Morning Links

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

63 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Mike T | 

    And for the record, I hope Bill O’Reilly’s plan backfires on him. The rich and elites should not be getting special favors from the police, no matter how meritorious their claims.

  2. #2 |  c andrew | 

    From Popehat

    He listened sympathetically. Then he told me. “Ken,” he told me, “if your reaction to a proposal is “HOLY SHIT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE FUN,” then as a government lawyer and member of law enforcement, you almost certainly shouldn’t be doing it.”

    The tenor of this advice is so reasonable it almost sounds like an alternative reality US Attorney talking. How long ago was this?

  3. #3 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “Officers found Furr standing on the hood, pointing his off-duty service weapon at the windshield. Police recovered five shell casings that matched Furr’s weapon.”

    Aggressive suspect standing on hood with gun in hand after just firing into vehicle. That would have been a “good shoot” if responding officers had elected to light him up. Another proud moment for the DC Metro Police!

    Oh yeah, ARM THE TRANSGENDERED! And anyone else in DC that wants to carry too. Its not like you can rely on your police department.

  4. #4 |  Mattocracy | 

    “Guys like Mattocracy tend to willfully miss the point because they’re so concerned with their right to screw with impunity that they cannot even conceive of how that right, in certain contexts, might be destructive of liberty.”

    Rights are never destructive to liberty. Ever. If you are knowlingly endangering lives or causing harm to people, you aren’t excersing rights. And I didn’t say anything about freedom without impunity, we have to accept consequences. I’m saying that cheating in of itself is no reason to go to prison since no one has a natural right not to be cheated on in life.

    “When two consenting adults get married under the current regime, there is an implied rule that sex outside of marriage is unacceptable and breach of contract. Not providing a mechanism to punish the offending party is a major loophole that, in context of the other things men go through in divorce, provides men little practical legal protection.”

    I’m all in favor of fixing divorce/marriage laws to create a fair system that doesn’t favor a gender. If you’re comment about prison terms was meant to be hyperbole, I’m sorry I misunderstood.

    But infidelity causes the offending party to lose position in a divorce more often than not. It’s not like wife cheats, husband divorces then loses all his shit in the process. The only payout in that scenario is if she maintains custody of the kids, but she doesn’t get half. I don’t know about every case, but of my friends who have been divorced because of the wife fooling around, that’s how it played out.

    I totally agree that divorce does not favor men and that marriage has turned into a liabilty more than an asset for both parties involved.

  5. #5 |  Random_Guy_on_the_Internet | 

    NYS Penal Code:

    Section 255.17 Adultery

    A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.

    Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.

  6. #6 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @43 – Why should the state get involved at all? Sure, there’s a call for the state to register people as partners (although, bluntly, only two? oops, bias there….). That means legal assumptions are made very differently about issues like inheritance and so on without needing additional documents.

    But why should the state get involved with *marriage*?

    I say this as someone religious.

  7. #7 |  Tenn. woman threatened for allowing daughter to ride bike to school « David McElroy | 

    […] This story comes via The Agitator, which ought be on your list of daily reads. […]

  8. #8 |  EH | 

    As far as the state is concerned, marriage is an economic contract only. Sure, some states have adultery laws and whatnot, but they’re pretty clearly anachronistic.

  9. #9 |  John C. Randolph | 

    My parents made me ride my bike to school so that I’d be sure to get an adequate amount of daily exercise. That cop is an idiot.

    -jcr

  10. #10 |  Mike T | 

    If you are knowlingly endangering lives or causing harm to people, you aren’t excersing rights.

    If you open up on a home intruder with a 30.06 instead of a 9mm or .380 in an apartment, you’re using your second amendment rights. You’re also endangering everyone around you because a 30.06 will shred a hole right through most apartment walls.

  11. #11 |  Mike T | 

    If you’re comment about prison terms was meant to be hyperbole, I’m sorry I misunderstood.

    Yes and no. I’m not in favor of state-licensed marriage, but I am a firm believer that if the state is going to get that involved it must do it consistently precisely because inconsistency leaves a major loophole where many a person’s rights can be violated. The fundamental defect in our state-licensed marriage system is that adultery is either treated with kid gloves or simply not punished at all. In most cases, it has virtually no bearing on things like custody and asset distribution. Furthermore, a prenup which had a clause that said whoever cheats forfeits all rights to marital assets would likely get declared “unconscionable” by the judge.

    I think the best solution is to establish a private arbitration system where ecclesiastic courts can actually handle the arbitration for most self-professed religious Americans. The state should simply was its hands of marriage and civil unions and tell people that if they want one, they can submit to the authority of a private religious or secular institution that handles them.

    Of course, most Americans don’t want that because they want to be able to use the secular courts as a way of getting out of a marriage that their religion doesn’t recognize as invalid. But that’s a larger issue with the “I want to have my cake and eat it too” mentality that passes for individualism among most Americans today…

  12. #12 |  Mattocracy | 

    What if you’re catholic and the church won’t grant a divorce? At some point you have to tell a religious organization that they can’t force a married lifestyle onto a participant who is no longer willing.

    The idea of having different rules for different people does not sit well with me. I would prefer that a mrriage be a legal agreement where both parties agree to the terms of joint living and the process of disolving the marriage should it come to that.

    I guess technically you could say the religion sets the terms of the marriage. But allowing religious institutions, who have a poor track record of upholding people’s natural rights, to have rights to arbitrate seems scary. I suppose a judicial proceeding infront of an elected judge can be just as corruptable.

  13. #13 |  JOR | 

    Well, everyone can play the “the other people just want to avoid personal responsibility” game. For instance, people who fail to provide (or think they might fail to provide) a good sexual/emotional/financial partnership to their spouse want to evade the natural consequences of their actions by criminalizing adultery.

    It would be just as true, of course. Truth is, every human action is an attempt to impose some package of consequences on the future, and avoid all other consequences, with as little cost as possible.