A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you need to criminalize domestic violence, as opposed to charging someone with (e.g.) assault or battery? Not making any kind of argument here -- I'd like to know.

My guess, without looking into it further, is that people who live with each other generally have to, er, live with each other. There's often a power differential where one party is dependant on the other for food, shelter, etc, and the state wants to discourage violence between the parties. Certainly, the abused party could (and probably should) relocate, but often that's a financial, emotional or practical impossibility. If some random person on the street beats the shit out of you, you're in a much better position to stay away from that person in the future. If your spouse does it, your options are more limited.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. And don't fight the hypo.

I think I would be perfectly comfortable moving anywhere in Iraq, other than the triangle. If I was an ambitious sort, I'd probably rather live there given the additional money I possibly could make in a new economy. But again, where the Arabs would rather live is not my point.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think I would be perfectly comfortable moving anywhere in Iraq, other than the triangle. If I was an ambitious sort, I'd probably rather live there given the additional money I possibly could make in a new economy. But again, where the Arabs would rather live is not my point.

I have a friend that just moved back to Iraq. He's being paid $80,000 every sixty days for security detail there. He was on home leave when I saw him on Saturday, and he shipped back on Sunday for another 60 days. He enjoys dodging bullets. He was trying to con me into going with him about a year and a half ago, but when I saw him on Saturday he said I probably made the right call.

I have another friend who has a lovely apartment in Alexandria, overlooking the Mediterranean. He's Egyptian (Naturalized American, actually, and with the world's sexiest voice, btw), and he'd rather live here than anywhere in the Middle East.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Is the Iraq project a success if the Democracy Domino Effect doesn't come into play?

Hypo: our troops are there in force for another 18 months, we eventually withdraw, there is some civil strife but it seems like the government is working, the government is more religious than I think we'd like but at least it's not the wacky mullahocracy of Iran, BUT despite all this no neighboring countries are moved on their own to rise up for democracy. Is this a win?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was irritated by this post, and knew I'd seen a good response to it, but couldn't figure out where. A-ha -- it was Ezra Klein's new blog. Here's what he said:

• The "For Something" Trap
  I'm rapidly losing patience with the "Dems need to stand for something" trope, the one usually offered by kindly conservatives in the context of well-meaning advice. This week, the guidance was proffered by QandO's Dale Franks, and it's springboard is a Christian Science Monitor editorial that worries itself sick over the Reid-led move towards opposition party. The criticism follows the usual trajectory, a graceful arc from sadness over the failing opposition party to invocation of the now-unemployed Tom Daschle who, the writer predictably writes, would be glad to tell you how well this opposition party stuff works out. Too bad such a fun to write post is so intellectually bankrupt.
  
  Tom came from a crimson state that voted for President Bush in overwhelming numbers, so maybe if you're from Dubya country you might not want to be the nation's highest profile opponent of his policies. And I'm sure that's exactly what he'd tell you if you went to his door and asked, rather than simply imagined the conversation onto your keyboard. As for Reid and the Dems? They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?
  
  If the Dems really were a bunch of idealess naysayers whose only use in life was implying things about Bush's nominees, I'd wholeheartedly jump on the "they suck' bandwagon. But it's just not true. What is true is that they are a minority party subject to the whims of a hyper-partisan majority that has choked off every opportunity for the Democrats to put forth an affirmative agenda. The evidence of the Republican Party's near-despotic rule over the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, is voluminous and outrageous. Democrats can't bring bills to the floor, Hastert won't put legislation up for vote unless a majority of Republicans support it (a stark contrast with the bipartisan vote-counting of certain Clinton-era policies), Democrats are denied the judicial courtesies they offered Republicans, DeLay regularly augments egregiously conservative portions of bills when he finds they gain too much Democratic support, and so forth. This is a public strategy aimed at painting the Democrats a wholly negative, unproductive party. But, as with so many PR efforts, it's relation to the truth is creative.
  
  Fact is, Democrats have a publicly accessible legislative agenda that they're simply being barred from pursuing. They asked perfectly reasonable questions of Bush's nominees, queries that are all the more essential considering the mess these folks made of the last four years (does anyone really believe that the country was well-served by ignoring the August 6th PDB or the Geneva Convention?). And Republican dominance, for its part, is directly traceable to the determined bomb-throwing and demagoguery of that consummate oppositionist, Newt Gingrich. You tell me -- did it hurt them in the long run?
  
  I don't fault the Republicans for misrepresenting the facts, they're a political party focused on consolidating their power. I blame the pundits, editorialists, reporters and writers who don't do the reporting or questioning that'd lead this absurd meme to disintegrate. And that goes for normally freethinking guys like Dale over at QandO, who must know better and, if they don't, damn well should.

Please name 3 new ideas the DEMs have proposed in the last 4 years.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Is the Iraq project a success if the Democracy Domino Effect doesn't come into play?

Hypo: our troops are there in force for another 18 months, we eventually withdraw, there is some civil strife but it seems like the government is working, the government is more religious than I think we'd like but at least it's not the wacky mullahocracy of Iran, BUT despite all this no neighboring countries are moved on their own to rise up for democracy. Is this a win?

Of course it is.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Is the Iraq project a success if the Democracy Domino Effect doesn't come into play?

Hypo: our troops are there in force for another 18 months, we eventually withdraw, there is some civil strife but it seems like the government is working, the government is more religious than I think we'd like but at least it's not the wacky mullahocracy of Iran, BUT despite all this no neighboring countries are moved on their own to rise up for democracy. Is this a win?

Fuck, yeah!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please name 3 new ideas the DEMs have proposed in the last 4 years.

Didn't they suggest a balanced budget?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I have a friend that just moved back to Iraq. He's being paid $80,000 every sixty days for security detail there. He was on home leave when I saw him on Saturday, and he shipped back on Sunday for another 60 days. He enjoys dodging bullets. He was trying to con me into going with him about a year and a half ago, but when I saw him on Saturday he said I probably made the right call.

I have another friend who has a lovely apartment in Alexandria, overlooking the Mediterranean. He's Egyptian (Naturalized American, actually, and with the world's sexiest voice, btw), and he'd rather live here than anywhere in the Middle East.

Is he living in the triangle?
My response assumed that I was currently living in another Arab country. I would not voluntarily choose to live there.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Didn't they suggest a balanced budget?

I don't think so, but you may be right. Regardless, that idea is hardly new.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please name 3 new ideas the DEMs have proposed in the last 4 years.

(1) Evolution
(2) Separation of Church & State
(3) Civil Rights

New to your side at least.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think so, but you may be right. Regardless, that idea is hardly new.

After Bush II: The First Term, I think we can safely use the NBC Summer Rerun Mantra here w/r/t the GOP.*















*"It's New to You!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think so, but you may be right. Regardless, that idea is hardly new.

Oh, you're right. It's just been so long since we had one, I forgot what it was like.

eta: uh, speaking of reruns . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please name 3 new ideas the DEMs have proposed in the last 4 years.

"They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?"

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guess, without looking into it further, is that people who live with each other generally have to, er, live with each other. There's often a power differential where one party is dependant on the other for food, shelter, etc, and the state wants to discourage violence between the parties. Certainly, the abused party could (and probably should) relocate, but often that's a financial, emotional or practical impossibility. If some random person on the street beats the shit out of you, you're in a much better position to stay away from that person in the future. If your spouse does it, your options are more limited.

My impression is that you can get an order of protection, requiring one person to stay from you, even if you aren't married. The domestic battery laws do allow a few things to happen. They allow a police department to mandate that officers take reports or make arrests, even when some dizzy broad is whimpering in a corner that "he didn't give me this black eye, i fell down". I'm not entirely sure, but I think it sometimes allows a judge to order one person out of the house vis a vis an order of protection. But that should still apply, regardless of whether people are married etc....

Which is to say, these laws are stoopid if they are trying to define protections for people in a sexual or otherwise-intimate relationship. If the laws are to address cohabitants, they should just say so. And anybody should be able to get an order of protection. In fact, anybody can. I'll bet that even includes gay people in Utah.

Hello

PS Clubby, posted that doll story as a Chicago Tribune article yesterday. WTF?