Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think that kind of hits it on the head: the Libertarian view on marriage is pretty much "if people want to marry each other, why shouldn't they? And why should the G or anyone else subsidize them? Or stop them?" So they don't want to abolish marriage in general, they merely don't believe the gov has any place (at all) limiting or sponsoring it one way or the other.

this may be true, but marriage only exists because it is an institution created by government (in the political and non-political sense - we are governed by the political apparatus and we are "governed" by religious institutions) in order for the participants to derive government-provided benefits. It's a state (and, to a certain extent, church) sanctioned relationship. As a reward for participating in a state-sanctioned relationship, you get perks. So if you don't support getting perks from government (or church), then why would you support marriage for anyone? It's inconsistent.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
DD 1990s: The X Files; two (count 'em) top 3 The Larry Sanders Show episodes; one top 20 Simpsons episode

DD 2000s: Return to Me; Red Shoe Diaries.

Dig him or not, you tell me whether his career is over.

FWIW, DD was doing RSD before he was doing X-Files. He sort of stopped in the mid '90s when the X-files picked up, and then picked RSD up again after it ended. I imagine it appeals to his sense of humor, and it certainly is pretty funny.

DD is hot (in no small part because he is smart, laid back and funny). So is Jon Stewart. Has DD been on the Daily Show? I must find someone with a tape if he has....

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Would it offend you as a lawyer if I asked the last time you argued anything in Court?

I thought so.

I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Dude, do not fuck with petty bureaucrats with powers over your person and your stuff, they can fuck you up bigtime. Haven't you learned this by now? You may be the head of the secret cabal ruling the world, but when that security dimwit with a chip on his shoulder and a mean boss gets hold of you, it will not save you from the cavity search his self-importance and insecurity demands.

Amen, sister. And that concept applies to *everything* -- for example, I am always wondering why otherwise intelligent lawyers will treat the IT person (or the word processing staff, or the managing partner's secretary, or the whoever) badly.

And they wonder why I got the snazzy newfangled "color" monitor -- they are all green (or amber) with envy! (hahahaha -- I kill me!)

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113645,00.html

Someone faked Dear Abby into running a problem Marge Simpson had in real life-

The column is titled "Wife meets perfect match after husband strikes out." In the letter, the writer describes herself as a 34-year-old mother of three who has been married for 10 years to a man who is "greedy, selfish, inconsiderate and rude."

The writer says her husband, Gene, gave her a bowling ball for her birthday — complete with the holes drilled to fit his fingers and embossed with his name. Undeterred, the woman decides to learn to bowl and heads to the local lanes, where she meets another man, Franco, who is "kind, considerate and loving."

They fall in love and Franco proposes.

"I no longer love Gene," writes Stuck in a Love Triangle. "I want to divorce him and marry Franco. At the same time, I'm worried that Gene won't be able to move on with his life. I also think our kids would be devastated. What should I do?"

Jeanne Phillips is Abby, and i have her in the DP.

Phillips was traveling and her editors told The Associated Press she could not immediately be reached for comment.

She needs to face up to her error, a little Seppuku is in order.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
As a reward for participating in a state-sanctioned relationship, you get perks. So if you don't support getting perks from government (or church), then why would you support marriage for anyone? It's inconsistent.

Some of the perks are significant in easing the burdens on government -- for example, the benefit of knowing where an intestate's estate will go. Save us all a great deal of hassle trying to figure out whether his wife or his mistress should get the dough.

I have no idea whether this matters to Libertarians, and don't particularly care. Libertarians are just Anarchists with better suits, and equally hypocritical.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider.

Yet, strangely, if you're as hot as Demi Moore that might work.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Dude, do not fuck with petty bureaucrats with powers over your person and your stuff, they can fuck you up bigtime. Haven't you learned this by now? You may be the head of the secret cabal ruling the world, but when that security dimwit with a chip on his shoulder and a mean boss gets hold of you, it will not save you from the cavity search his self-importance and insecurity demands.

My sister has been fighting the DMV for nearly two months now in order to get her car registration up to date so she can sell it. Last battle was over the court abstract she needed to prove that she'd paid off all oustanding parking tickets. She presented the receipt that the court gave her with the citation numbers printed on the receipt, and the DMV woman would not take the receipt as proof that everything was taken care of. I'm thankful that my sister is a hipster pacifist, or else she'd probably be hitting the DMV with an assault rifle sometime soon.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Jeanne Phillips is Abby, and i have her in the DP.

DP? At her age? It's only a matter of time before she moves on to ATM.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Jeanne Phillips is Abby, and i have her in the DP.

No. You have her mother Pauline Phillips. Jeanne Phillips took over a couple of years ago because her mom is too ill to do the column. Pauline Phillips = good choice for death pool. Jeanne Phillips = younger, horsey-faced, bad-advice-giving daughter.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[She needs to face up to her error, a little Seppuku is in order.

If not for falling for the joke, then for penning this tidbit:

"To save the marriage," she wrote, "he might be willing to change back to the man who bowled you over in the first place."

(I would've suggested she get a new set of pins)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
No. You have her mother Pauline Phillips. Jeanne Phillips took over a couple of years ago because her mom is too ill to do the column. Pauline Phillips = good choice for death pool. Jeanne Phillips = younger, horsey-faced, bad-advice-giving daughter.

Oh. still, She fucked up and didn't teach her kid right- only one way to save face now Pauline.....

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. still, She fucked up and didn't teach her kid right- only one way to save face now Pauline.....

By double penetration with you and Coltrane?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Will there be free beer? Weed? If not, I doubt the Angels will be interested.

I think the police are just freaking out.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
this may be true, but marriage only exists because it is an institution created by government (in the political and non-political sense - we are governed by the political apparatus and we are "governed" by religious institutions) in order for the participants to derive government-provided benefits. It's a state (and, to a certain extent, church) sanctioned relationship. As a reward for participating in a state-sanctioned relationship, you get perks. So if you don't support getting perks from government (or church), then why would you support marriage for anyone? It's inconsistent.

Why would all the benefits of marriage be removed? Many of them don't offend libertarian sensibilities at all. Certainly, marriage existed long before political and religious institutions were subsidizing it financially. Besides the financial gov't provided benefits, there are lots other kinds of state-sponsored perks (the legal presumptions of authority to act for each other, joint ownership of assets, etc.), religious perks (admission to heaven after having sex, primarily), and, entirely apart from those, social perks (being recognized as a permanent couple (whether others approve personally or not), social sanction if you violate your vows, some additional security for men that they aren't raising someone else's children, even the comfort of being able to slip into socially acknowledged "roles" as a couple can be a very real benefit - or detriment, depending on your view). Lots of privately contracted benefits accrue, too - pension and health care benefits most obviously spring to mind, and they are often keyed to marriage.

Any or all of these types of "benefits" survive without financial support from the general tax base, which is the type of benefit/perk to which libertarians are primarily opposed. If the gov't wants to provide a system that simplify the way in which people designate their co-owners, powers of attorney or default heirs, or who they want covered by their private employee benefits, why shouldn't they? That isn't something Libertarians object to - just the idea that such a system should exist but not be made available to all citizens exercising free choice.