I present this in honor of the smoking ban that came into effect yesterday:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjgArB7PKTU[/youtube]
I suspect you don’t really need a translation for the piece, but in case you do . . .*
*And really, that’s not an exact translation. If you want one, ask your closest Hindi/Urdu-speaking friend what bhenchod and maderchod means. (You’re welcome.)
Rank stupidity abounds:
Projections based on ballot results suggest Swiss voters have backed a campaign to ban the construction of minarets, local television reported.
[ . . . ]
Rightwing parties led by the nationalist Swiss People’s party, the country’s largest, have labelled minarets symbols of militant Islam.
That’s right, centuries old architectural features are coming for you.  Morons.
From an email to a listserv I’m on:
[E]arlier this week, we extended Google Scholar to allow anyone anywhere to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts. We hope that this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all. As we worked to build this feature, we were struck by how readable and accessible these opinions are. Court opinions don’t just describe a decision but also present the reasons that support the decision. In doing so, they explain the intricacies of law in the context of real-life situations. And they often do it in language that is surprisingly straightforward, even for those of us outside the legal profession. In many cases, judges have gone quite a bit out of their way to make complex legal issues easy to follow. For example, in Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court justices present a fascinating and easy-to-follow debate on the legality of internment of natural born citizens based on their ancestry. And in United States v. Ramirez-Lopez, Judge Kozinski, in his dissent, illustrates the key issue of the case using an imagined good-news/bad-news dialogue between the defendant and his attorney.
The original announcement is here. It’s a bit of an optimistic sheen, but not ridiculously so, I think. Take advantage of it.
In the past 25 years, hundreds of children are believed to have died in the United States after faith-healing parents forbade medical attention to end their sickness or protect their lives. When minors die from a lack of parental care, it is usually a matter of criminal neglect and is often tried as murder. However, when parents say the neglect was an article of faith, courts routinely hand down lighter sentences. Faithful neglect has not been used as a criminal defense, but the claim is surprisingly effective in achieving more lenient sentencing, in which judges appear to render less unto Caesar and more unto God.
This gets at a point that really gives me pause. I don’t really care about what looney tune religion you subscribe to, but I also have a very hard time standing by while you kill a kid in the name of your looney tune beliefs:
The advocacy group Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty estimates that roughly 300 children have died in the United States since 1975 because care was withheld. When such parents appear in court, they often insist that they love their children and their God — an argument that receives a sympathetic hearing from judges and prosecutors.
Adults (hopefully) have the capacity to understand and pay the price of their decisions. Children do not.
13 years? Gives me immense satisfaction. And reminds me that so many others deserve the same.
Ah, good ol’ fashioned values at work:
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
[ . . .]
“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
But he’s not a racist.
Stopped by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial last night with a friend, and was reminded of one of my favorite quotes:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
– Letter from Thomas Jefferson to to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
A somewhat interesting aside – in the process of looking up and confirming that quote, I discovered that many of the quotes on the Jefferson Memorial are “quotes.”)
I’m not a criminal lawyer. I don’t expect I ever will be. But the cause of justice is still near and dear to my heart, and I when I see things like this? It sickens me. I am, without apology, dedicated to the law. But moreso? I am dedicated to justice. There is no justice in actions like this.
The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to “any organization” that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.
Now stop and think about that. Better yet, read the text of the bill (which has passed both the House and Senate):
SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INDICTED ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibitions- With respect to any covered organization, the following prohibitions apply:
(1) No Federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding) may be awarded to or entered into with the organization.
(2) No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization.
(3) No Federal employee or contractor may promote in any way (including recommending to a person or referring to a person for any purpose) the organization.
(b) Covered Organization– In this section, the term `covered organization’ means any of the following:
(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.
(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.
(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.
(4) Any organization that–
(A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity;
(B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or
(C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization’s behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization….
Huh. Can you think of “any organization” that describes? I can. Hell, I can think of one or two or, well, quite a few. And so can Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL):
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who’s Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.
Something makes me think that we’re going to see a giant walk-back on this bill in pretty short order. Me? I’d love to see it applied by its own terms.
From the Virginia Bicycling Federation:
The recent attack on all federal bike-ped funding has been thwarted, but the 39-59 vote for S. Amendment 2371 was too close for our comfort.
Surprisingly, Virginia’s own Sen. Webb supported Sen. Coburn’s attack on Transportation Enhancements. Needless to say, we’re very disappointed in Sen. Webb, and we’re sure many of you are too. So contact Sen. Webb’s office, and let him know how you feel. Tell him that you’re disappointed in his performance, and urge him to support Transportation Enhancements from now on.
Thanks to everyone who called and wrote to their legislators already. But the battle isn’t over yet. Your continued support is needed, to ensure funding will still be available for anything besides motor vehicle facilities. Let’s think about moving people — not just cars.
The background here is that Coburn’s amendment prohibited any spending of funds on pedestrian or cycling-related transportation improvements until every car-based priority had been fulfilled. It’s a terribly backward policy, and not one that Webb (or any other Senator) should be supporting. Please take a second to let him know. Thanks.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén