Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Shamelessly link-whoring myself:"I think it is time for the US government to think very carefully about why there is a NASA at all. NASA's Apollo achievement is more than 30 years in the past, and the professionals that worked to send men to the moon are retired or dead: I doubt there is even a single person working for NASA today who was actually involved with Apollo. The current crop of nerd-welfare recipients is simply warming the chairs of the long-gone achievers."
Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention:The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.Why do liberals and and the liberal media ignore this fact? If a criminal takes a child hostage and bursts into John Smith's door trying to kill John Smith and his family while holding the child... and then John Smith kills the child and the criminal while defending himself. Whose fault is the death of the child? Liberals and the press argue that it is John Smith's fault...why is that? Is it because John Smith is not a criminal and liberals identify with criminals?Liberal mentality is so screwed up!!!
Sloan, I don't know any liberals who do argue that. You're conjuring up another of your imaginary liberal bogeymen. If this is menat to be a an analogy for Israel and Hezbollah, I've read the argument that Hezbollah is violating Geneva conventions by hiding in civilian areas on several liberal blogs this weekend. One of the fellows at americablog.com makes that case strongly, in fact.And those widely respected liberals Condi and W are behind negotiating the 48-hour cease fire, in response to the Israeli bombing that killed 50 civilians Saturday. They're so screwed up!
Eliz and Sip (earth to sip)My wife went to law school in Massachusetts, a perfect example of a liberal state. As she describes the law there, a homeowner, faced with an invasion by a man with a gun (w/o even the child in sloan's example) CAN NOT use deadly force, or even minimum force necessary to protect himself or his family but must retreat. Anything more opens the homeowner up to civil and criminal penalties. That is liberalism run amok IMHO.Give me western law anytime. Where I grew up, a stranger uninvited in your house was a dead man walking if the homeowner felt threatened. No grand jury would bring back a bill against the homeowner.
DrillSgt: if a dead person is in your house, who's to say if the homeowner indeed was threatened? One of the witnesses is dead.Western Law seems a little bloody. Massachusetts law seems a little too effete. There's probably a happy medium somewhere in the midwest.
Elizabeth you often use the "liberal boogyman arguement" to avoid defending these crazy views. This time your wrong. You obviously have a different view, however, many liberals disagree with you. One of the ways they do it is by implying that even if Israel had moral authority to go after the rockets they use too much force in doing so. Read this article today from Robert Fisk. It is sick. Here is a paragraph on point:Israel claimed that missiles had been fired by Hizbollah gunmen from the south Lebanese town of Qana as if that justified this massacre. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked about "Muslim terror" threatening " western civilisation" as if the Hizbollah had killed all these poor people.
MM,I meant of course that the context was a breaking and entering. In rural California where I was raised, deadly force could be used if the person was fully inside the house. Other places like Texas take a looser earlier view of what constitutes the invasion. a broken window and the attempt to move inside as I recall it.I don't know what a GJ in Madison would produce, but I bet that a GJ in rural Minn, would no bill a farmer who shot somebody who came through his window.
As I understand the facts.1. Isreal has video of some of the 150 rockets launching from the town over the past several weeks. Rockets launched solely against israeli civilians2. leaflets were dropped telling the townspeople to leave.3. Hizbollah purposely puts the civilians at risk as shields to avoid attacks.4. Israel attempts to minimize civilian losses5. a smart bomb (not 40 500lb GPS) bomb goes astray or lands too close to a building, which collapses. 6. Israel aplogizes for its mistake and regrets the civilian casualties.
Everybody here see the story about a call to investigate Mel Gibson for hate crimes following his extreme jerkiness-while-drunk the other night? Gibson was a real ass, but this is just nuts.So the question is: If I mentioned that I blogged that at Done With Mirrors, does that make me only half a whore, a tease, or just plain annoying?And Ann gets my vote for multi-tasker of the day for driving cross country while feeding the fans on not one, but two, big blogs. Now, if she manages to take a picture of her feet while she's driving down the road and bopping to the music, she will truly be without peer!(I dare you, Ann, I double-dare you. ; ) )
sorry, I meant rural WI
That should be:"If I mentioned that I blogged that at Done With Mirrors without actually linking... ."
On another topic, did anybody else see the convocation of 9/11 conspiracy theorists televised on C-Span this weekend? I forced myself to watch for an hour or so. It was incredibly chilling. At the head table was a physics prof from BYU and a retired Army Colonel. They sat there and calmly (well, some not so calmly) posited that our leaders are sufficiently evil as to plan and execute 9/11 in order to start a war with Muslims.
reader_iam said... Everybody here see the story about a call to investigate Mel Gibson for hate crimes following his extreme jerkiness-while-drunk the other night? Gibson was a real ass, but this is just nuts.People need to make the distinction between hate crimes and "thought crimes". I think Mel can say most anything he wants and people have the right to judge his speech accordingly, but criminal? Not yet thank god!From what I read, his remarks were outrageous and reprehensible. His apology on the other hand seemed genuine, sincere and a good example for most stars in Hollywood.
Wow, I didn't realize that Massachusetts had rejoined its mother country!
Rural WI or rural MN -- in either case, only someone stupid would come through the window...the front door (or back door) is probably unlocked! Probably in half of big towns, too.If it isn't, there's a hidden pot-growing lab hidden below and you've got bigger troubles than you know!
Oh, the inmates are running the asylum, eh?Anarchy!Ok, well I'll take the opportunity to say again......for the upteenth time (sigh)...that, in California, at least you may take the Bar without ever setting foot in a law school.Work experience can substitute for education. Again, that's California, I don't know about Wisconson.But, considering the costs of law school, (with or without a scholarship---there are still expenses)...I'd rather collect money thru work experience.....than have to pay money out....to an institution.Work experience + BAR/BRI = passing the Bar exam, no sweat.The chutzpah, the audacity of me to attack education.....And, on an Educator's own site!I'm in trouble now.Peace, Maxine
xfkThe Telegraph article posted by reader_iam above is quite revealing. Why people on the left blame Israel and not Hezbollah makes more sense after you read it. If liberals believe there is no reasonable right to self defense, why would they ever see what Israel is doing as legitimate.This type of thinking is pretty close to cutting yourself for pleasure. It truly is a mental disorder.
Sloan, I agree that Hezbollah is at fault for civilian casualties. And I also think that in the long-run, Lebanese citizens will blame them. But right now, Israel is fighting two wars, one against the rockets and another against the very hard to ignore argument that they are using overwhelming force where citizens are in danger. Hezbollah's strategy is to force those decisions on Israel. But no one should be surprised when the images of the dead raise questions about Israels' judgment. Today they targeted a car they thought contained a Hezbollah leader, but which in fact held Lebanese military personnel. They need to be very, very careful about their intelligence. It's not crazy to question how much force Israel uses, while at the same time supporting their right to use force, and acknowledging that Hezbollah is craven in its tactics.
I live in a "shoot the burglar" state, and I own a gun. If someone's breaking into my home, I can only assume they are a threat to my life.But we've prosecuted people who've taken that as permission to shoot a guy stealing a stereo from their car in a parking lot, and a guy who shot a Halloween trick or treater. It could be argued that once you set a threshold--the burglar has to in forward motion in a door or window, for example--people then extend that threshhold in their panic. What makes a liberal or a convervative position on guns is slippery. People who are liberal Democrats in hunting cultures don't have the same anti-gun positions as those in more urban areas, where guns are almost exclusively encountered in a crime setting. I've carried a gun when teaching late night in an adjoining parish, and my drive home took me through lots of red lights in a high-crime area. I may be an exception, but I know other people, liberals like myself, who group up in the South with guns as part of their daily life. Self-defense is taken for granted as a right. The question of how does a DA know for sure whether the dead body on the floor was a burglar is a good one, and just as likely to motivate laws that restrict self-defense options as any fuzzy headed so-called liberal sympathies for criminals.
You know what struck me about the Mel Gibson story? He's spouting all that venom, and his Blood alcohol is just 0.12! What is that -- two shots?I really wonder what else was in his system that made him lose control like that. Or is he really just so precariously unbalanced that it just takes a shot or two of Tequila and all self-checks on what he says are off?But then, I'm a happy drunk, and he seems like a very, very angry drunk.
Eliz,Unfortunately, my Mass educated lawyer wife won't let me have any shells for my grand pappy's pump shotgun. But trust me, if I hear somebody breaking a window I'll be hiding in the shadows while my wife calls 911. If he comes up the stairs, he'll hear the sound of that 12 gauge being racked back. If he keeps on coming after that, he's on drugs or has a gun and he's gonna get a vertical butt stroke to the head and I intend to smash his skull. Another lesson from Grand pappy. "Son, if you hit a man, make sure he stays down!".The question of how does a DA know for sure whether the dead body on the floor was a burglar is a good one, we'll if the body isn't your brother in law, the presumption where I grew up was that he was up to no good. I have heard of folks getting sued by injured burglars, as I understand it dead ones have less standing to sue and fewer witnesses.
I read Ann's post on Instapundit and I must have missed the discussion about the "staying naked" panel at the BlogHer convention.
What makes a liberal or a convervative position on guns is slippery. People who are liberal Democrats in hunting cultures don't have the same anti-gun positions as those in more urban areas, where guns are almost exclusively encountered in a crime setting.when talking about gun rights you really can't ignore the libertarians. The "don't mess with my guns crowd". That is a different dimension that classic liberal/conservative.
The Retreat Doctrine, as it applies to occupants of dwellings, has been legislatively repealed in Massachusetts by MGL 278 s. 8A, which provides, "In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
Hi all- MadisonMan- Thanks. That link made for some interesting, if poorly written, reading.This paragraph stood out:His accomplice, Eddie Harris, 24, a Verona High School dropout who struggled to shake an addiction to pain pills and who aspired to a job installing garage doors, died from three shots to the chest.Having some experience in these matters, I'd like to get on my soapbox now, and reach out to all the young fellers that aspire to installing garage doors. Let me assure you that pretty much all you have to do to realize your dreams is to show up on Monday, early, and continue to do so each day after that. You don't even need to get hired formally; if you're standing there, they'll use you --trust me.It really is much more straightforward than the three shots to the chest. As you were.
The Drill SGT said... As I understand the facts.1. Isreal has video of some of the 150 rockets launching from the town over the past several weeks. Rockets launched solely against israeli civilians video photos
re: prior post, here are the neglected " " marks around Drill SGT comments.Sorry.....
Pottery Barn rule revisited: We broke it, the pieces are still being smashed, and the damage is spreading. Welcome to hell.
reader iam,It's a strange world when the Muslim Jew-hater/hiller from Seattle will not be prosecuted for a hate crime but Mel Gibson will.
Heck, why not just go back and break all the pottery in the cabinet?
Many posts ago RIA parenthetically included this, "(I dare you, Ann, I double-dare you. ; ) )"I'm now going to channel Ruth Anne Adams and suggest, shouldn't that be I dare you , Ann, I double-dare you, I double-blog dare you.(and since neither of them seem interested in 'link-whoring' themselves, I'll 'link-pimp' for them, RIA's thoughts can be found currently at Done With Mirrors, and Ruth Anne Adams musings are always worth reading at Maternal Optimist)
Ann, you totally need to blog about McCain's son joining the Marines when you get back.
I agree; drunk driving is not a hate crime. It's especially silly of LA to try to file hate crime charges without a crime victim, and hypocritical of them as well since it's clear the initial response was to edit the officer's report and give Mel a pass on the embarrassment. Take his license (he's apparently been stopped twice before while drunk and given the celebrity treatment), send him to rehab, and don't believe him when he says he's not anti-Semitic. He's lying. In vino veritas.By the way, I expect we'd find Mel and his dad backing up our pal Barrett on his 9/11 conspiracy theories. Interesting bit of synchronicity there.
More synchronicity: today, while talking with my department chair about our contingency plans in case our campus has to evacuate, I mentioned that I was considering setting up with a generator and a gun, and staying put. He blanched at the mention of a gun. He's an urban Yankee. Culture clash! I think he assumed I'm riding the post-Katrina bandwagon, which has fueled gun sales. I didn't explain that my family has been armed since my ancestors first fought in the Revolutionary War (on our side, be assured!) I'm sure they were armed back on the old soil, too.
XWL-- You ain't wrong: you are the funkiest pimp I know.Maxine Weiss-- Wisconsin has a better plan for law school graduates. It's called the diploma privilege. If you graduate from one of the two law schools in the state, with the requisite number of credits in certain categories, you may be admitted to the Wisconsin State Bar without even taking the bar exam. It's way cool.
Hold the phone. Reader Iam, where did you see a story about charging Gibson with a hate crime? I found only two references to "gibson hate crime" on google, and both were from nutty whack whack sites blogs, no news sources credited, and the "Jewish group" cited as calling for the charges is likewise some fringe group no one's ever heard of. So, let's not get our panties in a twist and shift the conversation about Gibson's own words to those terrible PC liberals and their nutty hate crime statues. Nice try, though.
You know what struck me about the Mel Gibson story? He's spouting all that venom, and his Blood alcohol is just 0.12! What is that -- two shots?For a man Gibson's size, 0.12% is at least six servings--substantially more if they are consumed over the course of the evening.Still, your point remains. A regular drinker would likely be noticeably under the influence at 0.12 but shouldn't become a raving lunatic. There's something wrong inside.
Elizabeth, instead of practicing your skills at being an asshole, why not click through to RIA's blog. If you had, you might have seen a link to this story.
Wow, Ruth, no Bar Exam in Wisconson?That sounds terrific, but the only thing is you'd never have such a thing as 'The Hunk That Flunked'.....which would be a pity!Peace, Maxine
Maxine Weiss: Actually, there is a bar exam given in Wisconsin. It's for those poor schlubs who didn't graduate from either the UW-Law School or Marquette U Law School. There used to be another state that conferred a diploma privilege -- West Virginia -- but I don't know if they still have it.
So, let's not get our panties in a twist and shift the conversation about Gibson's own words to those terrible PC liberals and their nutty hate crime statues. Nice try, though.Whoa, now, wait a minute, Elizabeth. If you go back to my original comment near the top of this thread, you'll note that I never said Gibson was charged; in fact, I never used the word "charge" because that's not what The Scotsman said in its article. (Had I come back to this thread sooner, I would have emphasized that there wasn't a charge when that term came up in someone else's comments.) Nor did I say anything to suggest his words weren't horrible."Those terrible PC liberals"? Where, exactly, did I say that? I realize that there have been lots of debates here at Althouse touching upon the "those liberals/those conservatives" meme with regard to one topic or another, but I don't believe I've been a participant along those specific lines; it's certainly not one of my regular tactics. In particular, Elizabeth, I think I've been pretty much respectful of you over time and don't recall throwing a partisan bomb at you, much less making a habit of it. So what's with the toss-off, snide "Nice try"?The irony is that I came over here to say that while the original source--the newspaper The Scotsman-- for what I wrote here and at Done With Mirrors is a reputable media outlet, its story in this case appears to be slanted and misleading at best about what the ADL director said. I also updated my own post to say the same thing and to link to an article which more fairly describes the situation.Sounds exactly what someone trying to whack those terrible PC liberals would do, right?[Deleted/reposted for minor editing.]
I agree with the .12. Not enough to cause a meltdown. Did the sheriff change the numbers, too?
Icepick, when I see everybody here see that story I sure expect it to be somewhere in major media, not on Scotsman UK. Aside from that, there's no link in iam's post, so what was I supposed to click through to? She didn't include a link to the story here, nor indicate there was one on her blog. It's a terribly weak accusation, a red herring meant to change the topic from a conservative who's made an outrageous remark to the predictable "but can you believe those liberals!" response. The story, which you link to here, is over-hyped. "Jewish Groups" turns out to be inaccurate, as only one group is referred to, and that with no attribution or credit for the information. Other stories on the conference Foxman spoke at (Foxman is alleged in the Scotsman to have called for a criminal investigation) don't mention such a call, but instead focus on how crazy it is for Foxman to say Gibson is "infected with anti-Semitism." Other than the Scotsman, which doesn't identify its source, the only "stories" about Jews calling for hate crime investigations are on right-wing, conspiracy-theorist blogs. Everyone see the story where conservative pundits rush to defend Mel and say Jews are nuts to say he's anti-Semitic? One even accuses Foxman of a "hate crime" for calling Mel a bigot!What Foxman said is that comments like Gibson's fuel hate crimes against Jews.
RIA wrote: Everybody here see the story about a call to investigate Mel Gibson for hate crimes following his extreme jerkiness-while-drunk the other night?Note the question mark, Elizabeth, note the question mark. You know, there's this thing we like to call punctuation....Elizabeth wrote: Aside from that, there's no link in iam's post, so what was I supposed to click through to? She didn't include a link to the story here, nor indicate there was one on her blog.From the same RIA post I quoted at the start of this post, RIA wrote: So the question is: If I mentioned that I blogged that at Done With Mirrors, does that make me only half a whore, a tease, or just plain annoying?A reasonable person just might, perchance, assume that I blogged that at Done With Mirrors meant that she, you know, blogged that at Done With Mirrors. I can see how you might have mentioned that, given that it was two sentences after the first sentence. And since you didn't even make it to the "punctuation" in that sentence, no wonder you missed the rest of it.Helpful Hint: If you click on a commenter's hyperlinked name, it will take you something I like to call a "user profile". These "profiles" often include links to their blogs.As to your not reading The Scotsman... well, the rest of us can't be held responsible for your terribly parochial world-view....
iam, I do indeed owe you an apology. My words were personally unfair to you, and it should have given me pause to see your name on that post, as you are always a good and fair person to discuss with. I apologize for assuming you intended this to divert the main point to one of liberal bashing. There's been a bit of that going on lately, and I'm oversensitive to it, but that doesn't excuse not giving you the benefit of the doubt.My comments on the story are unchanged, and I see you acknowledge its weaknesses.
Icepick, really, you're digging yourself in too deep. That there is a question mark changes nothing; RIA asked a question -- hey, did ya see this story? So? The story's still poorly sourced, biased, and misleading. When you cite a story here, you ought to link to it. That's standard operating procedure with commenting. Your condescension is hysterical.
Elizabeth wrote: [W]hen I see everybody here see that story I sure expect it to be somewhere in major media, not on Scotsman UK.Later: That there is a question mark changes nothing....No, the question mark does change the situation. Stating that everyone had seen a story is different than asking IF everyone had seen a story. Given that your initial and follow-up snotty comments were partially premised on the idea that this was something RIA was asserting as common knowledge, your new line is patent BS. I would think that someone who taught English would understand such distinctions. OTOH, I know that college instructors usually refuse to admit any error, and often resort to ad hominem attacks to cover their tracks.Your condescension is hysterical.Not as funny as a women's studies instructor using language meant to generically trivialize women ("So, let's not get our panties in a twist....") to try and shout down someone she disagrees with. Especially given that we are discussing (in part) the harm that language can do by unfairly stereotyping groups. Oh, wait, that's not funny at all, is it?
My god, you're really in a snit, icepick. "Panties in a twist" trivializes women? How, exactly? You've gotten your knickers in a knot about this, and just can't let go. Take a deep breath and calm down. While we're on grammar, the verb "see" in that snippit that I quoted clearly makes it a question, which I acknowledge when I ask a parallel question in my response. There's no need for me to replicate the ending punctuation in quoting a few words, especially when the verb makes the form obvious. Good gracious.
Good Lord! No offense, but the next time I see the words "feel free" in a post atop what's essentially an open thread, I shall try to remember to immediately take them as a cue to exercise restraint.That, and make sure I don't use the word "everyone" when "anyone" would be a better choice.
yeah, see what you started???? : )doesn't take much in these times we live in...
Post a Comment