Morning Links

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

19 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  a_random_guy | 

    “Free Willy – Should prison inmates have the right to masturbate”?

    This has got to be one of the dumbest articles I’ve seen in a long time (and that’s saying something). The reporter is apparently unable to distinguish between porn and masturbation. The two may go conveniently together, but really – if you have no porn, you can’t masturbate?

    Prison is not a playground. There are lots of little luxuries you should not have – perhaps as a motivation to, you know, not be there. Porn may justifiably be one of these little luxuries…

  2. #2 |  Marty | 

    no telling what Mississippi prosecutors will be able to do with time-machine DNA…

  3. #3 |  Marty | 

    I can see a limit on how many magazines, books, etc an inmate can have- but I don’t understand why someone would take porn away. This is almost as dumb as taking cigarettes away. Powerfreak abusive guards already have enough tools to abuse inmates as it is.

  4. #4 |  Ben | 

    If what is being alleged is what really happens, I can’t get outraged about the two 10-year-olds being charged. What they allegedly did is pretty fucking heinous.

    “According to the probable cause affidavit, the two boys opened their pants and allegedly forced the 8-year-old to perform multiple sex acts.

    “He has a hard time sleeping,” the mother said. “He’s just been having a hard time. He cries a lot.”

    That isn’t kids playing doctor. That is the very definition of sexual assault.

  5. #5 |  BamBam | 

    Now if only Romney’s statements can apply to the mother of all monopolies, the State.

  6. #6 |  Chuchundra | 

    Romney’s line about liking to fire people was obviously taken out of context. On the other hand, the Romney campaign ran an ad back in November used a blatantly out of context quote to attack Barack Obama.

    What goes around, comes around.

  7. #7 |  FridayNext | 

    @#6 Chuchundra

    This, absolutely. I have little sympathy for him in that regard.

    But I do get what he is saying and agree. But I agree with James Fallows’ take. No one who has actually had to look someone in the eye and fire them, even for cause, or who has themselves been fired, even for cause, would say they “like” to fire people. Choosing to take your services elsewhere is not the same as firing. For a country with 8% unemployment, and many more who have been fired or had to fire friends and coworkers for perfectly good reasons, this will ring hollow. Another pundit compared it to Kerry’s “I was for it before I was against it quote.” Given the intricacies of legislation it makes sense and might be laudable if you agreed with his politics. But it really sounds bad and reinforces a negative public image. I think that’s about right.

  8. #8 |  Mattocracy | 

    There are some weird things in the article about the sex abuse, besides the obvious awfulness.

    So, they were just reviewing survelence video without being prompted to do so? Maybe they randomly review video in the school district, I don’t know. Seems like they must have been asked to review by the mother of the victim, although they don’t indicate that.

    If they do review all video, the criminal act happened in August. If these two kids are the predators that the police say they are, it took 4-5 months for charges to occur! I can’t imagine it takes that long to compile evidence to make an arrest. It doesn’t sound like the school district did anything to seperate the boys in the mean time.

  9. #9 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Gitmo B-Day:

    The detainees were considered ‘illegal enemy combatants,’ a definition that allowed the administration to hold them indefinitely and without charges.

    Phew! It’s OK, boys! They got a LAW!

    Must be nice to have the biggest gun and get to make all the rules and spend other people’s money.

  10. #10 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Now if only Romney’s statements can apply to the mother of all monopolies, the State.

    Nope. Like to point out Mitt’s stance on mandatory health care and school choice.

  11. #11 |  Nick M. | 

    Mattocracy (#8) –

    It looks like school officials were randomly auditing video from the school buses. I’m guessing the normal procedure is to record every day and store the videos to be used in case of a report of misconduct. Then they do random audits every quarter or so, because to review all video every day would be a huge waste of time. So the school officials were auditing video, saw this, and called the cops. Then the cops called the mom (as it said in the article, the investigator called the mom to say her son might have been assaulted.)

    Now, why the boy didn’t report it to his mom, teacher, bus driver, etc., who knows? How the bus driver didn’t know baffles me.

  12. #12 |  David | 

    Re: the kids, if the allegations are true then the 10-year-olds did some pretty terrible things. Given that they’re 10 years old, though, I suspect there’s something wrong there that will not be helped in the slightest by spending 40 of the first 50 years of their lives in prison, and could be helped by other means.

  13. #13 |  BamBam | 

    @10, I was being sarcastic. I would LOVE to fire The State from my life in every way because I don’t like the service I am being provided for the money that is stolen from me under duress (threat of violence).

  14. #14 |  marco73 | 

    The Caracas pictures look like how General Motor’s headquarters in Detroit will turn out after their next bankruptcy.

  15. #15 |  2nd of 3 | 

    @11 When I was a kid the bus driver couldn’t see much of what we were doing in the back. I don’t recall any sexual assualts, but there were plenty of other things going on unnoticed – including full blown fights. Considering that the driver should be attending to operating a large, unwieldy vehicle in traffic, I can understand this not being seen. I don’t know how you fix that, other than hiring someone or getting a parent to volunteer to ride daily to supervise.

  16. #16 |  Mattocracy | 

    @ Nick M,

    Thanks for the clarification.

  17. #17 |  Kid Handsome | 

    I think there is also some question about what the video on the bus actually shows. The last part of the article is a bit confusing – I’m not certain that the video is the sole source of the charges – it is also unclear whether the parents have actually seen the video.

    If the video shows clearly that the alleged acts happened, then why did the school say it only warranted suspension before handing it over to the police to decide?

    I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but I think there’s more to the story that needs to be reported.

  18. #18 |  StrangeOne | 

    Im curious about the video as well. As I recall the video on my buses were in the very front of the bus and of such poor quality that you couldn’t identify anyone more than three seats back from the driver. While you could watch the whole video and better identfy the kids as they got on and off the bus, I’m curious as to how much of the accused behavior could actually be seen from the camera.

    Either way, criminal charges for 10 year olds seems like quite a dramatic step. There’s a definate grey area as to what they could do to even be considered sexual assault, as opposed to normal bullying (not to dismiss or forgive bullying out of hand). Criminal charges for children is a very dangerous and uncertain path to take.

  19. #19 |  John David Galt | 

    If the kids really did it, I have no problem with criminal charges. But I’d want to do a lot of investigating first. (1) There had to be lots of witnesses to what actually happened, and (2) the two perps will almost certainly have bragged about it to their friends, and finding and questioning those friends will tell the court the degree of intent the perps had.

    I’m not necessarily saying that adult-level punishment is called for, but it belongs on the table.