TheAgitator.com
38 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
‘lesibian-izing’ is such a cool sounding word- too bad it’s attached to such a horrible article.
Many of my favorite films include lesbian-izing.
Politically the RNC’s timing is spot on. Opposition is where politicians hold the government to account based on personal and party principles and stand guard against the overstretch of executive power and budget.
Office is where politicians ignore personal and party principles in pursuit of their immediate agenda and public image.
In the absence of any objection to her activity by her ex-husband, isn’t the judge’s action overstepping some “code of judges” ? Even with that odious “paramour clause”, judges have to WAIT for someone ELSE to apply it, and then make a ruling…don’t they ??
I know that sounds naive but it should be that way.
if the folks at the rnc are going to be hyperbolic drama queens, then fascism, not socialism, is probably the better word for it.
Tom G,
It SHOULD be that way, but especially when it comes to kids, judges are given a lot of leeway to impose rules where they feel it is best for the child or will keep the child safe. Even where the opposing parent or a child protection agency isn’t asking for it.
This is similar to where judges in criminal cases can impose more bail than the DA requests or can reject a plea agreement even where prosecutors and defense agree.
That medical examiner article is rather poorly written and is incredibly biased. Look at just the order in where things are placed. If you juxtapose the dentists claims with the DNA exoneration he looks like a fool. But if you mention the DNA first and then muchlater talk about the dentist’s claims and juxtapose those with some lame-sounding defense theory….
1) Of course, those are the GOPs principles only when they aren’t in power.
4) Not surprised at all.
5) Well what do you expect? It’s Tennessee. She’s lucky he didn’t order her burned at the stake.
I blame no-fault divorce….
The big question here is why it took the judge nine years to impose this? Or did the family (both sides) conceal their immoral behavior for that long?
Though the article doesn’t contain much detail (par for the course), it doesn’t sound like the father is any better–as he didn’t object to this. The poor kid probably wouldn’t be much worse off being raised by priests and/or nuns.
More like sitting guard, I think. I remember seeing those ladies in the museums, as well as the floor ladies in the hotels. We had to leave our room key with the floor lady before we left every day.
She sat in a rickety chair next to a rickety table. On the table was a teeny little black-and-white TV, on which she watched her soap operas through the haze and offset vertical hold.
I wonder which lady feels she has the better job?
This site bothers me quite a bit. I was turned on to this site because I heard it was libertarian in nature, but nothing could be further from the truth. This site is no different than many of the angry left sites, however I do like some of the law enforcement reporting.
I’m not surprised that Mississippi is dragging it’s feet! They know they screwed up by letting Hayne sleeze around in his lab for so many years. Also they are facing a huge expense at re-trying the cases he f’ed up!
I guess it’s hard to find a person who is willing to step right into that big pasture pattie Hayne left!
While there may be people who are terrific pathologists, they may not be able to handle the other aspects of the position. I hope that’s changing because of television, but that courtroom work is very, very hard, and that’s the biggest reason why most people don’t choose to be forensic pathologists.
Is Ms. Dixon planning to ask applicants if they are fans of CSI?
I love the complaint: “A good medical examiner is SO hard to find! Waaaah!” It comes along with the implied: “they’re so hard to find, we preferred to make do with this unqualified fraud for 20 years! It was so much easier that way! Gawd, justice SUCKS!”
Too bad we can’t make asshat judges stop asshat-izing on penalty of being disbarred.
#8 | PolyTick
You write, ‘I blame no-fault divorce….’ For what? shitty judges? homosexuality? WHY?
I blame just about everything bad on people driving around with little dogs in their laps… because I can!
#8 | PolyTick
You write, ‘I blame no-fault divorce….’ For what? shitty judges? homosexuality? WHY?
I blame just about everything bad on people driving around with little dogs in their laps… because I can!
“…they may not be able to handle the other aspects of the position.”
Other than getting “beat up” by defense attorneys, what other aspects are we talking about here? Maybe its not just about the money. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at one of these job interviews.
Re: Yellowstone
Since many people believe that animals can sense earthquakes, tsunami’s, etc., then maybe we should keep on eye on panicked mass movement of buffalo, bears, moose, deer, elk, wolves et al.
Scientific, no, but just thought I’d throw it out there.
Ha ha, the dimwitted GOP doesn’t even know the difference between socialism and fascism!
Russians really depress me. As does there art.
…I mean their art…
Regarding these disasters like supervolcanoes, planet killing asteroids, etc. the people researching such things know exactly which side their bread is buttered on. Scare the shit out of the public, and watch the reserach grants role in. The scarrier the scenario the better. We even see it with the global warming community: mass extinction, rising ocean levels, famine, war, disaster on an unprecedented scale! Listen to me, fund me…so I can go out and buy and expensive car, house, and get tenure for the rest of my life.
Meh.
I spent the summer of 1987 in the Soviet Union. Part of it in Moscow and part traveling around the country. The ladies are MUCH better dressed than they were back then and look a longer younger than the ones I remember.
I even have a great story about being chased by one of these ladies. But I’m not sure of the statute of limitations so I’ll keep it to myself.
The lesbian-izing law is wrong/stupid, but if the ex-husband doesn’t object and allows the children there, does it make any difference? What I mean is the judge can say ” Lesbian lady you lose custody of your kids.” But Daddy can turn around and say ” Kids, Daddy is still going to let you stay with Mommy and Mommy’s special friend.” What is the judge going to do? Not allow the Dad to have custody either? Throw the kid into foster care? The law is fucked but I guess I’m beyond the point of looking to the law for “solutions” and don’t see much reason for a legal custody arrangement as long as people can sort things out themselves.
You really have to wonder about the people who vilify “No Fault Divorces.” I find it hard to believe there are really people out there who think it would be a good thing for the government to prevent people who no longer want to be together from disentangling their assets and going their separate ways. Or people who want two spouses who hate each other to retain the power to make critical medical decisions about each other. Even before No Fault Divorces, it’s not as if the government could simply force two people to live together (and even if it could, that would be a pretty vile and evil thing to do). Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties’ joint assets? Was economic blackmail really the foundation for the golden age?
Re: JJH2 comment #24
My comment about no-fault divorce was really intended only as a response to Radley’s blaming *Gay Marriage* for everything.
OTOH, I live in one of those “progressive” marital property states. Ex-Spouses still manage to financially cripple each other. Only now it is so easy to do that it is literally dangerous to get married. Why homosexuals want to be a part of that is unfathonable.
Other than making sure children are decently cared for, the state should not be in the *marriage* business. The state should not be licensing homosexual marriage for the same reason it should not be licensing *ANY* marriage.
I’m tired of the carpet munchers and fudge packers begging for government endorsement. I don’t expect or want them to endorse my decisions. Why should I be forced to pay to endorse theirs?
BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice). I retain the right to ridicule them for it.
#26
I absolutely agree with you that the State shouldn’t be licensing marriages of any kind. The State should not be offering benefits or penalties to people for their living arrangements. But I can hardly find the energy to heap any _special_ ridicule on those engaged in same-sex relationships who want governmental recognition for their relationships, simply because that position is shared by an enormous segment of the general (heterosexual) population. (And, I will note, that they come off far better than hetero-supremacists who want the government to ONLY offer special benefits for their living arrangements, which is approximately half the people in the US, apparently).
On the other hand, while I agree you have the perfect right use offensive and derogatory terms to refer to homosexuals, it still makes you a vile cretin of a human being. Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.
Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.
So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?
or
Does it mean you could CHOOSE to be attracted to men and not women at will?
#27
What bothers me is that anyone thinks the “choice vs. not a choice” debate actually means anything. It’s okay to be gay for the same reason it’s okay to be straight: it’s an amazing human experience and one of life’s many virtues to love and be loved in return. The burden is always on those who criticize an important and valuable personal human experience to explain what’s wrong with it. And if the best you can do is dust off the questionable authority of a couple of books supposedly written by a big magical sky fairy… well, not so much.
BTW I respect the right of homosexuals to their lifestyle decisions (and it IS a choice). I retain the right to ridicule them for it.
And we retain the right to ridicule bigots like yourself for your choice to be so profoundly ignorant of what it feels like to grow up having feelings that can result in being ostracized from your friends and community, beaten up, or worse.
“Why such a longing for the days when one spouse could financially cripple another by tying up the parties’ joint assets?”
Uh…. aren’t we back there now with the genders reversed?
Still just as unfair.
Pretty much Stephen.
Now it’s a case of she can get out of her obligations in the marriage, but he damn well will continue to support her or go to jail.
“Mini-uprising brewing at the RNC”
Better late than never.
http://www.rightklik.net/
I think what PolyTick means by “it is a choice” is that he has CHOSEN not to tell his wife that he has a “wide stance” in the mens room.
For the record, the modernization of alimony statutes has _followed_ the modernization of divorce laws (the no fault divorce). Alimony obligations arose from the belief that marriage was permanent bond that obligated one spouse to forever support the other (until replaced by remarriage). Contrary to popular belief, alimony is a lot harder to get now than it used to be, and divorces resulting in alimony are the exception rather than the rule (I’ve seen estimates as low as 15% of divorces resulting in alimony obligations). And again, whereas alimony used to be generally permanent, in most states it is now generally temporary, barring something like an ex-spouse’s permanent disability.
It’s been replaced by the testicle tax.
>>>Why you would want to ridicule any two adults for making the choice to live with a person who they are physically and emotionally attracted to escapes me.
For the same reason I ridicule those of the Hip-Hop crowd that wear their trousers down to their knees and people at the country club with those AWFUL clothes and that clown who drives past my house every night at 11:00 with his car stereo going THUMP THUMP THUMP.
Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean it is a good thing to do or even a right thing to do.
>>>Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.<<>>So does that mean you find yourself attracted to men but just CHOOSE not to indulge yourself?<<<
I have LOTS of temptations for sin. Most of the time I DO choose not to indulge. The times I can’t prove that I share in the faults of humanity.
>>>Always cracks me up when someone says being gay is a choice.<<<
Okay., #37 got screwed up in the edit and lost a line.
Of course it is a choice. At least that leaves a person with dignity and responsibility for their life. Better that than leave the door open for the do-gooders who would use government power to impose their version of a *CURE*. That becomes a real possibility when someone puts themselves in the category of someone with a genetic anomaly or defect. ( I can’t help being an alcoholic… I wasn’t ME man, it was the drugs. I couldn’t help it. )