"Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Faces Struggle in Congress" »
In comments to reporters in California this weekend, General Amos said that ending the ban in the middle of two wars would involve “risk” for , who, unlike other service members who generally have private quarters, share rooms to promote unity.
…
“I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”
First, it’s unclear whether General Amos is making a unity/cohesion argument or a “rape danger from homosexuals!” argument.
Even if you accept that repealing DADT would have a significant negative impact on unit cohesion, it’s still something of a baffling argument to make; it’s not as if a lot of servicemen (and congressmen!) weren’t huge racists when the military was integrated. And even when the Army was dragging its heels on President Truman’s executive order, they finally figured out that integration wasn’t the end of the world in the midst of the Korean War.
Also people need to stop using the safety argument in ridiculous situations. It reminds me of the argument against having gender neutral bathrooms/allowing people to use the bathrooms of their chosen gender: Don’t do it, it’s dangerous having homosexual predators out on the loose! What a totally ridiculous idea. It’s not like there is sex-specific screening going on in public bathrooms anyways, there is literally nothing stopping someone from going into whatever bathroom they goddamn please.
"Morgan Stanley financial adviser escapes felony charges for hit-and-run 'because it could jeopardise his job'" »
Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, was set to face felony charges for running over a doctor who he hit from behind in his 2010 Mercedes Benz, and then speeding off.
But now he will simply face two misdemeanour traffic charges from the July 3 incident in Eagle, Colorado.
This is appalling. I can’t believe how many chances the criminal justice system will throw at people if they’re privileged enough. This doesn’t just apply to prosecutors, either, or the way they decide to charge crimes (which is the reason for the egregious difference in the charged offenses here). The entire criminal justice system is stacked against those who are unfortunate enough to either be working class, or without a college degree, or of color, or any combination of the above.
“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession, and that entered into it,” [] said [the prosecutor].
How is this something that can impact your decision? Doesn’t the criminal justice system currently labor under the legal fiction that there are direct and indirect (read as: civil) consequences, only the latter of which can be held to affect a criminal charge?
It’d be great if prosecutors would put more thought into whether charging and convicting someone with a felony could negatively impact their employment options, but that sort of calculus doesn’t seem to enter the equation when you’re dealing with a guy that cleans bathrooms at McDonald’s and has financial dependents.
You can’t have it both ways! ahhhh so much outrage.
"In Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage Issue" »
“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican who led the campaign after losing the Republican nomination for governor, told a crowd of cheering supporters at an election night party peppered with red signs declaring “No Activist Judges.” “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”
Oh, anti-intellectual populism, you will never get old. There’s no need to distinguish between different branches of government over which ‘the people’ have varying amounts of control if we can just shut our eyes and blame activist judges! Because it’s not like judges haven’t been carving out their own understandings of the law, separate from those held either by ‘the people’ or the more democratically elected branches of government, into American jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison or anything.
wow. i mean just cause your daughter is a sex worker and meth addict doesn’t mean she’s not your daughter anymore, right? also this is just rude… what do you mean “now i have a prostitute”— are you the madam now?
Yeah, reverting to misogyny out of a misguided and greatly attenuated fear of hard drug use is a great way to raise your children.
