It also should be noted that not everything that libertarians think should be legal is morally equivalent or even non-blameworthy. Libertarians might say that providing an orphan with a loving, stable home, and driving a distraught person to suicide with ceaseless verbal abuse, should be equally legal; but there’s no reason for a libertarian to claim that they are otherwise morally equal – that the former is not really praiseworthy while the latter is not really blameworthy, etc. Of course, some libertarians might well claim that (perhaps out of a misguided urge to seem extreme or masculine or “rational” or whatever), but it’s neither a libertarian principle nor a reasonably derived conclusion thereof. And so libertarians (and others) who hold that, say, pedophilia should be legal, but also think that it is necessarily exploitative or otherwise deeply morally wrong, are being perfectly consistent in objecting to theocrats who rely on associating it with homosexuality in their efforts to marginalize and persecute homosexuals (legally and otherwise). Maybe they’re wrong, but they’re not being inconsistent, except in the trite and uninteresting sense that any incorrect belief is inconsistent with The Universe And Everything (And A Complete System Of Correct Beliefs About It).

Santorum said that if courts ruled that homosexuality acts and gay marriage could not be banned on a strict application of consent, then the same logic would inexorably argue against banning polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. I disagree with him on policy, but as a matter

I know plenty of libertarians who will defend the idea, at least hypothetically, of legalizing consensual polygamy and pedophilia from logical first principles of the government not banning consenting acts, but then get all huffy when some conservative argues that the strict application of logical first principles of not banning consenting acts overturning existing laws would lead to overturning laws against polygamy and pedophilia.

In the normative matter, I disagree with him. But he’s more intellectually honest than Balko, apparently.

Haven’t you heard of ghost writers? He has a similar job as ghost signer.

The city’s red light cameras are a reliable revenue source. In January alone, about 9,300 red light citations were mailed to drivers trying to beat the lights, [WBAL-TV reporter] Miller reported.

The citations cost violators about $75.

Yeah. Safety? Justice? Whatever…

An idiot, an asshole and a loser.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

Maybe she was too busy enjoying some Maddow-on-dog action to defend Rick. Freakin. Santorum.

I wonder if the same Baltimore cop was moonlighting at one of the “document recovery services” used by foreclosure mills….

So if the dept has the name of the officer who actually reviewed the images, how come his signature is not on the tickets? I assume it was some kind of scanned signature image. Can one officer log onto the system with another one’s login? Doesn’t the system generate the tickets under the reviewing officer’s name? Or is it common practice to have a standard signature and have images be reviewed by different officers? Will that ticket stand up in a court of law? Ah, questions, questions….

“Evening with the Joe’s” They spelled “Joes” wrong. Then again, close to where I live there’s a farm and a huge billboard advertises “Trail ride’s”. So I guess that’s how plural’s of English noun’s are spelled these days.

A lot of the stuff about him and wikipedia/sororities was pretty creepy, though; I read the partially redacted smoking gun report and it seemed the circumstantial evidence was pretty strong Ivins was oddly obsessed with the sorority.

“During the next seven years, the task force expended more than 600,000 investigator work hours, interviewing thousands of witnesses on six continents and evaluating a mountain of evidence. In the end, however, the agency’s case against Ivins was largely circumstantial.”

Just for perspective, that’s 288 years of 40 hour work weeks.