Morning Links

Thursday, November 19th, 2009
  • Statutory rape.
  • Ten-year-old girl tased for unruliness.
  • Drink up, fellas.
  • Baby otter explodes cuteness all over your morning.
  • Texas: “I accidentally the whole marriage.”
  • Study says Louisville, Kentucky leads the nation in online porn searches. I tried to think of a joke for this story, but kept getting stuck on Pervis Ellison references that didn’t quite work.
    Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark
  • 36 Responses to “Morning Links”

    1. #1 |  Tokin42 | 

      The statutory rape pic is now my blackberry background. too funny.

      there is an update on the maricopa co. officer who swiped the defense attys files right behind her back. Surprisingly, to me at least, they found him in contempt of court. 3 guesses on sheriff joe’s response and the first 2 don’t count.

      http://carlosmiller.com/2009/11/18/judge-finds-arizona-detention-officer-in-contempt-of-court/

    2. #2 |  CRNewsom | 

      I live in Louisville, so I got to see the obscenity story on the local news. Our local news is officially retarded.

      “More people in Louisville search for the words ‘sex’ and ‘porn’ than anywhere else.” So said the adcopy. I don’t think we’re obscene, just unoriginal. Seriously, who googles ‘sex’ anyway?

      The linked study used the 7 words you can’t say on television from the late, great, George Carlin. I appreciate the usage of such a meaningful list to relate to obscenity, but I do not understand who would google those terms.

      Excepts for tits, I understand that one totally.

    3. #3 |  CHRISC | 

      on the obscenity article – “It can begin very subtly, but it gets to some really seedy places and certainly one of the ones most troubling for us is when children start being victimized,” said Tony Gore of Southeast Christian Church. Great. No we know adult porn causes child sex. Guess I gotta throw out my playboy collection lest the sex police pass yet another law “for the chill’in”. Maybe it will have a name on it, like Hugh’s law so it can get passed with no one reading it…

    4. #4 |  djm | 

      “Six units within six hours is considered ‘binge-drinking’”

      I wasn’t sure what a “unit” was, but apparantly a pint of beer (5.2%) contains about 3 units, and a large glass of red wine contains about 3.5 units. So if you’ve ever had two pints at the bar or two glasses of wine with dinner, you’re a binge drinker. Link is to the BBC, and you really have to wonder what planet these (UK) nanniers are on.

      Still, good news!

    5. #5 |  MacK | 

      The sheriff said “the officer had no choice but to use the taser on the 10 year old girl, he also stated “the officer could have used a metal rod called an asp, or pepper spray”.

      Hell I’m glad he didn’t mention the officer could have used his issued 9mm if needed to gain control of this 10 year old girl, because she had not obeyed her mother.

    6. #6 |  Michael Pack | 

      The selling point for a taser was it was a better option when a club or fist was needed.If that’s true we have a lot of children that need clubbed.Many in states where spanking is considered child abuse.

    7. #7 |  dave smith | 

      So, they can use a taser on a 14 year old that is not being violent?

    8. #8 |  john | 

      i’m just glad that rape didn’t occur in Louisiana, because they ain’t the same race. as a matter of fact, they are not the same species.

    9. #9 |  Alex Russell | 

      *jaw drops*

      I only knew what the Taser thing was actually about – a ten-year-old girl having a tantrum and refusing to take a shower – because I had read digby’s two posts about it.

      http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/torture-for-tantrums-by-digby-yesterday.html

      When I saw this TV bit… the reporter says “this ten-year-old girl”, but the showing of the girl, or even the explanation of what the incident even was, must have been cut. Everything that remains is a Taser ad!

    10. #10 |  Mattocracy | 

      The Texas article makes me wonder what would happen if a state’s solution to gay marriage was to just say “fuck it, we’re not recognizing any marriages anymore. It’s your own responsibility to legally define your relationship with someone.”

      I personally think that’s the way it should be, as do a lot of Libertarians. But would the gay community support this solution, or would they scream foul?

      Also…what does that do for the tax code? If one state can change the definition of marriage and the IRS doesn’t agree, does a state with no marriage requirements force all of it’s people to file serperately and never jointly? Are any marriage certificates going to be recognized by said state?

      Or am I just getting too worked up over the dumbassary of Texas…

    11. #11 |  Dakota | 

      Maybe

      Never Nervous Perverts: Louisville hits number one ranking in on-line p0rn searches?

    12. #12 |  Nando | 

      Since IANAL, I need clarification regarding the TX constitutional amendment banning civil unions and gay marriage.

      I would imagine that no state constitution can ban something that the federal government has an explisit law for (or found in the US Constitution). If that is the case, what would happen to all these states’ constitutions if the US passes a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage/civil unions? What if the federal government merely passes a law allowing them?

      Thanks!

    13. #13 |  MRK | 

      Louisville slugs out with the most online p0rn searches?

    14. #14 |  Andrew S. | 

      Since IANAL, I need clarification regarding the TX constitutional amendment banning civil unions and gay marriage.

      I would imagine that no state constitution can ban something that the federal government has an explisit law for (or found in the US Constitution). If that is the case, what would happen to all these states’ constitutions if the US passes a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage/civil unions? What if the federal government merely passes a law allowing them?

      If the US passed a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage, any remaining state law banning them would be history (mind you, you’d need 37 states to approve the constitutional amendment, so you probably wouldn’t have many remaining states that disallowed it anyways)

      The feds could pass a law giving federal tax/other federal benefits of marriage to gay couples in states that already allow gay unions, but I’m fairly sure a law that allowed gay marriage would be one of those rare times where the courts actually said that a federal law wasn’t allowed under the Commerce Clause.

      Given the above, the only way we’re likely to see any progress here is if the courts start to see homosexuality as an immutable trait that’s given strict/intermediate scrutiny under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. If they do that, and if SCOTUS were ever to find that the 14th amendment would ban laws against gay marriage, the state laws would be history as well.

      [Yes, I do think that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. However, I'm realistic enough to know that's less likely to happen than drug legalization, for instance]

    15. #15 |  Aresen | 

      From the Texas marriage article:

      The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

      “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

      Does this mean that all children born in Texas will be bastards?

    16. #16 |  hamburglar007 | 

      Some good news about the cop who tasered the 10 year old, apparently he has been suspended.

    17. #17 |  Cynical in CA | 

      Since when do courts adhere to black-letter definitions of words?

      I’m sensing a penumbra in Texas. Maybe Gov. Perry can take a hiatus from shoving vaccines down girls’ throats to his own enrichment long enough to get out the red pen and insert a few edits via executive order.

      At any rate, whatever. The big issue is the State interfering in contracts. Yaaaaawn.

    18. #18 |  Edmund Dantes | 

      The mother needs to get her head examined. Why are you calling hte cops to deal with the fact your 10 year old girl refuses to take a shower? Also why is said cop agreeing to help to try to drag her to the shower? (Read the two digby articles). It gets worse from there. One of my favorite parts is the police spokeperson saying that he couldn’t restrain girl because she might slip out of his hands and injure herself falling to the ground.

      Silly me. I forgot that when you have 50K volts of electricity going through your body there is no chance of you injuring yourself as you spasm uncontrollably or dying from undiagnosed heart conditions.

      People in this country have twisted themselves so much on the issue that they can’t admit a simple fact. Cops have become torturers. Tasers are supposed to replace firing your service weapon. 50K of electricity does cause pain and suffering. “Oh it’s just a brief jolt and it’s over”. It’s amazing what (royal) “we” will allow to happen so long as it’s happening to the “other”.

      As to all marriage being outlawed — I’d love to see marriage wiped off the books. Especially if I was a lawyer. I don’t think people really have an appreciation for the number of legal documents, contracts, etc. gets rolled up into a marriage license. If you think your life is buried under a mountain of legal papers now, wait until you have to replicate all the functioning aspects of a marriage license with the appropiate legal documents.

    19. #19 |  Jack | 

      Usually what you post makes me angry but making me have to think about Out of Service Pervis for the first time in a decade is just cruel. What a fucking bust

    20. #20 |  ClassAction | 

      Marriage is not now, and has never been, a contract between a man and a woman. It used to be (and still is, in many countries) a contract between a man and a woman’s family, in which the woman was essentially chattel. Marriage is now, in developed countries, a bestowing of State privilege (and burdens) upon a couple who adheres to an approved lifestyle.

      Frankly, both forms of the practice deserve to slip into oblivion. If people want a ceremony to make unenforceable promises to each other, more power to them. But let’s not pretend it’s any kind of contract.

    21. #21 |  Bob | 

      Sweet! It’s a good time to be male and rich in Texas! You don’t even need a pre-nup! Since you’re not really married anyway, the bitch can’t take half of your shit!

      Or, from the female perspective: Since you’re not married anyway, that asshole can’t get to see your kids!

      And this, by the way, is the problem with taking ‘government’ out of marriage in general. Any contract you have with an individual can simply be broken prior to the divorce. What, you gunna have a 50,000 page contract covering every possible contingency?

      The generalized ‘marriage’ contract with a arbitrating third party (The Government) allows individuals to get married and share resources with some degree of confidence that they would not have otherwise had.

      And since the government doesn’t allow discrimination against people for things like race, gender, or sexual preference, marriages can’t either.

    22. #22 |  Bob | 

      Apparently, according to the video, the X-26 Taser unit can be use either with or without the remote barbs! Also, the discharge duration is 5 seconds after the trigger is pulled.

      What’s this about a child being tasered? I don’t see anything about that in the X-26 Taser ad.

    23. #23 |  Bob | 

      Yeah! 6 units of alcohol in 6 hours? Freakin’ drunks!

      Wait… what’s a “Unit of alcohol”?

      Hmm. 10 ml of pure alcohol. Let me do some quick calculations, here…

      Hey! This single 12 oz. can of american beer contains 2 units of alcohol!

      I’m binge drinking right now! Shit!

      What do they call it when you actually drink enough to get drunk? Super Binge Drinking?

    24. #24 |  Mattocracy | 

      I don’t understand why everyone assumes that ending a license requirement for marriage will result in mounds of legal paperwork. How does a license add confidence to sharing resources? Like someone is any less likely to spend juniors college fund at the craps table when a marriage lisence is envovled. A major reason for divorce is the missmanagement of shared resource already. Marriage licenses haven’t proven effective in mitigating this risk. Keeping seperate bank accounts with one joint checking for the bills mitigates that risk much more effectively than a marriage license.

      If both parties own a house or a car together, how about if they just sign a simple contract stating that if the relationship ends or one goes broke, the home is either sold, one party buys out the other, or some other form joint control is maintained.

      With respect to kids, plenty of people have kids out of wedlock and there are laws already on the books dictating visitation rights for both mom and dad. Fathers are required by law to help with the finances of raising their child regardless of marriage. A marriage license has no bearing in these matters and won’t make anyone less of a dead beat or a better parent.

      If someone cheats on the other, so what. I’m sorry, but I do not believe that infidility should result in one party getting half the assets of the other by default. If two people can’t agree on that, well then they shouldn’t get married…or have a civil union…or legally combine assets…or whatever. What a marriage license does more often than not is just a create a default scenario, splitting assets 50/50 in case the relationship ends. That isn’t fair and never has been. Every scenario is different.

      I’m not sure what kind of evidence can be shown that proves that marriage licenses make divorces cheaper or easier in any way. Licence or no, there will always be a fight over the house, the kids, abd the bank accounts if people aren’t smart enough to get a pre nup. So why even bother with the licensing? I can’t see how not having a lisence will make a breakup any worse or any relationship any more stable.

    25. #25 |  ERKinAK | 

      On the statutory rape pic. An old boss of mine who is a hunter always said, “In the fall the bull moose get horny and stupid.”

      Kind of like human males I guess.

    26. #26 |  Michael | 

      “We used George Carlin’s (R.I.P.) “Seven Dirty Words” as obscenity proxies”

      If you search the seven words, only tits brings up porn. This study shows that the people of Louisville are either foul mouthed, or lack the terminology to find porn online.

    27. #27 |  KBCraig | 

      “There otter be a law…”

    28. #28 |  BamBam | 

      Sheriff Joe’s definition of his deputy’s job is vastly different than most people. Technically Joe isn’t lying, he’s just operating under a different set of guidelines, which is how the police operate considering they are superior humans and deserving of being held to lower standards than the serfs they “control” because their job is so dangerous (no offense to garbage collectors, fishermen, loggers, and the others that are in the top 20 of most dangerous jobs).

    29. #29 |  BamBam | 

      #18, and water and electricity are known to play nice together.

    30. #30 |  BamBam | 

      #24, bottom line is that government has no place in people’s personal relationships. It’s all a money making scam and another way to control people’s behavior. The beauty of licenses is that there is no limit on what can be deemed to require a license, considering human behavior is infinite.

    31. #31 |  KBCraig | 

      Don’t worry, the Ozark cop has been suspended for seven day for not using the Taser video camera.

      With pay.

      http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1109/679801.html

    32. #32 |  thefncrow | 

      Given the above, the only way we’re likely to see any progress here is if the courts start to see homosexuality as an immutable trait that’s given strict/intermediate scrutiny under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. If they do that, and if SCOTUS were ever to find that the 14th amendment would ban laws against gay marriage, the state laws would be history as well.

      Immutability has never been a criteria required to escape the rational basis test. The quickest example is to realize that sex and religion are both mutable traits that nonetheless get, and deserve, heightened scrutiny. So, we don’t have to wait on the resolution of the nature v. nuture debate to rule same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

    33. #33 |  Andrew Williams | 

      Echoing #9: That whole report was just an recruiting ad for the cops and will probably do WONDERS for the Taser people.

      Seriously. Neither the local affiliate not CNN could track down the parents or the kid? Not even a cursory “the parents refused to speak on camera on advice of counsel?”

      Something is VERY rotten in the state of Arkansas.

    34. #34 |  nathan | 

      #15 | Aresen

      Does this mean that all children born in Texas will legally be bastards?

      Fixed that for you.

    35. #35 |  MDGuy | 

      What do they call it when you actually drink enough to get drunk?

      I don’t know what they call it. I call it “Tuesday.”

    36. #36 |  Dave Krueger | 

      The officer had “no other choice” than to tase the kid. That’s why, up until the taser was invented, there was just no way to control unruly kids. They were a curse on humanity, a tyranny on civilization, and masters of all life on earth. The taser freed us from all that. In fact, here in progressive Alabama, they advertise tasers as the perfect Mother’s Day gift.

    Leave a Reply