Baltimore city council grills police chief over new policy of not naming cops involved in police shootings. Then, mysteriously, council nearly falls all over itself apologizing, and praising the new policy.
The L.A. Times reports on the complete lack of transparency in the new stimulus bill.
Cool computer animation of a black hole destroying a star.
This is just barbaric. I can understand (but don’t agree with) conservatives who don’t want to give up the word “marriage” to same sex couples. But to deny a woman access to her partner’s death bed because of a policy against homosexuality is just hateful.
Cast of The Wire rallies around Michael Phelps.
Great Sports Illustrated covers from the 1970s. Number seven is delightfully politically incorrect.
A roundup of all the ill-advised crime-fighting funding stuffed into the new stimulus bill.
General Motors says it needs billions more in federal bailout money or the company will go bankrupt. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 2:23 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Re. the Florida case, I’d also add that the common refrain from conservatives is that gay people don’t need marriage rights because they can already obtain most of the benefits (such as visitation rights) under private contracts. And yet…
At Friday’s hearing, Langbehn’s lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond’s condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.
I don’t think we can really call this democracy (or a republic for those who like to split hairs) anymore. What we have instead is a Give-us-all-your-money (present and future)-and-shut-the-fuck-up. Sort of like The Matrix except we don’t even get the benefit of a mind-numbing fantasy world.
If the U.S. government were a mugger, it would be one of those who shoots you even after you give them your wallet.
I second #1. As for the Christian groups that opposed Langbehn, what does this say about you? No wonder Christianity has gottena bad rap. They are the modern-day Pharisees.
e.g. Matthew 12, the Pharisees get upset when Jesus heals a cripple on the Sabbath (and therefore works)
To clarify, “They” are the hate-filled moralizers, not Christians in general…
Re; point 4,
This is where the “we’ll give them Civil Unions that duplicate the legal rights of Marriage” argument breaks down. Assume that such Unions are Law, and that the legislators who passed them fully intended them to match the rights of married couples in every way, that will STILL have to be pushed through the courts, case by case. Figure about ten years.
Unhappily, the behavior of the Politically Active Gays makes it very hard to convince the general public to do Gays any favors. If you were to judge all Homosexuals on the behavior of the Politically Gay, you would be justified in rejecting all thought of Gay Marriage and seriously contemplating legislation to lock all Gays up in institutions, heavily sedated. The public face of the Gay subculture is that of a self-centered exhibitionist adolescent swine with low impulse control, and no respect for anyone’s rights but his own.
My Gay friends DON’T ACT LIKE THAT. And the sooner that the rank and file of the Gay subculture reigns in the jerks who think its clever to invade churches, the sooner the culture will stop fighting them tooth and nail on matters that are simple issues of fairness.
@Schofield: I don’t think the “gay subculture” really organizes and acts as a hive mind like that any more than all punks or all preppy college kids act as a hive mind. To place the onus for alleviating your discomfort over politically active gay people on them isn’t really appropriate.
#6: thanks, you said it better than I would have.
However, I’d also point out how obviously absurd it is to suggest that if gay rights advocates would simply stop advocating for gay rights, then the public would embrace them.
I’m with #6. These complaints about “the gays” often seems to be used as an excuse for nothing to happen, thus absolving from bigotry those who block gay rights.
Apartheid in South Africa justified itself in part by protecting the state from communism, pointing to the strong communist elements in the ANC. The Chinese government justifies its stand against democracy by pointing to all the rabble rousers and “chaos” that they cause.
So…ALL goverment spending is stimulus?
The L.A. Times reports on the complete lack of transparency in the new stimulus bill.
The photo says it all.
OK, let’s go back. I didn’t say “The Gay Subculture”. I didn’t say “The Gays”. I said the Politically Gay; the ones that march in Gay Pride Parades in costumes calculated to Shock The Squares. The idiots who think they are accomplishing something positive by invading any church, no matter how bigoted and offensive. The ones who seem determined to live DOWN to the worst of the Gay reputation.
Face it, an adult male who walks in a parade – ANY parade – wearing kinky bondage gear is an exhibitionist jerk, regardless of sexual orientation. The Gay argument “what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms is nobody’s business” would be absolutely iron clad if there was not an obnoxious minority that apparently wants to make it impossible to NOT know all the disturbing details.
There is Political Activism, and there is playing Shock the Squares. The first is a civil right and the path to other civil rights. The second is self-indulgent idiocy and ostentatiously counterproductive. And the legitimate political goals of Gays will continue to hit roadblocks so long as the Gay movement is OR APPEARS TO BE more of the later tan the former.
It isn’t nice, but it is true. If you want to make real progress you don’t engage in shock tactics purely for fun, for the same solid reasons that you don’t run for public office as an Orange candidate in Dublin.
Radley: “I can understand (but don’t agree with) conservatives who don’t want to give up the word “marriage” to same sex couples.”
The remedy for this: Take the state out of “marriage.” Marriage is a religious concept. In this scenario, couples could get “married” in the church of their choice if they wished, or they could put together a civil contract. It may not be as romantic as “goin’ to the chapel,” but I think it would be a fair (and libertarian) way to handle this issue.
Aaaannd…MindVirus at Reddit is at it again, pretending to have written your first and fourth bullet points above.
Fuck GM. Die. Die! DIE!
Ditto for all the fucktards in Congress who voted for the Porkulus Bill.
Post 12: Helmut O’hooligan says:
”
Radley: “I can understand (but don’t agree with) conservatives who don’t want to give up the word “marriage” to same sex couples.”
The remedy for this: Take the state out of “marriage.” Marriage is a religious concept. In this scenario, couples could get “married” in the church of their choice if they wished, or they could put together a civil contract. It may not be as romantic as “goin’ to the chapel,” but I think it would be a fair (and libertarian) way to handle this issue.
”
That’s exactly the problem now. The state’s NOT defining marriage… religious nutters are being allowed to dictate policy and define what ‘marriage’ is. The state just enforces it.
‘Marriage’ is the legal contract of a committed relationship that bestows certain rights to each partner. It must be administered by an unbiased entity based on the needs of it’s population.
The meddling of religious nutters has created a situation where you CAN’T just put together a civil contract. The majority of people have been force fed this whole “marriage is for families like us” crap for so long that they spout it as a kneejerk reaction, just like cops do when they say they’re “keeping us safe” by kicking our doors down.
Like it or not, the word ‘Marriage’ means “committed human pairing” and needs to be defined as such for all legal purposes. If people want a more restrictive sub definition of marriage for their own group, like “Catholic Marriage”, that’s fine! But the law cannot differentiate between the two.
General Motors says it needs billions more in federal bailout money or the company will go bankrupt. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
Okay, George, Nancy and Harry, you can put your hands down now.
You know, there’s a debate to be had about the efficacy of various tactics… but I don’t think this is it. Rather, C. S. P. Schofield seems to just be grasping for reasons to justify his bigotry. I mean, in his universe, a couple dudes parading in bondage gear is apparently reasonable provocation for the public to “seriously contemplat[e] legislation to lock all Gays up in institutions, heavily sedated.” I have a really hard time believing that anyone arguing in good faith would hold such a belief.
I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I wholeheartedly believe that homosexuals should be able to have civil unions and delegate these rights via contracts. The state has no right to determine what marriage is between people at or near the age of majority and above (I have no problem with an emancipated 14-15 year old getting married). Let people practice gay marriage, polygamy, marry their dog for all I care.
The only way that Christians will be free to enforce our religion’s teachings on marriage on our coreligionists is in a society where the state has no direct authority over marriage, and where the church can use voluntary disassociation to purge itself of unrepentant members.
Wow, the Florida case is very disturbing to this medical ethicist. What is going on there is quite clearly outright, deliberate discrimination of the worst kind.
The argument is simple. The patient has CLEARLY elected to make this individual (just ignore they are in a domestic partnership) their decision maker for heath care for a time when they cannot make that decision themselves. Not only that, they did so in a clear, well understood, legal manner with a durable power of attorney. While Florida may not choose to recognize gay and lesbian and a potential class which may not be discriminated against, the simple fact remains, they broke the law and they violated the most central tenant of bioethics. That being the idea that a patient’s self determination to choose 1) what is done for them when ill and 2) to determine who will make those decisions for them on their behalf if they are unable to determine for themselves.
Government out of marriage.
Sooooo, Baltimore City won’t release the names of officers who shoot people (unless there’s some nebulous determination of “need to know?) because they fear retribution? Aren’t they, like you know, the COPS? Can they not protect their own? If I had any faith left in the police, this might possibly have ended it.
Certainly they’re good at protecting cops who are under investigation for shooting, raping (yes in B-more), and beating suspects.
One of the comments on the Phelps item decried calling it Bong Gate, because the Gate thingie is stale and dated. I suggest BongTube. As in, something which is revealed unexpectedly on YouTube or any of the other video sites.
OK, a little exercise for the mind; imagine that the nitwits wearing bondage gear are NOT affiliated with a politically correct Cause. Wipe from your mind any suspicions concerning their sexual orientation.
Now, imagine you see them marching down a street in your city. I maintain that a perfectly natural reaction, entirely divorced from any issues of Homosexuality, is “What a bunch of jerks”.
Actually I’d probably just do a little “wtf” and get on with my life. In any case, I’m not really sure how you get from “what a bunch of jerks” to “let’s put these people and millions of others vaguely like them in an asylum.” That you so easily make that leap is why I assume you’re just engaging in some after-the-fact rationalization of your homophobia.
As for it being a politically correct cause–well, Fred Phelps and his band of assholes stage what I would consider to be much more offensive demonstrations, and you don’t hear anybody on the left calling for christians to be institutionalized as a result.
Tempting as the thought might be, as a libertarian I’d have to say no.
I can’t think why anyone would be surprised about GM wanting more money, Didn’t they just last week invest a bunch of money from the first go around in Brazil or somewhere?
Regarding the proposed re-bailout of GM: As many of us here pointed out at the time, the “loan” in the Fall wasn’t a guarantee that GM wouldn’t be back at the trough later. Rather, it was a guarantee that they would be back. That money taught them that claiming that they would go bankrupt was a way to get billions in taxpayer money.
To be fair, I think it was said at the time that the money was a loan to get them by until they could ask for more money later. But, that doesn’t change the point that the government’s actions ensured that the auto companies (and others, too, I’m sure) would be looking for the same treatment again.
BTW, how many of the programs funded in the pork package that just passed will be back begging for more money when this batch starts running low? The annual stimulus game has begun and it won’t end any time soon. All to be paid for by printing, borrowing, and taxing. Corresponding to those three things, it seems like a good time to keep your money out of dollar-denominated assets (because the inflation will hit them), think twice before lending the government money to waste (e.g. buying bonds) for that same reason, and shoot anyone reaching for your wallet.
No, but I do hear people on both sides of the aisle calling for Phelps and Co. to be institutionalized, jailed, or dropped off a dock in cement overshoes.
Can’t see why I should pay for bailing out the people who buried the electric car. EV-1 RIP.
Looks like Phelps will not be charged.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/02/16/phelps.ap/index.html