measure, the state will become the fifth to allow doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to some patients.

By IAN LOVETT

Link:

Euthanasia – The New York Times

Posted in Euthanasia | Comments Off on Euthanasia – The New York Times

Rawls and Nozick: Liberalism Vs Libertarianism

Posted: May 16, 2016 at 11:41 pm

Image via Wikipedia

These days , in the occasional university philosophy classroom, the differences between Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, and Utopia (libertarianism) and John Rawls A Theory of Justice (social liberalism) are still discussed vigorously. In order to demonstrate a broad spectrum of possible political philosophies it is necessary to define the outer boundaries, these two treatises stand like sentries at opposite gatesof the polis

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. Rawls presents an account of justice in the form of two principles: (1) liberty principle= peoples equal basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience (religion), and the right to vote should be maximized, and (2) difference principle= inequalities in social and economic goods are acceptable only if they promote the welfare of the least advantaged members of society. Rawls writes in the social contract tradition. He seeks to define equilibrium points that, when accumulated, form a civil system characterized by what he calls justice as fairness. To get there he deploys an argument whereby people in an original position (state of nature), make decisions (legislate laws) behind a veil of ignorance (of their place in the society rich or poor) using a reasoning technique he calls reflective equilibrium. It goes something like: behind the veil of ignorance, with no knowledge of their own places in civil society, Rawls posits that reasonable people will default to social and economic positions that maximize the prospects for the worst off feed and house the poor in case you happen to become one. Its much like the prisoners dilemma in game theory. By his own words Rawls = left-liberalism.

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, libertarian response to Rawls which argues that only a minimal state devoted to the enforcement of contracts and protecting people against crimes like assault, robbery, fraud can be morally justified. Nozick suggests that the fundamental question of political philosophy is not how government should be organized but whether there should be any state at all, he is close to John Locke in that government is legitimate only to the degree that it promotes greater security for life, liberty, and property than would exist in a chaotic, pre-political state of nature. Nozick concludes, however, that the need for security justifies only a minimal, or night-watchman, state, since it cannot be demonstrated that citizens will attain any more security through extensive governmental intervention. (Nozick p.25-27)

the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection. (Nozick Preface p.ix)

Differences:

Similarities:

Some Practical Questions for Rawls:

Some Practical Questions for Nozick:

Read The Liberal Imagination of Frederick Douglass for an excellent discussion on the state of liberalism in America today.

Citations:

Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Robert Nozick. Basic Books. 1974

A Theory of Justice. John Rawls. Harvard University Press. 1971

Disclaimer: This is a forum for me to capture in digital type my understanding of various philosophies and philosophers. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the interpretations.

Like Loading…

Read more:
Rawls and Nozick: Liberalism Vs Libertarianism

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Rawls and Nozick: Liberalism Vs Libertarianism

Eugenics in California: A Legacy of the Past? | Center for …

Posted: April 16, 2016 at 3:44 am

A free event open to the public, Eugenics in California: a Legacy of thePast?, will take place at the Berkeley Law School on the UC Berkeleycampus (105 Boalt Hall) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 from 12:30 to 2 pm.

For much of the 20th century, California was at the forefront of eugenicideology and practices in the United States, and holds the dubiousdistinction of being the state with the highest number of eugenicsterilizations performed under the authority of law some 20,000procedures between 1909 and the mid-1950s. Coerced sterilizationscontinued in public hospitals into the 1970s, and it has recently come tolight that in very recent years, women prisoners in California have beensterilized without their consent or knowledge. Today, California is aleader in research and services related to human genomics and assistedreproductive technologies. Speakers at this public event will consider thelong history of eugenics in California and explore continuities anddiscontinuities in the uses and misuses of genetic ideas and practices.

Dean Christopher Edley, Berkeley School of Law, will give opening remarksto welcome attendees.

SPEAKERS:

“Eugenic Sterilization in California: Stories and Statistics” Miroslava Chvez-Garca, University of California at Davis, and AlexandraMinna Stern, University of Michigan

We provide an overview of the patterns of the 20,000 eugenic sterilizationsperformed in California state institutions from 1909 to 1979, with closeattention to race, gender, class, and diagnosis. We will also highlightstories of sterilization victims and the ways in which they attempted tochallenge the state’s authority to control and contain their reproductiverights. As we will demonstrate, the process had a devastating impact onthe victims.

Ms Bebs? (documentary film) Renee Tajima-Pea, University of California at Santa Cruz; Virginia Espino,University of California at Santa Cruz, and Kate Trumbull, documentaryfilmmaker

The feature-length documentary Ms Bebs? (working title) investigatesthe history of Mexican American women who allege they were coercivelysterilized at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center during the 1960s and70s. Many spoke no English, and testified that they were prodded intotubal ligations during active labor. The sterilizations triggered the1978 class action lawsuit, Madrigal v. Quilligan, and a protest campaignthat galvanized the Chicana feminist movement.

Eugenics in California Womens Prisons Today Kimberly Jeffrey and Courtney Hooks, Justice Now

Since 2003, Justice Now has been working collaboratively with people inCalifornias womens prisons to document how prisons violate theinternational right to family and function as a tool of reproductiveoppression. Presenters will place a spotlight on personal experience withas well as the systemic pattern of destruction of reproductive capacity ofwomen of color and gender variant people in California womens prisonsthrough several state-sanctioned policies, including forced and coercedsterilizations (e.g. the illegal and routine sterilization of hundreds ofpeople in prison during labor and delivery), and other violations of safemotherhood and reproductive justice.

Should We Worry About a New Eugenics? Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics and Society

Today’s fast-developing genetic and reproductive technologies offersignificant benefits, but can also be misused in ways that exacerbateexisting inequalities and create entirely new forms of injustice. California, a hotbed of eugenic advocacy in the last century, is today acenter of biotechnology research and commercial development and theassisted reproduction sector, as well as home to some troublingtechno-enthusiastic ideologies. Our efforts to confront California’seugenic history can help prevent these dynamics from veering toward a neweugenics.

CONTACTS: Susan Schweik, UC Berkeley, sschweik@berkeley.edu, MarcyDarnovsky, Center for Genetics and Society,darnovsky@geneticsandsociety.org

Co-sponsored by the Center for Genetics and Society and U.C. BerkeleysHaas Diversity Research Center, School of Law, Institute for the Study ofSocietal Issues, American Cultures Center, Disability Studies program,Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, and Center for Race and Gender.

This event is wheelchair accessible. Captioning will be provided. Torequest an accommodation, please email disability@berkeley.edu.

Continued here:
Eugenics in California: A Legacy of the Past? | Center for …

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Eugenics in California: A Legacy of the Past? | Center for …

Seal of Delaware – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: March 2, 2016 at 5:42 am

The great seal of the state of Delaware was first adopted on January 17, 1777, with the current version being adopted April 29, 2004. It contains the state coat of arms surrounded by an inscription.

At the center of the coat of arms is a shield of horizontal red, blue and white stripes. On the red stripe is hay and a cob of corn. On the white stripe is an ox standing on grass. Above the shield is a sailing ship. Supporting the shield are a farmer on the left and a militiaman on the right. Underneath the shield is the state motto.

The surrounding inscription reads: “Great Seal of the State of Delaware” and the dates 1704, 1776 and 1787.

The seal was originally adopted in 1777 with minor changes made in 1793, 1847, and 1907. The current version was adopted in 2004.

The seal now used as the Great Seal of this State and bearing the arms of this State shall be the Great Seal of this State. It is emblazoned as follows: Party per fess, or and argent, the first charged with a garb (wheat sheaf) in bend dexter and an ear of maize (Indian Corn) in bend sinister, both proper; the second charged with an ox statant, ruminating, proper; fess, wavy azure, supporters on the dexter a husbandman with a hilling hoe, on the sinister a rifleman armed and accoutered at ease. Crest, on a wreath azure and argent, a ship under full sail, proper, with the words “Great Seal of the State of Delaware,” the dates “1704, 1776, and 1787,” and the words “Liberty and Independence” engraved thereon.

Read more:
Seal of Delaware – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Liberty | Comments Off on Seal of Delaware – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee NSA

Posted: February 10, 2016 at 5:44 pm

The following levels of play will be instituted for the men’s slow pitch program

Elite – Gold – Silver – Bronze

THE APPEAL PROCESS IS THE SAME as in the past -AND- The National Classification Committeeis still reviewing all appeals.

DEADLINE to APPEAL Upgrade is MAY 1st!See – How to AppealAPPEAL FORMS: Click button forAPPEAL FORM – EXCEL to SAVE the Appeal Form to your computer tobe able to type in the information and then email to your State Director- USE Excel Format. -OR- Use thePDF VERSION of the APPEAL FORM to PRINT & WRITE IN to Mail or Fax for a listing of Upgraded teams select Link on Left

This list may change at any time due to State Directors or Zone VP’s Reclassifying the Teams. The bylaws for reclassification may change at this years convention and may affect the teams UPGRADED (moved up) for the following year.

NSA National UPGRADE Rules for2015

The entire roster of the Super World Champions for Mens GOLD – SILVER – BRONZE must ALLbe UPGRADED (moved up) in classification. Individual Players from the Super World Champions MUST play UP in Class the following year.No matter if they have 5 or more players returning. If your team WON the Super World Series and are moved UP in CLASS, ALL Individual players MUST move up, you cannot stay the same class thefollowing year.

Players from a Mens “GOLD or Mens “SILVER MOVE UP team (Mandatory or with Appeal) CAN NOT move down in classification the following year.

ALL PLAYERS on a Mens “GOLD or “SILVER Upgraded team -MANDATORY or WITH APPEAL can move up with their team at least one (1) Classification OR- if leaving the teamMUST REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT LEVEL of CLASSIFICATION.Individual Players from a Mens Gold or Silver UPGRADED team can ONLY participate atthe SAME or HIGHERClass for the following year.Players on an UPGRADED TEAM on the Upgrade list from Men’s “Gold” or “Silver” CANNOT move downin Class the following year!If your team participated in “Gold and is upgraded to “Elite next year (with or without an appeal),Individual Players from this team Can ONLY participate in the “Gold or Higher Class programs next year.

Players from a Mens “Bronze Mandatory Upgrade team must have the entire roster moved to “Silver AND must participate at the “Silver level for a minimum of one year before they can appeal to the classification committee to be down graded back to class “Bronze.

TEAMS on a MANDATORY Upgrade with NO APPEALmust move up at least one (1) classification.Note: If they have 5 or more returning players or any combination of 5 players from upgraded teams from the preceding years rosters. The coachs name should also be included on the roster.Note:If you have LESS than 5 players returning or combination of 5 upgraded players,you stillMUST APPEAL in writing to be allowed to STAY in the same classification.SeeHow to Appeal Important Notes: Players and/or teams not participating in the NSA program for one (1) or more seasons willretain the Classification they were upgraded to prior to taking an absence from theNational Softball Association.

Teams that are a mandatory UPGRADE must play in a Qualifier,STATEandeither the Super Regional or World Series in order to be eligible to appeal their classification the following year. Failure to do all of the three validations will result in the team being ineligibleto appeal their UPGRADE.Teams not qualifying for the Super Regional or World Series can appeal to the classification committee.

Players are LIMITED to dropping no more than one classification per calendar year and must beapproved by the State Director and /or Zone VP for proper team classification. (The NSA calendar year is from January 1st to December 31st). EXCEPTION: Gold & Silver players from a Move Up team (Mandatory or with Appeal) CAN NOT move down in classification. EXCEPTION: Mens Class Bronze players listed on a Mandatory Move Up team roster -ALL PLAYERS MUST move up.

The State Director and/or Zone Vice-President have the authority to move any team up or UPGRADE in Class at any time, due to the advanced play of the team in question.

How to APPEALto be DOWNGRADED-OR- to APPEAL to STAY IN SAME CLASS:DEADLINE TO APPEAL is May 1st – Appeals received after this date will automatically be denied.Teams must appeal your classification upgrade in writing or via email to your State Director with the following information: 1. Completely Fill Out the Official APPEAL FORM – include Reason you should be Downgraded and Rationaleanddocumentation to support your being Downgraded. 2. Roster of players you will have on NEXT YEARS Team. If players are coming from another team besidesthe team you are appealing for reclassification, please include what team they played for and team class. 3. STATE DIRECTOR WILL then include a letter/email with your application and forward it to the NationalReclassification Committee. ALLOW THE STATE DIRECTOR at least 10 days for review of the appeal! DO NOT WAIT A FEW DAYS BEFORE A TOURNAMENT! ANY TEAM RECEIVING AN APPROVED APPEAL will be based on this information.Additions or changes to your approved roster could result in reclassification at ANY TIME!Click button forAPPEAL FORM EXCEL to SAVE the Appeal Form to your computer tobe able to type in the information and then email to your State Director- Excel Format.-OR- Use thePDF VERSION of the APPEAL FORM to PRINT & WRITE IN to Mail or Fax

The State Director and/or Zone Vice-President have the authority to reclassify a team at any time.

Read the rest here:
Tennessee NSA

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Tennessee NSA

Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted: January 31, 2016 at 2:44 am

Eugenics in California is a notable part of eugenics in America.

As an early leading force in the field of eugenics, California became the third state in the United States to enact a sterilization law. By 1921, California had accounted for 80% of the sterilizations nationwide. This continued until World War II, after which the number of sterilizations began to decrease, largely due to the fallout of Hitler’s eugenics movement.[1] There were about 20,000 forced sterilizations in California between 1909 and 1963.[2]

Records of eugenics practices in California are held at the following agencies and institutions. The records are still protected for confidentiality reasons.

In California, [eugenics] was always linked to the use of land: to agriculture and plant hybridization.[3] Many of the powerful social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and biologists, sought to hurt many of Californias Mexican, Indian, and Asian populations through the exclusionary laws that those scientists propose. In addition to the conquest to hurt the undesirables in the state, the California Eugenics plan also was a way to save the state money so they could eliminate the money the state spends on welfare and other programs that help the less fortunate.[3] Eugenics takes take three forms in California:

Dolores Madrigal entered the University of Southern Californias medical center on October 12, 1973, in order to give birth to her second child. During her time in labor, she was given a consent form and coerced by doctors into having a tubal ligation, effectively sterilizing her. Madrigal insisted that No one at the medical center informed me that a tubal ligation operation was going to performed on me. No one at the medical center informed me of what a tubal ligation operation consists nor of its permanent effects (Enoch, 5). Rebecca M. Kluchin found while researching the case that Physicians preferred to perform cesarean sections and tubal ligations in tandem to minimize risks associated with infection and anesthesia, as well as to reduce medical costs. It appears that at this hospital physicians who performed emergency cesarean sections sometimes used the opportunity to persuade a woman to accept permanent contraception.[10]

In July 1976 Madrigal sued the University of Southern California medical center, accompanied by Guadalupe Acosta, Estela Benavides, Consuelo Hermosillo, Georgina Hernandez, Maria Hurtado, Maria Figueroa, Rebecca Figueroa, Jovita Rivera, and Helena Orozco. Each of the nine other women who joined the class action lawsuit complained of similar proceedings. Together, these 10 chicanas decided to sue the USC medical center, contending that they had never given their informed consent to have the tubal ligation procedure performed. Karen Benker testified that poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized”.[11]

Despite Benkers testimony and other corroborating evidence, Judge Jesse Curtis ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that there had been nothing more than a breakdown in communication between the patients and the doctors (Stern 1135). He went on to say that it was appropriate for an obstetrician to believe that a tubal ligation could help diminish overpopulation as long as they did not attempt to overpower the will of his patients.[11]

In 1909 a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed unfit or feeble-minded.[12] As one of the leading states in forced sterilization victims, Californias sterilization procedures primarily took place in state mental hospitals. Dr. Leo Stanley was one of the first people to bring the eugenics movement to Californias prisons.

Stanley was San Quentin penitentiarys chief surgeon and was particularly interested in eliminating those deemed unfit for society. His avid eugenic-based surgeries were the first of its kind to been seen in a prison. Taking place between 1930 and 1959, the peak of the eugenics movement, Stanley’s surgeries were driven by the idea of purifying criminals. Through testicular surgeries, he believed he could cultivate socially fit individuals by replacing a prisoners testicles with those of a deceased male previously deemed socially fit. His practices spawned early ideologies of white manhood,” which stemmed from his belief that he could “help a new, ideal man emerge”.[13]

Use of human and even animal testicles made Stanleys procedures highly unsuccessful and all around bizarre. His desire to restore social morality, along with his fascination with the endocrine system, fueled his research. Throughout the time of his procedures, criminals were believed to have something anatomically off that drove them to commit crimes. This belief inspired Stanley to explore the endocrine systems role in the criminology of a person. By persuading inmates that his testicular surgeries would produce favorable results in their sex lives he sterilized more than 600 prisoners by the end of his career.[13] Stanleys prison work concluded upon the start of World War II where he served overseas, only to retire as a eugenic pioneer.

The Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) was established in Pasadena, California in 1928. Led by E.S. Gosney it researched with an aim to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship. In 1929 E.S. Gosney set up the Human Betterment Foundation and gathered twenty-five of the leading scientists, philanthropists, and community leaders to carry out research on the effects of sterilization for thirteen years (Valone). Gosney also used the HBF to distribute the product of his research, Sterilization for Human Betterment which attracted attention from the nearby university, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Robert A. Millikan, a leading faculty member and proponent of Caltech, was looking for potential donors to the university and shared many of Gosneys views in his work decided to join the HBF board.

Lois Gosney Castle and the board of trustees eventually liquidated the foundation and turned the proceeds over to Caltech. Thirteen years after publishing the 1929 report entitled “Sterilization for Human Betterment, the HBF continued to carry out research on the effects of sterilization and undertook widespread distribution of the report to individuals, public libraries, and schools. After the liquidation files were found in 1968, but since they contained personal medical information, they were legally closed to researchers.[14]

Go here to see the original:
Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Eugenics in California – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia