Politics '12: Election year shenanigans.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Zenny, I am used to absurd things being proposed by Oklahoman senators! They just make me sad.

[Idun]

Rocky Anderson. Justice Party. I'm going to look into this more.

[SnowFire]

So.   Something I didn't quite get, being used to thinking of Haaretz as Israel's paper of record, is that it actually isn't the most widely read paper in Israel.  (Unlike, say, the New York Times in the US, which is only beaten out by USA Today / WSJ which are special cases.)  Yedioth Ahronoth actually has the highest circulation.  If Haaretz is the old line secular Labour paper, YA is the centrist Kadima paper.

And...  YA's columnists are apparently as dumb as a box of rocks.  This is really, really worrying that this kind of crap that the freaking New YorK Post would not see fit to publish makes it into their paper.  The centrist Israeli paper.  Le sigh.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191111,00.html
"I know less than nothing about the Falkland Islands, and think the British maintaining an English-speaking island that's been full of British descendents for the entire history of its human habitation is the same as the West Bank, so the British are hypocrites if they ever criticize Israel."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191486,00.html
"Jews are wealthy, and Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, so Obama wants to raise taxes on the Jews."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191509,00.html
"The Anglican Church, a bunch of liberal wimps, actually wants to start a new crusade, this time against Jews.  And they totally hate the Jews too.  I know this because they occasionally object to Israeli policy."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191180,00.html
"Leftists criticize Israel, but they silently support Syrian governmental oppression.  I'm not sure why I think this, maybe I just never read any other news source.  Also Arabs are savage and kill each other at football matches, and yet the 'Left' is also silent, although what exactly they're supposed to say in such case is at best unclear."

[NotMiki]

God forbid anyone ever tell them that Jews make up a massively disproportionate percentage of two out of three branches of US government, not to mention elected officials in Obama's party.  They'd cognitive dissonance themselves so hard.  Yes, that's a verb now.

[Grefter]

I would have gone with cognitively disonnanate personally.

[NotMiki]

Have you READ that article?  I guarantee you, the poor syntax is warranted.

[Grefter]

You clearly have been far to involved in Law stuff if it crossed your mind that "cognitively disonnanate" is anything resembling correct syntax.

[NotMiki]

Surprisingly little of what lawyers do depends on good grammar and proper syntax.  It's a strange field where neologisms abound and plagiarism is almost meaningless.  (If you're a litigator, believe me, you WANT a judge to copy your writing word-for-word, paragraphs at a time, with no attribution.)

[Grefter]

Exactly what I mean mang.

Also a small part of me was hoping you would respond with the far more abstract "I don't have time for your math and proofs for language.", but I think that is more of a me joke than a Jim joke.

I cognitively disonnananted your mum last night, twice, from behind.  Up by the bandstand, in the parking lot, up on the table.

Well, maybe the table can go.

[metroid composite]

God forbid anyone ever tell them that Jews make up a massively disproportionate percentage of two out of three branches of US government, not to mention elected officials in Obama's party.  They'd cognitive dissonance themselves so hard.  Yes, that's a verb now.

Nah, that's easy to write off, now that Harry Potter has given us the proper terminology.

"Those people are blood traitors".

[NotMiki]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how_obama_ignored_the_ndaas_military_custody_provision.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

So that law on military detention we all hate Obama for signing?  Obama's rules for how to enforce that law practically nullify it.  Those rules are subject to change whenever Obama leaves office (or changes his mind) but I think this adds an intriguing gloss to the whole episode.

[metroid composite]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/iraq-war-afghan-conflict-economy_n_1311717.html

Study concludes the sky is blue.

[metroid composite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_tryqenQQM

So...no more right to protest in places where the government doesn't want you to protest.

[SnowFire]

That is a Fox News segment you linked to, which is going to make anything look like Obama is about to arrest all the Republicans (never mind that passed with broad bipartisan support).

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_inside_scoop_on_hr_347/

Better version.  Basically, nothing that wasn't *already* illegal isn't illegal now.  However, it is easier to prosecute offenders since it weakened the mens rea apparently - no more claiming "Uh I was lost and stumbled onto the White House grounds."  Also, this is a law tailored specifically for things like presidential visits or international conferences.  It couldn't be applied, say, to get rid of Occupy Oakland protesters, unless there was about to be a G-8 summit in Oakland for some crazy reason.

[Idun]

'41 showed us the gov't is scared to 'deal with the people;' '63 shows us proximity to the White House causes the nuts to finally crack.

I agree with Snowfire when he brings up the fact that of existing legalities, though I'm still miffed that areas such as the White House have been off the map for protests. From my understanding, WH has no property taxes, no mortgage and better defense mechanisms than pre-existing presidents who left the White House open under more lenient conditions. Pennsylvania Avenue is public propery, right? I understand that this is still excluded from the White House grounds. If not, I'm even miffed moreso.

[Grefter]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/16/rutgers_webcam_spying_guilty/

Not really politics, but I think the original article was posted in Politics thread a couple of years ago.

Might remember a case where a newly out gay man committed suicide jumping off a bridge after his room mate put a spy cam in his room and spread the results around their campus and stuff.

Figured it would be nice to have some follow up on one of these stories.

[Idun]

http://goo.gl/404OG

Dunno if anyone's been monitoring the ongoing news about KONY2012, but the situation of scrutinizing their fiscal budget as well as actual things in the film raises a lot of blaring questions. Where is the demand for unbiased truth in our media? Are Americans, apparently the largest demographic for this video, still hypersensitive Tafts that view any socio-politico issue in Africa as one beyond the indigenous person's control? I mean really, how many Americans continue to view Africa as a country?

Furthermore, outlets stress the "African/Ugandan" outrage against introducing the plight via a white man and his child, and though I understand simple white v black continues today, let's not make that the issue, considering the popular dislike in allowing black Americans to represent certain plights in African countries also. Seriously, I can only imagine the 'race' issue to continue blowing up in light of later antisupport for Kony. Something else I'm very, very surprised at the assumption that everyone watched the video, seeing as Youtube + bad TV news conditions attention spans to short three minute intervals.

I'm sure where I've stood with Kony years before this - he needs to be stopped. I'm not sure whether any plan initiated by the US or any European country is efficient enough to remain in Africa long enough to "socialize" the army children, if they need be, to rebuild, to educate. . .  colonialism didn't happen too long ago, and neither did arming them (Hey, Middle East!), outsourcing with little community invest, etc. 

[NotMiki]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/16/rutgers_webcam_spying_guilty/

Not really politics, but I think the original article was posted in Politics thread a couple of years ago.

Might remember a case where a newly out gay man committed suicide jumping off a bridge after his room mate put a spy cam in his room and spread the results around their campus and stuff.

Figured it would be nice to have some follow up on one of these stories.

He went with the "I was just a dumb kid" defense.  Ironically, going with that defense demonstrates how dumb he continues to be - he was thoroughly guilty as a matter of law, and it was abundantly clear a long while ago that he should have taken the plea bargain.  Can't say I feel too bad for him - his belief he could be found not guilty demonstrates his unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

EDIT:  I should say it was obvious he committed the underlying offense, not obvious it was a hate crime under NJ state law.  Rest of my point still stands, though.

[Shale]

Yeah, the strangest thing about that case was that it went to trial with the defense disputing basically none of the underlying facts. You can do that if you're claiming that you committed the violence in self-defense, or that you're incompetent to stand trial, but "not guilty by reason of stupidity" isn't really a thing.

[NotMiki]

He must have believed that the jury would have mercy on him.  I wonder why, that being the case, he chose not to speak in his own defense.  It's worth noting that juries are not told the sentences that their verdicts of guilty or not guilty could potentially lead to, so they may simply have been unaware that defining his offense as a hate crime drastically increased the potential sentence.

[Idun]

I will be wearing a hoodie tomorrow for Trayvon Martin's family.

[Luther Lansfeld]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

Quantum Romney.

[VySaika]

I love it.

[metroid composite]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11682964-418/supreme-court-strip-searches-ok.html

5-4 Supreme Court ruling split along ideological lines.

You can legally be strip-searched completely naked with people inspecting your genitals and interior of your mouth for...routine arrests where you aren't even suspected of a crime (just suspected of being late on paying a fee...when you actually did pay on time).

[NotMiki]

This strip search rule only applies when they take you into physical custody.  So it wouldn't be so bad, except that a previous case, also decided 5-4 (I won't bother telling you who was on each side) has held that it is not a Constitutional violation for police to take you into custody for violating ANY law.  Even if the law is one for which the only possible punishment is a fine.  Even if the law specifically indicates that police CANNOT arrest you for violating it.  The "cops can arrest anyone for anything" part of this is, to me, much worse than the "then they get to strip you" part.  So yeah, cops can pull you over for speeding, cuff you, and take off all yo clothing.  What a country!

Side note: friend of mine was arrested for reckless driving a few months ago, got put in a community holding cell in Queens.  While he was there, I shit you not, a dude pulled a baggie of weed out of his ass, sold it to another dude in the holding cell, who smoked it then and there.