The “upper class,” as defined by the study, were more likely to break the law while driving, take candy from children, lie in negotiation, cheat to increase their odds of winning a prize and endorse unethical behavior at work, researchers reported today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“The strategy followed by the Syrians and their allies is one that can’t stand the test of legitimacy or even brutality for any length of time.There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures.”—
“My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”—
- Newt Gingrich in a 1979 address to his congressional staff, via The Washington Post’s recent review of thousands of documents, spanning nearly three decades, that detail the politician’s career. (via officialssay)
Oh for the love of God. This man’s imported sense of self really is amazingly impossible to deflate.
It is SO STRESSFUL. Because sometimes it’s too hard to tell the difference between lens one and lens two and what if I say the wrong one is sharper/clearer because I just confuse the two versions and then I end up with the wrong prescription for a WHOLE YEAR or even LONGER?
Plus every time I can’t read the bottom line of the eye chart it seems like the doctor is so disappointed in me. I feel like i have personally failed.
Look, reasonable people (also, racists and non-racists) can disagree about illegal immigration. I think reasonable people can even disagree over whether we should refer to folks who come into the United States without the proper paperwork as “illegal immigrants,” “undocumented immigrants,” “undocumented workers,” “undocumented people,” or “bad with paperwork.”
You may not, however, call them “illegals.” When you refer to people as “illegals” you denigrate them. I understand that you believe them to be criminals (though by the way, entering the U.S. illegally is a civil , noncriminal offense against the state, like getting a traffic ticket), but you do not call murderers “illegals.” You do not call robbers “illegals.” You do not call rapists “illegals.” I think we would all agree murder, theft, and rape are worse than entering the country illegally.
I would like to take a moment to complain about arcane property classifications
Okay. Let’s say Jane has Blackacre for life, and when Jane dies, Blackacre goes to Sim City so long as Sim City uses Blackacre for a library, otherwise it goes to Jim.
That is not confusing, right? Totally clear. Jane has Blackacre till she dies. Then the city gets it for a library. If the city doesn’t use it as a library, it goes to Jim. Totally, 100 percent, facially clear.
Now, when let me translate that into
Jane has a present possessory interest in Blackacre, a life estate. Sim City has a future interest in Blackacre, specifically, a vested remainder in fee simple determinable. Jim has also has a future interest in Blackacre, a contingent executory interest in a fee simple absolute.
I mean FOR PETE’S SAKE. Why the hell should I EVER have to write like that when I can say it ten times more clearly in plain English? While I actually kind of find the translation exercise sort of fun, the principle of the thing annoys me to no end, as it’s such a classic example of a profession orchestrating an entire new language to express something that’s perfectly clear.
“The political correctness infecting the Pentagon has resulted in silly and dishonest fairytales about female heroism… The military is not a social services operation or a testing ground for gender wars. It is a fighting machine. Yet male troops are now encumbered with the realities of feminist biology. Women are not as strong as men. Their instincts and reactions in crisis are markedly different. There’s a reality the left will not face. Biology is destiny.”—
I am always torn when crazy people say things like this. On the one hand, I figure, hey, don’t poke the crazy. Leave them alone to crazy-land. On the other hand, I also kind of think we should call crazy people on their bullshit, because otherwise, the crazy bleeds out of crazy-land into reality, and then the crazy end up accumulating power and pushing the craziness onto the rest of us. So every time I see something like this, it triggers an internal struggle of DON’T-RESPOND/YES-RESPOND-AND-SAY-IT’S-INSANE. As you can imagine, given that I am a person who reads things on the internet, where there are lots of crazy people, it’s a pretty exhausting process.
“Some suffering cannot be covered in words. This had become my daily fare as reporter in the Middle East documenting war, its survivors and fatalities, and the many who seem a little of both. In the Lebanese town of Qana, where Israeli bombs caught their victims in the midst of a morning’s work, we saw the dead standing, sitting, looking around. The village, its voices and stories, plates and bowls, letters and words, its history, had been obliterated in a few extended moments that splintered a quiet morning.”—
I spend much of my time in Criminal Law picking my jaw off the floor as I continue to learn not just the implicit ways our criminal justice system is racist, classist, and sexist, (which isn’t particularly surprising) but also all of the ways in which it is explicit and unabashedly racist, classist, and sexist (which I have found surprising).
For example: so, when you kill someone, there are a bunch of things you could be charged with. One of those things is voluntary manslaughter, which, very broadly speaking, you’re charged with when you killed someone with the intent to kill them, i.e. it wasn’t an accident, but you were “provoked.” Like, say you come upon someone viciously abusing/raping your child. After you pull that person off your child and, say, pin them to the floor so that s/he no longer presents a threat to you or your child, you fly into a violent rage and kill the abuser. Now, that is still murder, and it’s not self-defense or defense of another - once you had the person no longer presented a threat you were out of that category. But we kind of go, “Yeah, it’s murder, but, yikes, that was terrible. We understand why you did that, so we’re not going to charge you with murder - that’s voluntary manslaughter, and you’ll get maybe 3-10 years instead of 20 or life or whatever comes with murder 1.”
So I would say that’s probably a reasonable provocation.
BUT - and here’s the injustice - did you know that in some jurisdictions a reasonable provocation includes finding your spouse having sex with another? So if you find your wife sleeping with some guy and you fly into a rage and kill one or both of them, we only CHARGE YOU WITH MANSLAUGHTER.
Take a wild guess how THAT particular excuse came about. My guess is that men writing and interpreting the laws didn’t want to have to convict other men for something they did in a testosterone-induced rage and they kind of felt like it was either justified or at the very least understandable.
And yes, this would go the other way - so if a woman found her husband having sex with another woman, she could get away with manslaughter as well, but take another wild guess as to how often that happens (almost never).
You know, I often wonder what my criminal law class would be like were it taught by a white man rather than a black woman.
“Look, I don’t like those illegals neither and I want ‘em to go same back to where they come from and wait in line to get into this country like everybody else. But when people come to my soup kitchen every week I don’t say hey you gotcher papers or doncha - I feed you cos’ you hungry.”—
- From a This American Life episode called “Reap What You Sow,” about the Alabama self-deportation/attrition-through-enforcement/evil anti-illegal immigration law. In this quote, an elderly, white Alabamian the reporter spoke with is talking about a provision of the law that really bothers him. This law made it a crime to help or aid an undocumented immigrant in any way. He was bothered by it because he runs a soup kitchen and was so horrified at the idea of having to stop people to ask them for their papers, he’s simply ignored this portion of the law.
Luckily for him, it’s been enjoined by the courts pending litigation, so it’s not like he has to follow it anyway.
I bet I would disagree with this man on nine out of ten issues. But still, even underneath his fear that the white world in which he grew up is disappearing, and the xenophobia, anger, and racism through which that fear makes itself known, there’s a point at which this law affects his life and people he knows, and at that point, he balks. Sure, it’s easy for him to callously dismiss “illegals” who he’s never met and has no reference point for, easy for him to dismiss them as “other” and move on. But when you point to people he knows, people who he has seen come to him hungry, and people who he helps, then they’re real people, not just “illegals,” not just “other,” and then he cares.
NYT at its very best here, which is a nice change. Article’s point is not a new one - people vote against their economic interests and don’t realize how much they depend on the programs they cheer cutting - but it puts faces with the numbers. Worth the read.
One of the perks of living a forty minute subway ride away from my parents instead of a three hour flight is that I see stories like this firsthand:
They were shopping for household-y things at Target, and when they meandered over to the card aisle, they decided that rather than actually buying each other cards and gifts, they would pick out cards, then just show each other the cards they would have bought. Which is exactly what they did, laughing hysterically the entire time.
I tell you what, this almost beats the time they gave each other checks for their anniversary, then ripped them up.
At the top of pretty much anything you file with a court, there’s this thing called a caption. The caption just lists the plaintiff and the defendant, and it’s a got a box around it. Back in the day, when folks were using type-writers and whatnot, they couldn’t draw a box around the names, so they drew straight horizontal lines, and put in a line of asterisks for the vertical lines. Clever, huh?
It is now 2011, and easy to draw a box around the caption. Much easier, in fact, than having to type a vertical line of asterisks. And yet when you file something with a court, you are not to take three seconds to draw a box around the caption. You still have to take maybe thirty seconds longer to type the line of asterisks.
Blazing into the new millenium here, I tell you what.
Eight year old little sister just off-handedly guessed that Voldemort wouldn’t be able to kill Harry because he took Harry’s blood, and also that Harry could speak to snakes because there was a bit of Voldemort inside of him, and Voldemort can speak to snakes.
She’s a chapter and a half into the fifth book, and just figured out the ending.
Damn it. Stupid kids. i had to guess at that FOR YEARS. I’m still sort of annoyed my parents gave in and didn’t make her wait three years between books four and five like the rest of us had to do.
“I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago’s South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder - alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force ,of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware-is inadequate to the task. I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribes, dooms us all.”— Barack Obama, in Dreams From My Father. I heartily recommend the audiobook version of this book, as Obama does voices, slipping between dialects of black teenagers (“Get yo hands off my fries muthafucka,”), British professors, and his elderly aunts back in Kenya. It’s pretty entertaining. And he can write.
Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.
The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.
…“The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel. “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support.”
Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs. In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.
“Tradition is not a justification for taking away a right.”—The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the District Court’s ruling that Proposition 8, amending the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
I’m not sure if this is a “There Is No Justice” Campaign to try and get me to drop out or what, but man, I feel like I need to go read Brown v. Board or Perry v. Brown just to get the injustice off me. Blech.
PS - Fun fact: In the Dred Scott case, the slave owner’s name was actually Sanford, but due to a type-o (or quill-o? pen-o?) in court documents, he has gone down in history as Sandford. But I assume were he alive today he wouldn’t want to be associated with this case anyway.
I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it it needs repairing, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the heart of America, the 90, 95 percent who are struggling.
The Daily Show characterized this as being like a doctor who says, “Hey, I’m not worried about healthy people, because, you know, they’re healthy! i’m also not worried about the really sick people - because hey, we have morphine!” I think it’s really more like a doctor saying, “Hey, I’m not worried about healthy people, because they’re healthy, and I’m not worried about people who I think will be dead in twenty minutes because, you know, they’ll be dead in twenty minutes.”
To be clear, I absolutely think we should focus on poverty, because: (1) To stick with the health analogy, they’re dying in large part because we, i.e. society, made them sick, and refused to offer the medicine when they were ill, and now they’re dying, and we have a duty to help them, given that we hurt them, (2) It’s not at all clear they are beyond help, and (3) There’s this underlying assumption that there just always will be severe poverty and there’s nothing we can do about it, and I don’t buy that.
I am, however, rather surprised by the outrage around this remark. When was the last time anyone in American politics cared about the poor? The poor don’t vote. I suppose Edwards’s “Two Americas” was as close as we got, but you certainly never hear politicians talking about increasing the number of homeless shelters, or emergency food stamps, or broadening Medicaid’s reach, or what have you. No one ever advocates for programs that affect only the very poor.
So yeah, Romney’s remark was pretty horrifying. We have a duty to care for absolutely every single person in this country to the extent they ask for it, and to say that we shouldn’t care about starving or homeless people because it might be hard to fix that problem is wrong. That said, it’s also a position most people and certainly most politicians in this country take. We don’t focus on the poor. They have no money and they don’t vote.
This entire thing makes me want to vomit. The poor don’t vote. And it’s not clear that we’re not beyond help. We’re also, apparently, outside of society.
The poor don’t have money so we’re not real citizens, just charity cases. Also, we don’t vote. Because we’re poor. Obviously.
Can somebody please go into more depth with this because I am just dumbfounded.
Okay, so my apologies. I was obviously unclear. Let me clarify what I was trying to say:
Politicians pay attention to people who have money, people who are likely to vote for them, and people who might be able to be convinced to vote for them. Normatively, the influence of money is a huge problem, but regardless, that’s how our system is working. Politicians pay attention to people who give them money and people who are likely to vote for them.
People without a lot of money (by the way, I’m fully in that group) obviously do not give money to candidates. They’re also less likely to vote than those with higher incomes. I wish that were not the case. I didn’t say low income people didn’t vote *because* they had lower incomes - but look, it is an undeniable, and very unfortunate, fact that low-income people are less likely to vote. Not that this can’t be changed , and much to my frustration, voter ID laws make this worse.
So, we have a group of people - those who are poor, with low incomes - who do not give money to politicians nor are they likely to vote. Because of that combination, politicians don’t really seem to care very much about poverty. That is both immoral and bad public policy. Politicians *should* care about poverty. But because those in poverty have little monetary clout, politicians ignore them.
With this quote, Romney was saying a horrible truism of American politics: American politicians don’t give a damn about poverty. I was surprised that his expression of an obvious truism sparked such outrage. I wish that the outrage would channel into action to actually help attack poverty.
Also, just FYI, I spent the last year working at minimum wage, am on food stamps and medicaid, my dad was out of work for a year and a half, and I am currently living off the delightful combo of student loans and scholarships. I was also lucky enough to have an amazing public school education, and even more lucky to get into a great law school, and therefore while I’m under no delusions that I am in the trap of poverty, I have very little money and I watched my family almost lose their house last year. Maybe that will help inform what I’m trying to communicate.
Bob Costas: Right now I’m joined by the anchor of the NBC Nightly News Brian Williams…a jersey boy, a jersey beneath the jacket, we can assume your rooting interest. Brian Williams: It also looks like Jon Voight playing an American president, what a half-principle owner, anyway, Bob, in our business I think you’re allowed to have a team. Presidents have got to be impartial, I think TV news guys, journalists, you’re allowed to have a team. My birth certificate says New Jersey, I grew up in the shadow stadium, my family bleeds Giant blue, but I’m from a broken home, my father’s from Farmingham, Massachussetts — Costas: So that should cover you in the Boston market. Williams: I love Mr. Kraft, love the Boston area — Costas: Otherwise I’m thinking Diane Sawyer and Scott Pelley are thinking, yes, we make inroads now in Boston! Williams: I’d like to know what their teams are. Pelley’s probably Cowboys or Texans, cause he’s a Texan. Costas: Could very well be.
This is great. Except that he’s a Giants fan. But hey, still great.