That per se, is a leap in logic. The incidents you cite are all civil infractions of sorts. You've conflated civil and criminal liability in your citation. That's a broad line that's not easily crossed, and likely won't be on appeal.

You're circling. My example was to cite the inanity of trying to prosecute a passenger in a car where a drunk driver killed people. I never stated the passenger had any obligation to stop the driver, and I did not infer that the passenger provided the keys.

Conviction by one's peers does not guarantee justice. Juries get it wrong all the time; that's why organizations such as the Innocence Project remain in business. Judges, as appeals move forward, don't like to plow new ground, and get overturned further up the appeals process. And conviction of the parents in an act in which they did not participate, violates the basic tenet of our Constitution. The Crumbley's were not at the school when the murders happened, nor did they abet in the murderer's planning of his crime.

The Crumbleys may be guilty of lousy parenting, and even contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but they are not guilty of involuntary manslaughter as defined in states (even Michigan) today. There've been a number of noted local attorneys who've taken this position, along with several nationally-known Constitutional scholars.

And just because he was under the "direct supervision of his parents", doesn't mean they are criminally liable for his actions. As an example, there are any number of juveniles who kill other people in the city of Detroit on a regular basis, yet the Wayne County prosecutor has never filed an involuntary manslaughter against the parents of the shooter.

The Oakland County prosecutor, in this case, is grooming herself to run for governor in 2026. That alone taints the prosecution.

Don't get too smug. The county prosecutor is not on very solid ground, and convinced a local judge that involuntary manslaughter was the call based on the pistol only; there are no grand juries in Michigan, normally. The Crumbley's (assuming the husband is also convicted) will certainly appeal the verdict, either in state and/or Federal court.

What if the weapon had been a knife, or a baseball bat, etc.? Would the parents still be liable? The logical conclusion would be to prosecute any parent whose child used any weapon in a crime. By the time a juvenile gets to the murderer's age, "alea iacta est!".

Don't get me wrong. The Crumbley's are scum, but does that rise to the level of criminal culpability by them?

I've been following this local case since the shooting. There are a number of attorneys in the area who disagreed with the prosecutor. They're certainly guilty of child neglect statutes, but in every case prior to this, a person charged with involuntary manslaughter has to have been an active participant. If the prosecutor's logic is followed, then the passenger in a vehicle where the driver was drunk and killed someone, could have the same culpability. i.e Why didn't the passenger take the keys from the driver?

Just adding "Tactical" to the description makes it worth at least triple in sales price!

I looked at them in the 70's, when I was ready to "upsize" to medium format. Instead, I opted for the Yashica Mat 124G. Everyone I knew who used the Kowa was disappointed in its fragility. They were expecting the durability of the Hasselblad, but never got it. The film advance was easy to get out of kilter, and the lenses weren't as sharp as advertised.

Amen. The prices of commodities are pretty much the same world wide; not a lot of variance. Labor rates are the key. American labor rates, including benefits, etc., are what drive production "off-shore". e.g., Auto Makers moved production of certain vehicle to Mexico for one reason only - labor costs.

I spent four years on a project involving bringing Ford of Mexico into Ford North America. Until then, Mexico had been a secondary market when it came to engineering. They were at least three years behind North America. I spent at least one week per month in Mexico City, and I was amazed by the amount of U.S. English that was spoken in Mexico. My finance counterparts were fluent in English, as well as working knowledge of French, German, and Portuguese. It took me a while to pick up enough Spanish to function reasonably.

One of the things that impressed me was the historical knowledge of Mexico by the "average" Mexican. When I would have to spend a weekend there, my sponsors would take me to numerous, museums, art galleries, etc. One of the more impressive places was the pyramids outside Mexico City. Pyramid Del Sol, and Pyramid La Luna were very impressive, especially the precision with which the area was surveyed. At the nearby museum, elementary school children spent their Saturdays learning Mexican culture and history.

I worked in Finance for Ford Motor Company before moving full time to Information Technologies. During the early 1990's, Ford finally completely consolidated accounting into one location, then started to off-shore customer support to India. The company spent a great deal of time and money training the Indians to understand Ford's Accounts Payable System, because it had the greatest amount of outside-the-company contact. The launch date came, and what ensued was a near-total disaster. Yes, the folks in India spoke very good English, except it was British English, and they had no clue about American English, its idiomatic phrases, etc. Support had to be repatriated until the Indians could be taught American dialectic English.

However, this has not carried over to other companies which have moved customer service off-shore. I still have problems with customer service folks who have such hard brogues, they are nearly incomprehensible.

Writing only in historical generalities. President Trump is not paired with any war.

Never - to answer your question. Each succeeding President believes his/her solution is much better than his/her predecessor. FDR and HST interfered with the military during WWII; HST during Korea; and as you cited, LBJ during Viet Nam. Of course, MacArthur was our greatest problem during Korea. His ego caused strategic blindness.

The biggest problem I have with any of this, is why we're involved at all. We're holding on to sandboxes, and we've needlessly seen three good Americans killed because of it.

The auto industry, for years, kept basic manufacturing in house. In those days, though, auto technology was relatively uncomplicated. Engine divisions built engines that were normally aspirated, without a lot of pollution control; sheet metal divisions stamped steel in relatively straightforward patterns; electronics divisions had fairly simple (compared to today) production.

As these operations grew in complexity, and driven by government regulations and foreign markets, car makers didn't have the internal expertise to build vehicles with far more complex engine/powertrain combinations, hugely complex emissions systems, electronic systems which became more complex, and driving more functions.

They entered very detailed partnerships with companies which had already developed technology usable in cars and trucks.

Labor costs were also an issue. Did auto makers want to pay UAW-scale wages, or did they want to outsource to tier-one or tier-two suppliers? At the same time, the Japanese weren't sleeping, neither the South Koreans, nor Taiwanese; and don't forget that Europe had long-time manufacturers such as Mercedes, VW, Volvo, etc., who were keeping up to stay in business.

No great secret here, just evolution.

I also added a dab of blue Lok-tite to each screw, to ensure they don't come loose. Blue can be loosened using standard hand tools.

Well quoted! I had the honor of attending one of Dr. Deming's seminars in the 70's. He warned us not to get over-enthusiastic about quality changes. However, my enthusiasm for his teachings has never waned, and he was totally correct. I went back to my company and was generally thought to be a rabble-rouser. Everyone believed you could improve quality by adding QC checkers along the vehicle assembly lines. They also believed that if the part didn't quite fit, "get a bigger hammer".

Later in the 70's, after our plant was nearly closed for quality issues, the management finally got the picture. Ford did finally start its quest for quality improvement by starting at the very beginning of parts design. Management also got installer's involved early-on. When our plant improved and the newly-designed Ford Ranger was assigned to our plant, hourly workers were sent to Dearborn, and involved in all phases of the design, engineering, production. They had to fight hide-bound engineers who thought they knew more about assembly than the assemblers did. One example - On the assembly line, there was a choke point involving stringing a wire harness on the truck frame. The engineer told the assembler that he needed to "stick to the plan" when the assembler couldn't get the routing correct. Our plant manager saw the exchange, told the engineer to listen to the assembler, or go back to Dearborn. Turns out the assembler, from years of working on trucks knew the best routing that not only saved time, but improved the protection of the wiring harness.

I saw a rerun of an episode of "American Greed, Scams, and Scoundrels" about Boeing/Douglas, and the debacle with the Boeing 737 "Max". It showed the absolute incompetence of the bean counters when two of those airliners crashed.

Ford got Alan Mulally, an engineering exec at Boeing, after Mulally was passed over for promotion in 2006. Good thing he got to Ford; he changed the culture and took pride in doing away with the "smoke stack" mentality that pervaded our company.

After the end of my finance professional career, I transitioned to information technologies. My early college education had trained me in systemic thinking and procedures, so IT was a natural fit. I dove into keeping a fleet of aging Windows 3.x pc's functional through memory and clock drive upgrades, and my boss and I finally got to roll out complete hardware, server, printer, and communications upgrades for over 1300 users. We also got to hire and train a number of very competent techs to provide customer support.

Part of our task was to bring users of dumb terminals, stand-alone PC's, and primitive LAN customers to a state-of-the art LAN and internet network. To say this task was taxing would be an understatement. We had dumb terminal users who asked questions like, "If I have to move to a different desk, can I take my terminal with me? It has a lot of data on it."

Eventually people caught on and took to Windows Vista, realizing the expanding vista of their horizons. That was the good. The bad? Users who couldn't remember an 8-character password, etc. Our techs, using our own network of troubleshooting, annotated many of their "tickets" with the acronym ID10T. We finally had to enforce a nonjudgmental approach by deleting any references to ID10T in our database.

Never underestimate a human being's ability to totally frustrate technology.

The SoS should have followed the 5th and 14th Amendments, providing due process to President Trump. No matter what, he should have his day in Maine's civil courts.

Also remember that President Trump hasn't been convicted of anything.

Former Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase also stated that Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment applied to the Confederacy only.

The following is quoted from his Wikipedia biography:



It would seem that the anti-Trumpers give short shrift to this bit of history.