Have been catching up on 4 days of the Prop 8 trial. The defence have been making their case, with a mere 2 expert witnesses, though the qualifier 'expert' is debatable, and indeed has been the subject of much scrutiny by the plaintiff's counsel and the court. Both witnesses have been subjected to voir dire (what you do when you don't think an expert is an expert, or evidence counts as evidence), which happened to none of the plaintiff's witnesses. Boies has been completely destroying the first of the defence's witnesses, by using the man's own words against him. When testifying in court, you really really shouldn't make opposing statements within 5 minutes of each other.
Now considering this is a trial about the constitutionality of proposition 8, where the cases largely come down to whether prop 8 harms a minority or repealling it would harm society more, and whether the vote of yes on prop 8 was motivated by prejudices, especially religious ones, the 'expert' clearly doesn't know even the basics:
B: You know Catholic Church’s opinion on homosexuality?
M: Uh…
The second witness, whilst a bit more collected than the first, doesnt fare much better under cross:
Boies. You know that same sex couples are raising children?
DB: Of course!
Boies: Hundreds of thousands?
DB: I don’t know.
Boies: Did you attempt to find out how many?
DB: Yes.
Boies: Approximately how many?
DB: I don’t know.
Hmmm, clearly he didn't attempt that hard then. This is the problem with the former generation, they don't appreciate how wikipedia can answer any question when you need to do last minute research.
Also, please go read Blackenhorn's testimony. In direct he is against same-sex marriage, and tentatively for DPs as a compromise, in cross, he is for (note, not even, concedes, he offers the view freely), same sex marriage. Oh dear.... Personally I think this says it all, bear in mind the guy is testifying in a court of law as an expert witness on a matter of federal import here:
DB: It never occurred to me that everything I would say regarding my views had to be documented...
Blackenhorn just comes across as petulant in all of this, he's constantly avoiding saying a definitive 'yes', 'no', or 'i don't know' to Boies questions, no matter how many times the man rephrases them, and constantly tries to attack the definition of terms in the questioning. Finally, Boies gets the following out of him:
DB: ...I can’t answer these yes or no. I do know the answers and I can’t answer when you ask that way.
The trial has now substantially finished. Closing arguements have been postponed until the judge has had time to review the quite frankly massive volume of evidence submitted by both sides, and so we're stuck waiting till February 26th to see any further developments on this. This translates as a return to my normal ramblings for the next month or so.
In other news, I finally caught up on everything that was getting ahead of me, but that's only because my body crashed from 1900 last night through to 1300 today, thus missing all my lectures and tutorials -_- Goddammit.
Mood: Meh. That is all.
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/7firS9s8mwBaQr02IBP1GO
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Dreams aren't perfect: They come true, not free.
I know my blog posts have fallen away from their regular schedule in the last few days. This is due to me a) being rather busy, and b) being rather depressed.
In a bid to help b) I watched the last two episodes of Dawson's Creek earlier. Yes I admit it, I'm a Dawson's Creek fanboy, and I stand on the Jack side of the argument, or Dawson if we're confining it to the traditional two. Anyway, I don't cry easy, sure I can get choked up, and my empathy often does cause me to, but it takes a lot to get me to cry, however the last episodes of Dawson's Creek can bring it out of me without fail everytime, no matter how many times I see it. Everytime Jen's on screen in the hospital bed I end up unable to actually see what's going on through the tears and continuing to cry just on the basis of the dialogue. Her death, and the video she makes are the two hardest points of these to make it through. But I felt like a good cry would help a little with the depression, and sure enough it has. Not by much, still feeling the epic pit of apathy and resignation inside me, but at least I don't want to stay in bed for 20 years, or break my fist through another wall anymore.
I think tomorrow night I'll watch Aladdin - which is my ill film and so might make me midly happy for a bit. I'll reserve Breakfast at Tiffany's - my favourite film, and the one I watch whenever the stress of life is getting to me too much (i end up VERY distraught if I ever can't find the DVD), until a point when I actually have the time to give it its due attention and respect.
I also need to catch up up a few days of prop 8 trial transcripts. The defence have started making their case now, so there will no doubt be a few so-funny-its-not posts to come at some point.
Mood: Drained, mostly.
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/2mePa2vKQLg6XyBWiqwk3V
In a bid to help b) I watched the last two episodes of Dawson's Creek earlier. Yes I admit it, I'm a Dawson's Creek fanboy, and I stand on the Jack side of the argument, or Dawson if we're confining it to the traditional two. Anyway, I don't cry easy, sure I can get choked up, and my empathy often does cause me to, but it takes a lot to get me to cry, however the last episodes of Dawson's Creek can bring it out of me without fail everytime, no matter how many times I see it. Everytime Jen's on screen in the hospital bed I end up unable to actually see what's going on through the tears and continuing to cry just on the basis of the dialogue. Her death, and the video she makes are the two hardest points of these to make it through. But I felt like a good cry would help a little with the depression, and sure enough it has. Not by much, still feeling the epic pit of apathy and resignation inside me, but at least I don't want to stay in bed for 20 years, or break my fist through another wall anymore.
I think tomorrow night I'll watch Aladdin - which is my ill film and so might make me midly happy for a bit. I'll reserve Breakfast at Tiffany's - my favourite film, and the one I watch whenever the stress of life is getting to me too much (i end up VERY distraught if I ever can't find the DVD), until a point when I actually have the time to give it its due attention and respect.
I also need to catch up up a few days of prop 8 trial transcripts. The defence have started making their case now, so there will no doubt be a few so-funny-its-not posts to come at some point.
Mood: Drained, mostly.
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/2mePa2vKQLg6XyBWiqwk3V
Sunday, 24 January 2010
I'm not normal
If you don't want a very very disturbing insight into the kind of things that get me off, best turn away now, and skip reading this post entirely. Otherwise, welcome to the freakdom that is me.
My flatmate asked me how my night was and where I went when I got up for lunch. I had to omit certain bits of information for the sake of his sanity. I went to a clubnight called Crimson, recommended to Joel and I by the amazing woman who runs Edgeplay at Mass in Brixton. It's a rather expensive (£20 entry fee) fetish night, along the lines of Torture Garden, but pretty much anything goes, which is why the edgeplay woman told us to come in the first place. Dress code entry, which was fetish/burlesque/medical/uniforms/anything bizzare and out there. I was in stupidly tight black trousers, my poet shirt, a gold brocade waistcoat which i'd just finished making, and my venetian mask. Joel wore black trousers, a white shirt, PVC opera gloves, and his cyborg contact. Seany was in leathers, and Adam was in rubber.
Being our first time, we weren't sure what exactly we'd be let in the door with, 'toys'-wise, so opted for nothing to be safe, but turns out the answer truly is anything goes. Skipping the usual Collared to attend Crimson, there was a much bigger emphasis on play rather than just socializing with kinky friends. There was loads of amazing dungeon furniture, violet wands, pinwheels, the standard flogging etc, furries of course, Joel and Seany got a decent crowd watching them when seany was strapped into what can only be described as a bondage chair with a nipple clamp rack attachment. I saw a lot more people biting and scratching each other than the solitary couple at Fangtasia the week before. The crowd was pretty young and varied, there were some very attractive couples there, an amazingly hot boy in a leathery/rubbery kilt, plenty of eye candy all round really, and if that wasn't enough, there were the bits of play to watch - the medical area which had needleplay, and corset piercings happening all night had me captivated; there was a very funky suspension bondage spectacle, which was a lot better and a lot safer than the one performed at Fangtasia, and there was a very convincing rapeplay demo - clothes were actually ripped, there was spitting, biting, kicking, bleeding, and at the end of it all the girl had a huge grin on her face and was laughing hysterically, just before you all get worried. Certainly not the sort of thing I would have seen at Collared, it would have sent most of them running. Joel and I were glued to the performance of course :P
Despite being an expensive night, it's definitely one I plan to do again and again, and the consensus from the other 3 was the same. I just need to build up an array of outfits to actually go in :P But to sum up, the things you have learnt from this post, are I like biting, scratching, bleeding, sharp pointy things, and rapeplay. YOu thought I was wierd, but I bet you never would have guessed this weird....
Yes I did just spell that 2 different ways in the same sentence.
Mood: Schleepy, and avoidant of coursework
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/15HV1hzH5hOZYl8ppaY1J7
My flatmate asked me how my night was and where I went when I got up for lunch. I had to omit certain bits of information for the sake of his sanity. I went to a clubnight called Crimson, recommended to Joel and I by the amazing woman who runs Edgeplay at Mass in Brixton. It's a rather expensive (£20 entry fee) fetish night, along the lines of Torture Garden, but pretty much anything goes, which is why the edgeplay woman told us to come in the first place. Dress code entry, which was fetish/burlesque/medical/uniforms/anything bizzare and out there. I was in stupidly tight black trousers, my poet shirt, a gold brocade waistcoat which i'd just finished making, and my venetian mask. Joel wore black trousers, a white shirt, PVC opera gloves, and his cyborg contact. Seany was in leathers, and Adam was in rubber.
Being our first time, we weren't sure what exactly we'd be let in the door with, 'toys'-wise, so opted for nothing to be safe, but turns out the answer truly is anything goes. Skipping the usual Collared to attend Crimson, there was a much bigger emphasis on play rather than just socializing with kinky friends. There was loads of amazing dungeon furniture, violet wands, pinwheels, the standard flogging etc, furries of course, Joel and Seany got a decent crowd watching them when seany was strapped into what can only be described as a bondage chair with a nipple clamp rack attachment. I saw a lot more people biting and scratching each other than the solitary couple at Fangtasia the week before. The crowd was pretty young and varied, there were some very attractive couples there, an amazingly hot boy in a leathery/rubbery kilt, plenty of eye candy all round really, and if that wasn't enough, there were the bits of play to watch - the medical area which had needleplay, and corset piercings happening all night had me captivated; there was a very funky suspension bondage spectacle, which was a lot better and a lot safer than the one performed at Fangtasia, and there was a very convincing rapeplay demo - clothes were actually ripped, there was spitting, biting, kicking, bleeding, and at the end of it all the girl had a huge grin on her face and was laughing hysterically, just before you all get worried. Certainly not the sort of thing I would have seen at Collared, it would have sent most of them running. Joel and I were glued to the performance of course :P
Despite being an expensive night, it's definitely one I plan to do again and again, and the consensus from the other 3 was the same. I just need to build up an array of outfits to actually go in :P But to sum up, the things you have learnt from this post, are I like biting, scratching, bleeding, sharp pointy things, and rapeplay. YOu thought I was wierd, but I bet you never would have guessed this weird....
Yes I did just spell that 2 different ways in the same sentence.
Mood: Schleepy, and avoidant of coursework
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/15HV1hzH5hOZYl8ppaY1J7
Friday, 22 January 2010
His patience is wearing thin....
and then haven't even started their round of witnesses yet!
"Judge: ... When might we take a break?
N: The questions about sexual orientation go to our theory of the case so I’ll keep questioning the witness.
Judge: That’s fine, but when might it be a good time to take break?
N: I’d be happy to do that whenever the court wishes.
Judge: Very well, then. Why don’t we do it now?"
Chris is most likely very confused by all this. For a week now I've been deeply interested, and willing to discuss at length, a case which is intensely and inherently political, and I've even blogged about it. Normally I abhor any discussion of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apolitical, I have very strong views, but I have no interest in discussing them. Every discussion either seems to come to a clash of ideologies with each person trying to convince the other of how great their view is, or all parties spend the time acting incredulous at the actions of politicians, whilst fully conceding they shouldn't be surprised. I imagine this is along a similar vein to why some people hate talking to others about religion, they find the discussion dull, tedious, and endlessly repetitive. For me on the other hand, I am phenomenally interested in the anthrolopology, mythology, evolution, personal need, cultutral need, presentation, connection to society, reasons for, and generally everything of religious beliefs, I find them fascinating to discuss with people and find the common ground and the areas where we differ, even with the evangelicals and the scientologists. I just hate doing the same about politics. Except occasionally, usually in gay rights issues, or things in the US (so double points to the Prop 8 trial, really) to be honest, where I follow the developments closely and analyze it endlessly. Like I say, Chris must be very confused, but he's enjoying the rare opportunity to have these discussions with me, usually if he tries I get very frustrated and angry.
"Judge: ... When might we take a break?
N: The questions about sexual orientation go to our theory of the case so I’ll keep questioning the witness.
Judge: That’s fine, but when might it be a good time to take break?
N: I’d be happy to do that whenever the court wishes.
Judge: Very well, then. Why don’t we do it now?"
Chris is most likely very confused by all this. For a week now I've been deeply interested, and willing to discuss at length, a case which is intensely and inherently political, and I've even blogged about it. Normally I abhor any discussion of politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apolitical, I have very strong views, but I have no interest in discussing them. Every discussion either seems to come to a clash of ideologies with each person trying to convince the other of how great their view is, or all parties spend the time acting incredulous at the actions of politicians, whilst fully conceding they shouldn't be surprised. I imagine this is along a similar vein to why some people hate talking to others about religion, they find the discussion dull, tedious, and endlessly repetitive. For me on the other hand, I am phenomenally interested in the anthrolopology, mythology, evolution, personal need, cultutral need, presentation, connection to society, reasons for, and generally everything of religious beliefs, I find them fascinating to discuss with people and find the common ground and the areas where we differ, even with the evangelicals and the scientologists. I just hate doing the same about politics. Except occasionally, usually in gay rights issues, or things in the US (so double points to the Prop 8 trial, really) to be honest, where I follow the developments closely and analyze it endlessly. Like I say, Chris must be very confused, but he's enjoying the rare opportunity to have these discussions with me, usually if he tries I get very frustrated and angry.
This guy argues worse than me
Epic fail here on a part of the adverse witness. Boies is counsel for the plaintiffs, Tam was originally a defence counsel, but dropped out, but has been called back by the plaintiffs as a witness. Boies takes a few short exchanges to pretty much destroy him. This is after the courtroom has become deathly silent, after Tam has testified that he believes homosexuality leads to paedophilia and the gay agenda is legalize same-sex marriages, then prostitution, then sex with children.
"T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes."
Okay so I know this Tam guy is an idiot, but even still, reading the things that he's saying under oath in a court of law, rather than ranting in some book or at some evangelical convention, is pretty harrowing:
"B: ...if same sex marriage passes it will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Do you agree with that?
T: Yes."
"B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet.."
Thankfully, Boies shows him up again:
"T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: Yeah, logic."
"T: Homosexuals are not minority.
B: How many are there?
T: I am a minority. Minority is based on skin color.
B: How many are there?
T: 2-4% of population.
B: So they are a minority?
T: yes."
Okay so I know this Tam guy is an idiot, but even still, reading the things that he's saying under oath in a court of law, rather than ranting in some book or at some evangelical convention, is pretty harrowing:
"B: ...if same sex marriage passes it will lead to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Do you agree with that?
T: Yes."
"B: Your paper says that after Netherlands legalized SS marriage, Netheralands legalized incest and polygamy. Do you believe that?
T: Same sex marriage may not have led to legalization of incest and polygamy, but it happened.
B: Who told you that?
T: I found it on the Internet.."
Thankfully, Boies shows him up again:
"T: I believe if marriage is beyond a man and a woman that any person can come to ask for marriage for incest and polygamy. If this is a civil right what would stop anyone from using marriage.
B: Can two siblings become DPs? Can man and girl of young age become DP?
T: No.
B: DPs exclude people of certain age and relationship.
T: Right.
B: You know that?
T: Yes.
B: So you see that DP does not lead to incest.
T: Yes. Oh I see your logic.
B: Yeah, logic."
I change my own clothes thank you very much
I think Chris will probably relate to this one, and this version is so much more palatable than f*cking Katy Perry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU4uJUZHVJM
They want to cancel the play, or at least, they're threatening to. This might be something to do with the fact that it's 2 weeks away and the 2 lead roles haven't been cast. How can you have an Oresteia when you don't have an Orestes? I don't care what happens at this stage to be honest. If we don't put on the play it saves me a lot of time and energy.
The QM kids got another taste of the wierdness that is me yesterday. We were discussing parachutes for our design project, and talking about materials to make the canopy out of and silk is a a nice lightweight strong material that works well, but the french guy had no idea what silk was, and so the group was trying to describe it to him. About 45 seconds later I suddenly realised, and went "wait a minute, I just happen to have 2 meters of silk in my bag, cause I'm like that", at which point I suddenly whipped out a freshly cut length of cream coloured fabric. This confused them muchly, why on earth do I just happen to carry silk fabric around with me. The answer is for the waistcoast I'm recovering for Crimson, and I'd happened to go to soho that morning so still had it with me. But I still think there were a little freaked out. At least frenchy knew what silk was from that though.
I haven't read day 8 of the prop 8 trial yet, so there will likely be another post to come. I can forsee one day a week being very bad for my blog postings, in that I just collapse and sleep for 14 hours having had no sleep the night before, and little during the week otherwise. For some reason, this is never wednesday night, when I finish uni at 1300 and dont start till 1400 on thursday, but some day when I need to be up early, like I clearly wasn't today. In fairness to me, I have at least 3 pieces of coursework due every single week this term. You humanities kids have it easy...
Mood: Reticent over 1300 play meeting
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/2fJQCr3klYX896j37VsrQT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU4uJUZHVJM
They want to cancel the play, or at least, they're threatening to. This might be something to do with the fact that it's 2 weeks away and the 2 lead roles haven't been cast. How can you have an Oresteia when you don't have an Orestes? I don't care what happens at this stage to be honest. If we don't put on the play it saves me a lot of time and energy.
The QM kids got another taste of the wierdness that is me yesterday. We were discussing parachutes for our design project, and talking about materials to make the canopy out of and silk is a a nice lightweight strong material that works well, but the french guy had no idea what silk was, and so the group was trying to describe it to him. About 45 seconds later I suddenly realised, and went "wait a minute, I just happen to have 2 meters of silk in my bag, cause I'm like that", at which point I suddenly whipped out a freshly cut length of cream coloured fabric. This confused them muchly, why on earth do I just happen to carry silk fabric around with me. The answer is for the waistcoast I'm recovering for Crimson, and I'd happened to go to soho that morning so still had it with me. But I still think there were a little freaked out. At least frenchy knew what silk was from that though.
I haven't read day 8 of the prop 8 trial yet, so there will likely be another post to come. I can forsee one day a week being very bad for my blog postings, in that I just collapse and sleep for 14 hours having had no sleep the night before, and little during the week otherwise. For some reason, this is never wednesday night, when I finish uni at 1300 and dont start till 1400 on thursday, but some day when I need to be up early, like I clearly wasn't today. In fairness to me, I have at least 3 pieces of coursework due every single week this term. You humanities kids have it easy...
Mood: Reticent over 1300 play meeting
Music: http://open.spotify.com/user/jorgamond/playlist/2fJQCr3klYX896j37VsrQT
Thursday, 21 January 2010
More right wing idiocy, rejoice!
So credit for this goes to The Rachel Maddow Show, which if you're not already a massive massive fan of you should be. Who doesn't want a cynical, mildly abusive, angry left wing lesbian delivering their news every day?
Anyway, turns out there's this joyous website called http://www.overcriminalized.com/ The website concerns itself with legislation before the US Congress, and aims to "provides details, status, and basic commentary on legislation pending in Congress that could perpetuate the dangerous trend of criminalizing more and more conduct that is socially and economically beneficial and of punishing Americans for acts they commit" All sounds well and good, and it's a vaguely good idea, there are several items they identify that are concerned with things like making sure definitions of what constitutes a crime according to the legislature isn't so loose as to be open to abuse by a prosecutor. It cites the difference between a kid who brings a kitchen knife to school, and the scout who forgot to take his penknife out of his back pocket as a fairly decent example.
However, then it all goes a little wrong... From their front page, they state: "Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction..." and "trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime." Now I want you to bear this in mind as we go on, as these aims and definitions are fairly crucial to what follows.
So if you then go look at the legistlature they're keeping their eye on, there's the Noose Hate Crime Act which would prohibit displaying a noose in public “with intent to harass or intimidate any person because of that person’s race, color, religion, or national origin.” Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 2 years. And granted, someone could accidentaly carry a noose around and get arrested for it (I hear you arguing, who carries a noose around, but if anyone's gonna do it it would be someone like me), so you can accept that without too many problems, but again, it doesn't stop there....
The National Health Insurance Act would criminalize the disclosure of personally identifiable medical information. Violations would be punishable by criminal fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Now given that America isn't completely sold on Obamacare yetwhilst it's a little bizzare that they consider the selling of personally idenitifable information a trivial matter, maybe they're just being over-zealous in their opposition.
Or maybe not.... The War Profiteering Prevention Act would prohibit schemes to defraud the United States, including those to “materially overvalue[] any good with the intent to defraud the United States,” in connection with contracts to provide goods or services to the United States for overseas missions. I'm beginning to get a little concerned that they consider war profiteering a "trivial matter" and something which doesn't come under the definition of something "which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction..." God bless capitalism I say.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! They are also keeping their eye on Child Labour Safety Act which would increase penalties for the illegal use of child labor. Violations of existing prohibitions in the Fair Labor Standard Act would be punishable by criminal fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 6 months per each employee the subject of such a violation. Under current law, violations are punishable by civil penalties of up to $10,000 per child worker. Because Walmart (ok and primark in the UK to be fair) quite like the cheap cost of their child labour fines, and thats only the ones they find out about, mwahahahaha!!!!!!
I probably should have prefaced this all by saying that overciminalized is run by The Heritage Foundation a typical pretty damned right wing think tank, and so perhaps none of this is all that surprising, but usually these kind of things are kept to the secret documents and meetings of groups like The Family (also see more rachel maddow clips on her website in relation to the whole uganda thing, or just google uganda and gay and see the delights that will confront your monitor). For the record, the initial clip with Rachel Maddow talking about the above, as well as the general support of slave labour practices amongst business groups, see here.
Can you tell I've found the formatting buttons? Be prepared for increased readability in future. I can't promise anything about the grammar though...
Music: Most of this was punctuated by watching other rachel maddow clips, however I just clicked play and Geri Halliwell's Mi Chico Latino came on, so you should all go to listen to that. Alternatively, go listen to The Baseballs, who are picking up momentum in this country with their rock and roll versions of Umbrella, which you've probably heard somewhere, or Hot and Cold, or a variety of other covers.
Incidently, does anyone else find it really really hard to not spell it umberella nowadays?
Anyway, turns out there's this joyous website called http://www.overcriminalized.com/ The website concerns itself with legislation before the US Congress, and aims to "provides details, status, and basic commentary on legislation pending in Congress that could perpetuate the dangerous trend of criminalizing more and more conduct that is socially and economically beneficial and of punishing Americans for acts they commit" All sounds well and good, and it's a vaguely good idea, there are several items they identify that are concerned with things like making sure definitions of what constitutes a crime according to the legislature isn't so loose as to be open to abuse by a prosecutor. It cites the difference between a kid who brings a kitchen knife to school, and the scout who forgot to take his penknife out of his back pocket as a fairly decent example.
However, then it all goes a little wrong... From their front page, they state: "Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction..." and "trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime." Now I want you to bear this in mind as we go on, as these aims and definitions are fairly crucial to what follows.
So if you then go look at the legistlature they're keeping their eye on, there's the Noose Hate Crime Act which would prohibit displaying a noose in public “with intent to harass or intimidate any person because of that person’s race, color, religion, or national origin.” Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 2 years. And granted, someone could accidentaly carry a noose around and get arrested for it (I hear you arguing, who carries a noose around, but if anyone's gonna do it it would be someone like me), so you can accept that without too many problems, but again, it doesn't stop there....
The National Health Insurance Act would criminalize the disclosure of personally identifiable medical information. Violations would be punishable by criminal fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Now given that America isn't completely sold on Obamacare yetwhilst it's a little bizzare that they consider the selling of personally idenitifable information a trivial matter, maybe they're just being over-zealous in their opposition.
Or maybe not.... The War Profiteering Prevention Act would prohibit schemes to defraud the United States, including those to “materially overvalue[] any good with the intent to defraud the United States,” in connection with contracts to provide goods or services to the United States for overseas missions. I'm beginning to get a little concerned that they consider war profiteering a "trivial matter" and something which doesn't come under the definition of something "which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction..." God bless capitalism I say.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! They are also keeping their eye on Child Labour Safety Act which would increase penalties for the illegal use of child labor. Violations of existing prohibitions in the Fair Labor Standard Act would be punishable by criminal fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 6 months per each employee the subject of such a violation. Under current law, violations are punishable by civil penalties of up to $10,000 per child worker. Because Walmart (ok and primark in the UK to be fair) quite like the cheap cost of their child labour fines, and thats only the ones they find out about, mwahahahaha!!!!!!
I probably should have prefaced this all by saying that overciminalized is run by The Heritage Foundation a typical pretty damned right wing think tank, and so perhaps none of this is all that surprising, but usually these kind of things are kept to the secret documents and meetings of groups like The Family (also see more rachel maddow clips on her website in relation to the whole uganda thing, or just google uganda and gay and see the delights that will confront your monitor). For the record, the initial clip with Rachel Maddow talking about the above, as well as the general support of slave labour practices amongst business groups, see here.
Can you tell I've found the formatting buttons? Be prepared for increased readability in future. I can't promise anything about the grammar though...
Music: Most of this was punctuated by watching other rachel maddow clips, however I just clicked play and Geri Halliwell's Mi Chico Latino came on, so you should all go to listen to that. Alternatively, go listen to The Baseballs, who are picking up momentum in this country with their rock and roll versions of Umbrella, which you've probably heard somewhere, or Hot and Cold, or a variety of other covers.
Incidently, does anyone else find it really really hard to not spell it umberella nowadays?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)