Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'll pile on 2.

I am hardly a member of the Christian right, but even aside from the possibility of serious embarassment, I think its generally a bad idea to have your kids see you cheerfully break the law.

I'd think it would make responsible parenting harder, once the kids are old enough to understand, in part because kids tend to be absolutist in their thinking.

S_A_M

hmm... My dad, when asked about his blatant disregard for the helpful reminders along the highway that the speed limit was, in fact, 55 miles per hour and not the 89 that he was crusing along at, would say "I might be guilty, but I don't feel guilty."

Other than genetically predetermined disregard for traffic laws and the occassional illegal substance use, I am and have been a pretty law abiding citizen.

Oh yeah, and I own more than six vibrators. I think that may be illegal in this state.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Either way, daddy's a deadbeat.

Sure, if daddy drinks himself blind. If he drinks a few glasses of wine at night, though, he's not. And if you refuse to accept that occasional drinking is more socially acceptable, not to mention less criminal, than drug use, then you are in dire need of therapy for that delusion, too.

Whatever. I never yapped to anyone adult about my parents smoking whatever.

Do you really remember everything you said/blurted out before you were 9 years old?

I thought you were a partner, anyway.

I am. So what? If you think that means I don't have any interesting in keeping some aspects of my life private, you're nuts.

And the law applies to us as well. Two months ago there were a few cops in my house -- parents of my son's schoolmates. They didn't mind seeing the booze cabinet, but I'd have been a lot more nervous if my son knew where my stash was. ("Daddy gets really funny after he gets this box out!").

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh yeah, and I own more than six vibrators. I think that may be illegal in this state.

Because you're being coy about the exact number, I take it that Texas has sentencing guidelines for vibrator possession crimes, and that the size of the penalties is directly proportional to the number of devices? Or are you worried about being charged with trafficking?

eta: hi Burger!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
hmm... My dad, when asked about his blatant disregard for the helpful reminders along the highway that the speed limit was, in fact, 55 miles per hour and not the 89 that he was crusing along at, would say "I might be guilty, but I don't feel guilty."

Other than genetically predetermined disregard for traffic laws and the occassional illegal substance use, I am and have been a pretty law abiding citizen.

Oh yeah, and I own more than six vibrators. I think that may be illegal in this state.

Speeding isn't addictive.

I'm not right-wing on drug use. Hardly. I'm not anti-drug at all. But drugs are extremely risky to kids, or to others without self-control. The line society has drawn around drugs is absolute. The line it's drawn around alcohol is age-based. I find it very hard to say "well, when you're older" to my kid. When he's fifteen, maybe. At four, no.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


Oh yeah, and I own more than six vibrators. I think that may be illegal in this state.

Six creates a presumption of intent to distribute illegal devices?

[ETA: Hi R_T! Can you get me my toy fix?]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You didn't say who you were quoting, so I'm going to see if I can guess. The Christian Right is pretty happy this week with the idea that they got Bush re-elected. They would rather see Bush spend his political capital on overturning Roe and fighting gay marriage, as opposed to "reforming" Social Security and otherwise redistributing government money to rich people. So it's got to be someone generally more interested in the latter priorities than the former, who's downplaying the role of the cultural conservatives. It's fine for the Christian Right to show up and vote, but movement conservatives would rather that they go back to the deepest, reddest parts of the country between elections.

Sorry, it was Krauthammer http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...20041112.shtml

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because you're being coy about the exact number, I take it that Texas has sentencing guidelines for vibrator possession crimes, and that the size of the penalties is directly proportional to the number of devices? Or are you worried about being charged with trafficking?

eta: hi Burger!

Specifically, I'm concerned with this language: "A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same." Apparently, I've moved from user to dealer. Tex. Penal Code § 43.23 (f)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Specifically, I'm concerned with this language: "A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same." Apparently, I've moved from user to dealer. Tex. Penal Code § 43.23 (f)

Is it a rebutable presumption? Perhaps if you create a lengthy record -- say, on the FB -- about what you have done and intend to do with these devices, you will be protecting yourself in the event of a future prosecution.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is it a rebutable presumption? Perhaps if you create a lengthy record -- say, on the FB -- about what you have done and intend to do with these devices, you will be protecting yourself in the event of a future prosecution.

I'm pretty sure only video would meet the requisite evidentiary threshold.

But, I'm not admitted in Texas.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm pretty sure only video would meet the requisite evidentiary threshold.

But, I'm not admitted in Texas.

I'm surprised neither one of you has suggested that only first hand observation by a disinterested third party of personal use of the devices in question would do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm surprised neither one of you has suggested that only first hand observation by a disinterested third party of personal use of the devices in question would do.

Who can be "disinterested" when confronted with a compelling public-policy problem of this sort?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kevin Drum has a really good post here about the discrepancies between the exit polls in battleground states and the vote talleys, and about the conspiracy theories floating around the blogosphere about the same.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'll pile on 2.

I am hardly a member of the Christian right, but even aside from the possibility of serious embarassment, I think its generally a bad idea to have your kids see you cheerfully break the law.

S_A_M

But its an imbecile's law. Its got no rational basis. Don't argue this with me... as long as booze is legal, you'll never be able to make an argument that marijuana should not be. Don't use the "slippery slope" because that should only apply to skiing. Don't tell me the "gateway drug" myth - its crap and you know it.

But, pragmatically speaking, as long as society decides to remain hypocritical and attach a stigma to recreational drug use, I guess I'll have to probably discourage my kids from smoking pot.

My very conservative folks know I smoke it. Their fear has always been me getting caught, not hurting myself. Even they couldn't hold up the "It'll ruin your life" lie.

I'll tell my kids we have a decpreit corrupt govt full of liars, draft dodgers and perverts kissing crucifixes, and because of it, they should not get caught smoking pot. But I'd much rather have them do it than drink. If I could do it again, I'd have bagged booze and smoked more pot. I'd have probably been more focused and creative than hungover till 4 the next day...

SD

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But its an imbecile's law. Its got no rational basis. Don't argue this with me... as long as booze is legal, you'll never be able to make an argument that marijuana should not be. Don't use the "slippery slope" because that should only apply to skiing. Don't tell me the "gateway drug" myth - its crap and you know it.

But, pragmatically speaking, as long as society decides to remain hypocritical and attach a stigma to recreational drug use, I guess I'll have to probably discourage my kids from smoking pot.

My very conservative folks know I smoke it. Their fear has always been me getting caught, not hurting myself. Even they couldn't hold up the "It'll ruin your life" lie.

I'll tell my kids we have a decpreit corrupt govt full of liars, draft dodgers and perverts kissing crucifixes, and because of it, they should not get caught smoking pot. But I'd much rather have them do it than drink. If I could do it again, I'd have bagged booze and smoked more pot. I'd have probably been more focused and creative than hungover till 4 the next day...

SD

I agree with you, I think, and am uh confused about Sidd's concern about the addictiveness of pot, and how it's a slippery slope from that to other harder drugs. (a) I thought the whole pot argument was that it isn't even as addictive as cigarettes, and (ii) if they see that mom and dad smoke pot, but don't do other harder drugs, they are more likely to see a line between pot and the more damaging, addictive drugs than than if pot were lumped in with cocaine and meth as "bad illegal horrible" things.

Sidd's sounding a lot like that guy who wrote the sins book.*



*the one who then got caught gambling or whatever

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kevin Drum has a really good post here about the discrepancies between the exit polls in battleground states and the vote talleys, and about the conspiracy theories floating around the blogosphere about the same.

It's remarkable that the conspiracy theories assume the discrepancy arises from faulty voting mechanisms rather than faulty polling mechanisms.

David Duke was supposed to lose every election by a landslide.