What the hell were you thinking?

If one really believes abortion is murder, one must demand that mothers stand trial for murder as they are hiring a hit-man (doctor) to carry out what one believes is murder. This moralism would be a high cost indeed (calling for murder trials for women having abortions would be a political non-starter), so, for political convenience, they allow what they believe is the hiring of hit-men. I debate politics with a social conservative (who insists the earth must only be 6000 years old) at my workplace. He read your post and did not dispute your points. He long ago conceded my point about social conservatives letting abortion mothers off the hook for political convenience.

variables where:

a=what a man says

b=what a man does

c=present value*

[*In this case, foot size (lxw) and stance, relative to mouth circumference in which it is placed... or degree of foot-in-mouth disease.]

This is all so untowardly Glenn.

And you say all the Republicans are on the war path and up-in-arms about it!

funny math,

bah.

~aside(*that picture of Sen. Mitch-$isfreespeech-McConnell looking a bit asskance(sp?) at Sen. Craig is Priceless.)

ps. I never touched Monica. I swear.

That's means, like, uh, doggy style?

Doesn't it?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/30/01221/5753

Commanders apparently have dumped the Iraq failure on Bush's lap. It seems unlikely to me they'd go along with something that would further endanger military readiness.

That's not to say we shouldn't maintain the pressure to keep Bush's finger off the button.

Fraud guy,

I'm not an atttorney, but in my view the 'randomness' of the stops simply insures that police will be violating the 4th amendment without regard to race (the term "race" itself is a biological fallacy, but I am forced to use it in most legal and social contexts). However, they are clearly violating the constitutional rights of, minimally, every one they pull over without a warrant, without probable cause. I also think anyone who simply drives through such checks, and is not pulled over, is also having his or her rights violated.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

casual_observer,

I have to find the Supreme Court case, but, as I said before, I believe that the finding was that truly "random" stops were considered constitutional.

I don't agree with that, but, alluding to my comment in the next thread, a government that wants "warrant-less" warrantless wiretapping (i.e., without a reason) to prosecute its war on terror(tm) will have no problem pushing for "random" stops to check for violators in its war on drugs (tm).

Actually, from a business perspective, I can think of one reason for choosing lower value cars to "randomly" stop: costs. My later post on paying for the toll violation covers this--a wealthier person is more likely to be able to pay for legal advice and/or representation, and therefore would cause the village to fight the citations in court, as opposed to the poor schlubs who have to take off work (without pay) and can't afford the bond to come back for another court date (and another day without pay). You accept a "no contest" plea, pay the fine, and hope it drops off your record soon enough to not impact your insurance payment, and try to make up the shortfall in you budget (if you can afford one). The village doesn't have to pay its officer to show up, or an attorney to show up, and just collects more revenue. That's why "we don't pull them over."

And then the Jaguar drivers look at all those older, poorer cars on the side of the road, knowing it only seems to happen to other people....

And then their kids in the back seat, not wearing the seat belts, watching their parents drive without turn signals and over the limit, learn that this is how "we" drive....

And then they get their car for their 16th, another at graduation, and it's so much better than the car of the kid who has to work after school to pay for hers, who always seems worried about following the "rules of the road", why can't she get a better car....

And dad is downsizing his division again, cutting jobs or moving them overseas, to keep costs down and his bonuses up, cause he has to pay for his kids college and car (and his), you know....

Living between two demographically elite towns, this is what I see on a regular basis It's not a total fit, as there are exceptions, but it is extremely frequent.

American justice(tm)--nice if you can afford it. Privelege is getting kind of rank.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of Greenwald's post is fact that Chris Matthews during his MSNBC program referred to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council as a "great man," and described him with this remark: "conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results..."

Huh? Obviously Chris Matthews is ignorant about the religious right--probably never having read blogs like Religious Right Watch, Talk To Action, or DefCon--and fails utterly, inexcusably as a supposed journalist, to understand that the religious right is a political movement by definition.

And obviously Matthews has not looked at what values the religious right holds. The actions of the religious right, as well as their words, tend to be Machiavellian at best, as well as frequently hateful, disingenuous, and demonizing. What is more, the implication of Matthews' comment is that only "conservative people...believe in values." The rest of the world doesn't? That's a deeply offensive and stupid remark.

I am a gay man, and I am also an attorney, AND I live in the Minneapolis area. The fact that Larry Craig got caught was a sign that he was sloppy and careless more than anything else. Plus, he panicked.

The fact is that whether outraged straight people or outraged gay activists like it or not, cruising for sex is going to continue in bathrooms/restrooms/gyms/secluded woodlands etc. - pretty much anywhere men (gay or otherwise) go. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that is the way it is. In fact, the MORE repressive society becomes of homosexuals, the more covert homosexual sexual expression will increase.

What Larry Craig did was not a crime. He did not solicit for sex. He did not do anything lewd. He did not offer to pay for sex, or sexually expose himself to the officer. He cruised the guy for sex. That is not a crime. That's a bummer to all the people who might want it to be, to "protect the children" and all that, but that's the way it goes. Larry Craig was entrapped. And he panicked. I know several attorneys here in the Twin Cities who could have easily gotten him off (no pun intended), if he'd had the presence of mind to not freak out. But, when you are closeted hypocritical Republican, freaking out is probably par for the course when you get busted cruising in a mens room.

Spending time and energy policing bathrooms for gay cruising is about as effective as the war on drugs. It's not going to stop anything, and it takes time and energy away from addressing real issues like, oh, I don't know, terrorism, lack of affordable healthcare, the war in Iraq, etc. It gives the impression of action and results when in fact it distracts from the overall failure of policies designed to protect us from things that really matter. As I said in a previous post, the only reason Larry Craig should have been busted in the men's room of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was if he was trying to smuggle a pipe-bomb up his ass.