TheAgitator.com
Morning Links
Friday, March 12th, 2010- Funny how quickly this kid gets it. Makes you wonder why there’s a controversy.
- Houston judge rules that death penalty procedures are unconstitutional because innocent people have likely been executed.
- New York City Council (finally) raises concerns about NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy.
- Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema reviews the vending machines in the paper’s offices.
- The rare sensible, fact-based media piece on childhood obesity.
- Bruce Graham, RIP. He’d responsible for much of Chicago’s modernist skyline.
- The rare sensible, fact-based media piece on the Toyota recalls.
Update on the man taken out of his house in Oregon and held for mental health eval:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120325
good link, Tokin! SLIGHT contradiction here:
“They asked him to come out and said they wouldn’t handcuff him, arrest him or take him off the property,” Starrett recounted.
However, Pyles said, he then was handcuffed and taken to Rogue Valley Medical Center for evaluation.
Police have maintained that Pyles’ surrender was voluntary, but Starrett noted that an intimidating presence of officers with rifles and SWAT gear can force people to agree to things they wouldn’t normally do.’
New York City Council (finally) raises concerns about NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy.
Massa wants to implement a stop-and-frack policy.
I don’t know, I just think that is so off the wall.
I think Agitators here would enjoy the new documentary “The Art of the Steal” about how PA, Philly and large foundations teamed up to subvert a man’s last will and testament and use one of the world’s greatest art collections as tourist bait and foundation equity.
I may have heard about the film on this site’s message board, but after seeing it I’ll second the recommendation.
Funny how quickly this kid gets it. Makes you wonder why there’s a controversy.
Of course he gets it quickly. It takes years of “education” and Socialisation to teach children hatred and bigotry.
Wow, good news in the morning links for once. Here’s to hoping that Judge Fine stands his ground on his ruling.
MDGguy “Wow, good news in the morning links for once. Here’s to hoping that Judge Fine stands his ground on his ruling.”
He won’t. This is Texas. That judge just committed political suicide.
Re: Toyota.
I wonder why this story is getting so much media play and scary hype when the issue of Red Light Cameras and shortened Yellow Lights is getting basically nothing. The latter story invovles a lot more negligence and really evilness, and seems to be more dangerous and widespread? People have been killed in both situations. Weird – though not really.
From Tokin’s post:
This is why I no longer give money to the ACLU.
Actually a better title for that link would be “Why the BMI is such a bad measure of obesity”.
The rates of Type 2 diabetes and certain types of heart disease (non-genetic, etc) would be a much better measure of health.
While he does imply that the rate of Type 2 diabetes is increasing, he also implies that it should not be a problem because medical technology should be able to keep up with the increased rate.
In my opinion, here are the reasons for same sex marriage controversy:
– Religious and Social Indoctrination
– Hatred/Fear of the Unknown
– I think dudes are hot, but I gotta hate on the gays to cover it up.
Someday in the future, this will all pass away for the majority of society just like jim crow, interracial bans, etc.
I met a guy this past summer in his 50′s. Divorced with a 20 year old daughter. Says he knew he was gay from day one. Used to enjoy going to the beach on vacation with his family so he could scope dudes. So he lived a lie for 30 years to appease society. He loves his daughter and his ex-wife, so he certainly wouldn’t change his past if he could, but he certainly would have liked to have had the opportunity to live as he saw fit. I expect his wife would have liked a husband for life that lived true to himself as well.
Sorry to hear about Bruce Graham. His daughter (who I now know married a French dude and lives in Paris) and I lived on the same dorm floor freshman year in college. Nice man.
Unfortunately I think it’s pretty unlikely that the Houston decision will hold up at the appellate level. The Supreme Court has clarified how to make a “constitutional” death penalty statute pretty well. Unless they decide it violates Texas’ Constitution then he is going to be reversed. Sad but probably true.
re NYC stop and frisk.
From my reading of the story, the NYC council is more concerned about keeping a database of people who are stopped and frisked than about the stopping, and frisking itself. OK, I’ll accept that the database is a problem. But the database is in some way a symptom of an underlying problem, which is excessive stop and frisk. Without the database, how would we know if a cop is just harassing people?
The knuckle dragging social conservative authoritarian nutjobs in Texas love killing people so much, they don’t seem to give a cow pattie about getting the right guy. Oh, and they truly hate “those damn libruls.
Some of the comments in the Houston Chronicle’s article would be funny if they weren’t so sad:
#15,
That last one is just hilarious. Life needs death to be defined so we should…….. execute convicted killers to protect life (from death)?
Wouldn’t it be more coherent (and honest) for him to say, “Life needs death, therefore the state should kill randomly selected people for no other reason than to kill them.”
I hope he has a better rational for the death penalty being unconstitutional. If it is only because some of the people are innocent, that logic might tell us that all criminal cases are unconstitutional. There is no system that will convict the guilty without running the risk of convicting the innocent.
@#5 -
“It takes years of “education” and Socialisation to teach children hatred and bigotry.”
Rogers & Hammerstein knew: You Have To Be Carefully Taught
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHKzn8aHyXg
Is life in prison also unconstitutional since innocent people have likely received that sentence as well?
And which is more unjust – to put an innocent person to death or to put an innocent person in prison for the rest of their lives?
I always think it’s crazy when someone claims not to support the ACLU because they choose not to participate in any given case that represents someone’s pet issue. I would understand someone feeling a conflict if the ACLU actively litigiated for both positions that they approved of and positions that they disapproved of. Then you would have a situation where an organization is actively engaging in both good conduct and harmful conduct. But instead, people pitch a fit simply because the ACLU chooses not to participate in something, which is less an example of “doing harm” than it is “perhaps not doing enough good.” Considering how much good the ACLU does do on the cases it chooses to participate in, and considering that every organization has limited resources with which to effectuate its goals, it seems petty and misdirected.
“Funny how quickly this kid gets it. Makes you wonder why there’s a controversy.”
Two reasons.
First, an anecdotal sample of one does not a scientific study make.
Second, superstition and prejudice are the core characteristics of American society.
Hope that clears things up.
Cynical, I think you mean core characteristics of human society.
‘nother Toyota link.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/I-am-not-afraid-of-my-Toyota-Prius-87361597.html
nevermind.
More Toyota:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4347704.html
“Bottom line: The system is not only redundant, it’s double-redundant.”
New York City Council (finally) raises concerns about NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy.
Not nearly enough. I’d like to see something like “New York City Council expresses outrage over NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy”.
But I have this radical idea that a person should be able to walk down the street without being stopped and searched at the whim of some undereducated mouth breathing cretin wearing a badge.
From the “Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema reviews the vending machines in the paper’s offices.” article.
I was with him on most of it until he got on the “Black Licorice” portion of the video. Many people confuse Red Twist or Red Vines as being licorice, but they are cherry or strawberry flavored candy that resemble licorice twists. There is no “red” licorice, nor “black” licorice. There is licorice! Many people do not like the taste of licorice, many do.
I love it!
The rare sensible, fact-based media piece on childhood obesity.
Silly me. I didn’t even know there was a worldwide competition to be the country with the longest life expectancy at any cost. I always thought freedom trumped stuff like that. All this time my attitude has been that I don’t give a shit whether someone gets fat, drinks himself to death, or commits suicide by lung cancer. In fact, I’ve tested those lifestyles and didn’t find them all that unappealing at times.
But, now that I know I was wrong, I can suggest a whole bunch of new initiatives to force people to be healthier. First of all, we should stop waffling between freedom and health and just ban tobacco completely. Refined sugar would be next. Totalitarianism is a small price to pay when it comes to winning the Gold at the Life Expectancy Olympics.
Next, we should institute forced community exercise programs for sedentary people and a compulsory dietary boot camp for kids who need to be reeducated in weight control.
Wow! This is fun!
We need a healthy living czar. Who is going to step up to the plate and become the Heinrich Himmler of the Healthy Living Enforcement Bureau?
#20 Because the ACLU is one of those overgrown, over-inflated organizations that exists simply to exist. All it does is try desperately to get its name in the media so it can get more money to stuff in its pockets. Not unlike PETA, or AARP or the NRA or Scientology.
If you give them donations, well, I hope you’re getting your money’s worth. As a Virginia resident, I am not. I do a lot of research prior to giving my hard-earned cash to a charity, and the ACLU has failed to pass muster in my state.
Also, would like to add @#20 that it is MY cash, MY donation, MY earnings, and if I don’t like the cases the bloated, worthless ACLU is taking on, then they don’t get MY cash. Just like if I don’t like the food at a particular restaurant, I DON’T EAT THERE.
Stop and frisk.
I had an artist friend in Brooklyn, about 6 foot , 160 pounds,
white. Wasn’t into drugs, just lived lean due to low income.
Got stopped and frisked every week..when he asked why
they told him because they thought he was a meth-head, since
thin. That’s a great rationale for stopping people and patting them down, that they’re not obese. Welcome to America.
Be a dopey, complacent over-consumer and we’ll look the other way.
OTOH, I am sure that there are a zillion fundies out there who think the kid is going to catch teh gay from just coming within 100 yards of his uncles.
All it does is try desperately to get its name in the media so it can get more money to stuff in its pockets. Not unlike PETA, or AARP or the NRA or Scientology.
Not that you’re wrong not to donate, but unlike those organizations, the ACLU actually does help people who have been victims of the state, whether it’s in discrimination or due process cases. They’ve done a pretty good job, as well, of publicizing the abuses of the federal government in “the war on terror.”
Interesting Les, because in Virginia they have yet to take on the law that says people of the same gender can’t engage in the type of legal behavior that is granted to married people, such as power of attorney or living wills. It’s a disgusting law and I’m *taptaptap* waiting for the ACLU to get on it. That’s the single most important reason why I would/would not donate my money to them – that ONE law. And they have done squat.
I look at the cases they do take on vs. the cases they don’t take on, and when I add them all up, it equals no money from my pockets.
Also, they use extremely aggressive telemarketing firms to solicit. That’s strike 2.
Chances are, Radley won’t allow this comment to be posted…he’s already denied it once :(
I really gotta wonder, Radley…what exacty is your beef with efforts to control obesity? Because you are in great denial. It IS a serious problem. Have you been out to a public place lately? Maybe in Texas or Wisconsin? Literally one out of every 3 people is grossly overweight. Personal choice is failing us miserably. Yes we get it, BMI is a stupid way for the government to tell you that you’re fat. But people aren’t just a little overweight anymore, people are morbidly fat.
When you have HFCS in most food and the dollar menu at McDonald’s, that’s what’s going to happen.
Can’t wait to foot the bill for these fatties when they come into the ER having a heart attack.
Gm
I’ve blocked you under your other name because you’ve left personal attacks on me in the comment section.
I’ve written thousands of words on the obesity issue. Not going to rehash all the arguments here. Use Google.
The BMI is modern eugenics. You are bad because our science says so. Only certain body types are good. Hmm…this sound very familar, like I read about these kinds of policies in a history class. A government obsessed with genetics. I’m think your class status was based on this idea? They measured certain parts of your body to figure out where you fell on a scale of acceptabilty. And lowest tier had to go to certain places to be dealt with.
Government sanctioned science is ne’er to be questioned, for if you do, be considerred a blasphemer, so sayeth the science czar.
#31 Hey Yizmo, I have a friend about the same ht & wt who grew up in NYC. He now lives in Canada. I haven’t talked with him about it much, but his writings hint at similar reasons for his leaving the Big Apple.
Yeah, we have way too much personal choice in this country. Those friggin’ libertarians are ok until they start talkin’ about freedom to do as they please. I mean, just who the heck do they think they are? They owe it to their fellow citizens not to get fat, you know. Instead of walking around pursuing happiness and shit, they should be dedicating their lives to being role models for little republicans and democrats.
Andrew, probably different guy. This guy lived in France and then in Seville where I met him, then NYC . Now
I think he’s in Miami. Made the news with some (gasp!) nude paintings
in a show in Knoxville years ago.
GM,
I hate to quote Rand, but you need to check your premises. You’re spouting opinion like it is fact. Your opinions are not fact. If people choose to be overweight, that is their choice. Personal choice isn’t a failure, some people just don’t choose the same things you do.
“Being overweight” is a subjective idea to a point. According to the BMI, Emmitt Smith was overweight every year he played football. Same with Warren Sapp. But both of these guys could out run you and kick the shit out of half the nation. They’re bodily deminisions didn’t hamper them in the slightest because they were healthy on the inside where it counts.
Maybe people aren’t so much fat as they aren’t morbidly skinny like they used to be. I don’t kow, but it seems like we are using old standards that aren’t as applicable today as they used to be. A lot of assumptions are made that more weight equals unhealthy most of the time. I don’t think that’s true. If your horizontal deminsion is 2/3′rds of your vertical deminsion, you’re probably not real healthy. Even so, they shouldn’t have your morals and values pushed on them.
Kristen, I’m not suggesting you ought to donate to them or even that they do as much as they ought to (your example of their neglect in Virginia is certainly damning), only that they are demonstrably more productive and helpful than PETA, AARP, and the NRA.
#29 | Kristen | March 12th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
#20 Because the ACLU is one of those overgrown, over-inflated organizations that exists simply to exist. All it does is try desperately to get its name in the media so it can get more money to stuff in its pockets. Not unlike PETA, or AARP or the NRA or Scientology.
Forgive me butting in, but right on sister! Individuals join to form institutions that initially act as a means to serve the desires of the individuals, but over time the institutions morph and subject individual members to serve the ends of the institution. Butler Shaffer has written extensively on this subject.
This is true of just about every institution I can think of, and of course, no institution exemplifies this better than the U.S.
So we are going to ignore the fact that more kids are getting diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes?
So we are going to ignore the fact that more kids are getting diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes?
No one suggests ignoring it. Certainly doctors aren’t, and I’m sure they’re advising parents to not let their kids become obese. But what should we do about it, other than making sure our own kids have healthy lifestyles?
Cynical, that’s fascinating, and I’m going to look up Butler Shaffer. But I’m wondering why a such devoted individualist lives in California, which strikes me as the biggest collectivist clusterfuck in the nation. Are you in a rural part of the state? I’m in the Bay Area, myself, and as much as I love the arts and natural aspects, I can’t wait to get out of this state. I don’t suppose Washington state will be much better, but at least it’s smaller.
Thanks for asking Les. I came to my radical individualism at the tender age of 35, many years after moving to California, several years after getting married and having kids. It is a bit dissonant, to say the least, to not only live in the mecca of Statism (liberal CA, conservative urban OC), but to be married with kids in public schools and have the core beliefs I do. I simply cannot renege on the commitments I made when I was younger and more ignorant. I figure I’ve got about 8-10 more years before the kids are “independent,” then I’ll take a reality check.
At the very least, my children get my perspective on things, which, in this world, might be a little too much “blue pill” for them (or is it “red pill,” never can remember). But at least their eyes are open.
Montana would probably be a decent escape, Alaska of course. I know some people in the Spokane area that speak positively about it, but the western part of the state is CA North.
The best resource for Shaffer is http://www.lewrockwell.com/ozymandias. He writes very well, IMO, and his views are very much in line with my own, though he claims to be an anarchist but supports Ron Paul — very dissonant. Oh well, hope springs eternal.
Charges dropped/defendants acquitted in case of employees and dancers at a gay bar arrested for dancing in their underwear. Involved a SWAT-style raid and illegal detention/search of patrons:
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/judge-atlanta-eagle-defendants-362511.html
Pay their bill if you like. Libertarians have nothing against voluntarily helping out others.
OTOH, I wouldn’t recommend you personally ‘pass the hat’ around here when your bill comes due.
Pay their bill if you like. Libertarians have nothing against voluntarily helping out others.
For the uninsured, you already pay their bills thru higher rates.
How wonderfully social conscious of you ;)
All depends where the libertarian line at child abuse is drawn. A very few libertarians believe no child abuse is the business of the state. From there it is a range of lines drawn at what is the business of the state with regard to child abuse.
While I believe it is the business of the state with regard to more overt forms of child abuse. I’m not sure it is the business of the state to prevent parents from having morbidly obese children. Granted it will probably doom the children to an early grave and a significantly reduced quality of life. But I guess that is the price to pay of living in a free society.
I don’t think the state should involve itself with child abuse. There is already plenty of child abuse without them adding to it.
It is so unpopular to take a stand that it is no business of the police on sexual abuse of children. I guess that is the great thing about the big tent of libertarianism.
Actually, my comment was mostly just a snide remark meant to illustrate my disdain for the state as a super parent over all other parents. But, it’s not exactly a secret that most CPS agencies do not have a particularly good record when it comes to intervening on behalf of children, especially since their first resort is usually to break up the family in response to even the vaguest accusation (and it degrades from there).
Need I mention Waco where the state, under the pretense of saving the kids, killed all the kids.
By the way, I don’t base my principles on popularity. In fact, if there’s anything you can say about libertarians, it’s that their opinions are certain to alienate them from almost everyone other than the few other libertarians they know. So even the suggestion that they are prone to being that shallow doesn’t exactly fit with the facts.
I have no opposition to registered domestic partnerships of people who are ineligible for marriage. This would apply not only to same-sex couples, but also to certain cases of siblings living together, etc. (the latter would presumably not be having sexual relations, but should be able to set up powers of attorney, etc.)
On the other hand, marriage has a meaning which predates government and predates religion. Every successful society in the history of the world, practically without exception, has recognized that families originate with a man joins with at least one (typically exactly one) woman and they raise any resulting children. Such union of man and woman has always and everywhere been recognized in a fashion unique from any other type of human relationship. The term “marriage” has been attached to the concept; attaching the term to other types of relationships will not make them be the same.
#54
I cannot imagine your views becoming more impressive as you expand on them…
#55: Perhaps you could state your specific points of disagreement? You obviously disagree with my conclusions, and are not alone in doing so; I have endeavored to state the premises upon which my conclusions are based so as to allow for meaningful discussion.
‘I have no opposition to registered domestic partnerships of people who are ineligible for marriage.’ Why should any relationship be ‘registered’ with the government? Simplify the tax code and welfare system and there would be no need for the government to be involved in any of our relationships. People who see marriage as ‘sacred’ wouldn’t have their sensibilities offended by people who see marriage differently. They could make their marriages as ‘sacred’ as they want in their belief system.
you speak of marriage in absolutes… ‘…always and everywhere…’ There are WAY too many exceptions for absolutes when it comes to human relations.
you say ‘On the other hand, marriage has a meaning which predates government and predates religion.’ Marriage has many meanings and people get married for the reasons that suit them. Arranged marriages, financial marriages, mail-order marriages, etc ALL carry different meanings. As free people, we should be able to bestow whatever meaning we want on our relationships.
There are lots of examples how people have used religion and government to control how people with less power relate to each other- whites couldn’t marry blacks, protestants couldn’t marry catholics, slaves not being allowed to marry… Refusing to allow gays to marry is another example of religion and government being used to needlessly control free people.
Usually, when I peel back arguments from people who are trying to control others, there’s a bit of bigotry involved. That’s where people who wield the religion and govt club really become unimpressive to me.
Why should any relationship be ‘registered’ with the government?
Because many rules and contracts are written in such a way that their effects vary depending upon whether or not someone is married. Many states used to allow “common-law” marriages, where people who behaved as married couples could be regarded as married whether or not they registered as such, but problems can and did occur when there were disagreements about whether the people in a particular couple were “married”. Registration avoids this ambiguity.
you speak of marriage in absolutes… ‘…always and everywhere…’ There are WAY too many exceptions for absolutes when it comes to human relations.
If you say there are many exceptions, can you name any? My statement was perhaps overly strong, but I didn’t think it worthwhile to spend many paragraphs trying to nail it down precisely. Even a precise definition of “successful” would probably be longer than my whole post.
Marriage has many meanings and people get married for the reasons that suit them.
Yes, but for all the things that vary among different societies’ “marriages”, one thing is constant: precisely ONE male gets exclusive sexual access to a female. There are very few exceptions; I suppose they might be called “successful” by some measures, but not in a way that would be applicable to the world as a whole.
Refusing to allow gays to marry is another example of religion and government being used to needlessly control free people.
Even in primitive societies which have no concept of government or religion, the notion of two men “marrying” each other would be regarded as absurd. Would you regard members of such societies as bigots?
Supercat-
Please google ‘gay marriage in history’. There are biblical references to gay marriage with ‘the land of the Canaanites, the land conquered by the children of Israel on direct orders from God.’ Ancient Greece and Rome had MANY references to gay marriage. ‘These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.’ There are numerous references to gay marriage in Chinese history, American Indian history, etc, etc, etc.
Our government (and people forcing their religious beliefs on others using the power of govt) created this problem with all the laws and regulations passed through the years. They should just abide by the constitution and leave us alone to pursue our happiness as we see fit.
There are MANY links on this. These are short and well-researched:
http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
I will have to check out those links. I don’t generally trust Wikipedia on controversial issues, but I’ll see what sources it links.
Otherwise, I have a question for you, if you don’t mind: should a business that offers certain privileges to male-female married couples be required to offer such privileges to any other type of couple or group? It seems to be the libertarian answer would be that it should not be so required, but the people pushing “same-sex marriage” are pushing for such requirements.
Businesses that want to cater to “non-traditional” couples are free to do so, regardless of whether there is any governmental recognition thereof. The primary effect and purpose I can see for the “gay marriage” movement is to allow gays to force businesses to act contrary to the religious beliefs of their owners–hardly a “freedom-loving” position.
businesses should be able to cater to whoever they want, in my opinion.
my issues with marriage stem from religion and govt screwing it up. tax breaks favor married people and people with children, which isn’t right.
whatever your relationship is, if it’s between consenting adults, it’s none of my business. Whatever it is, I hope you build a happy life and you’re not persecuted by the govt or anyone else who think they know better than you what will work best for you.
//businesses should be able to cater to whoever they want, in my opinion. //
Which of the following best describes your opinion:
-1- You believe that even if government were to recognize “gay marriage”, it would never force private individuals or businesses to do so.
-2- You believe that even though a government that recognized “gay marriage” would likely force private individuals or businesses to do so, you regard the latter groups’ rights as less important than those of gay couples.
-3- Some other possibility I’ve missed?
I would regard it as 99.44% certain that if a government recognizes “gay marriage”, it will then go on to require that private individuals and businesses do so as well, in the name of “ending discrimination”. And that I regard as entirely unacceptable. Gays are already free to associate with whomever they wish. I see no basis for allowing them to attack other people’s freedom of association.
Like abortion and many other controversial issues, I really don’t have strong opinions on marriage.
I do feel strongly about people using govt to further their viewpoints. Instead of worrying about whether the govt ‘recognizes’ any marriage, I would prefer that the govt butt out of our personal lives. Your marital contract is between you and your spouse, if someone violates the agreement or both parties would like to void the contract, that’s their business.
as long as straight couples enjoy govt benefits and protection, I fail to understand why gay couples shouldn’t enjoy the same. I don’t how sexuality entitles some tax payers to protections that others cannot receive.