Meanwhile in Wisconsin I have to pay an extra $100/yr for registration because I drive a hybrid.
Why?
Because, I shit you not, driving a hybrid apparently costs the state too much money, because we have to fuel up less, and so they get less tax.
What the fuck.
Not sure how uncommon you're looking for, but I think I already did this.
I chose Sage.
According to some quick googling (read: not sure how accurate this is), Sage wasn't in the top 500 names for my birth year, but my given name was top 100.
Though both names I've used have been trending towards more common for most of my life. Looks like my original name is now a top 35 most common, but Sage is still outside the top 100 for females and outside top 300 for males.(Really wish there was more data for the popularity of nonbinary names. I think Sage is probably one of the more popular enby names, so maybe it's not all that uncommon, depending on how you define it.)
Sports at the top level already are dominated by rich kids. Wealth is actually more likely to lead to athletic advantages than being a trans woman.
Hmm, this link might be dead. Search for "Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport - Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport" and it should pop up.
More:
https://news.osu.edu/want-to-play-college-sports-a-wealthy-family-helps/
The Income Gap Is Becoming a Physical-Activity Divide https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/health/sports-physical-education-children.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Oh, they think lawyers know about the loopholes, it's actually a part of their brainwashing. They believe the entire legal profession is a giant conspiracy, that we're taught how to get away with not paying for stuff in law school, and that we intentionally deceive the public so that they don't find out how corrupt we are.
Cuz, y'know, it's super easy to keep a conspiracy going in ~200 law schools, each of which admits hundreds of students at a time, and nobody ever drops out and feels spiteful enough to leak the "truth." Yup.
I believe the correct lawyer term is HA HA HA HAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA!!
Lawyer here. Can confirm.
Yep, this is a common expression, and I fully endorse it.
The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I'm not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can't upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I'm probably doing something wrong, haven't shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I'll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I'd appreciate it, but I can't spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.
But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity's sake. It's not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but...), it's that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don't respond, you lose.
The article said don't engage them in face to face arguments because they're insane and that's a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.
If this is America, and it was a House Sparrow, bastard had it coming. Awful invasive species, and it's one of, I believe, two ~~animals~~ birds which is always legal to kill here. Fuck sparrows. I'd swipe right.
Edit thanks to extra info from replies.
The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.
But also:
Most veterinarians doubt the existence of a syndrome known as “whisker fatigue”, but it is important that pet owners understand the structure and function of cat whiskers, and that they treat their cats’ whiskers with respect. And, yes, it is possible that some cats have particularly sensitive whiskers.
It makes sense that good cat care includes observing cats’ eating habits carefully, and if they seem to be averse to eating from narrow, high-sided food bowls, perhaps owners should consider offering food in a different type of receptacle such as a “bowl for whisker relief”, and allowing them to drink from a water fountain, even if the theory behind this is highly debatable.
https://cats.com/whisker-fatigue
Seems while there may not be hard evidence, it can still be a preference for cats to have wider bowls.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I don't think there's really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I'm sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren't pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.
What I'd like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that's what she needs more than a longer sentence.
If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don't think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I'm not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it's hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn't be helpful to her, and to society at large.
I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn't long enough for causing someone's death. I've seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.
But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn't the point here. I'm just trying to point out that there's a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.
In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it's important to not lose sight of that.
You're not wrong, but you do still have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Also, the bar exam doesn't test your ethics, or even your ability to practice law. It tests your ability to memorize a ton of shit you'll never use in your actual practice. Maybe it was useful once upon a time before every lawyer practiced in a specialized subset of law, but mostly it was made to stop people of color practicing law. (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2020-12-07/abolishing-the-bar-exam-bias)
It really needs to be reformed, though I would actually be in favor of abolishing it and having the third year of law school be reformed into an apprenticeship model where you learn directly from an experienced attorney. Or a specialized bar exam that tests for the area of law you want to practice. Something needs to change about it.
I'm getting off topic. Yes this guy is a fraudster and so is everyone who advised him to sign, but it has nothing to do with whether anyone took the bar exam.
Source: am lawyer in Wisconsin (who actually took the bar exam)