Random News Stories

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"THEY'RE SCARED BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERDUCATED, LOL"
                                      \

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"What do you do at work, Daddy?"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"THEY'RE SCARED BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERDUCATED, LOL"
                                      \

RELATED STORY?

We don't have an unlimited Tennessee appreciation thread yet, do we?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/01/1802811/tennessee-advances-legislation-that-would-tie-welfare-to-childrens-grades/?mobile=nc

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"What do you do at work, Daddy?"

THIS IS WHY WE DON'T STARE OUT AT THE DESERT ALL DAMN DAY, KIDS.  THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE BUT BADWRONG THOUGHTS AND NOISES THAT SOUND LIKE BATS OVERLAID WITH THAT CHICK SINGING FUR ELISE.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

"THEY'RE SCARED BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERDUCATED, LOL"
                                      \

RELATED STORY?

We don't have an unlimited Tennessee appreciation thread yet, do we?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/01/1802811/tennessee-advances-legislation-that-would-tie-welfare-to-childrens-grades/?mobile=nc

Respectfully disagree. People who need welfare do not have a choice, and shitting on them for being poor is inexcusable. A radio show, however, is not compulsory. Furthermore, regardless of the average listener's education level, the fact that these goofy morning people are running a gag show shouldn't be lost on said average listener.

Now, I'm against class warfare, or warfare of almost any type, but this isn't that. There's a point at which a person should be expected to bring his or her own brains to the fucking party. It is not society's job to tiptoe around the delicate issue of "some people are dumb," and it isn't society's job to skip a good chuckle just because somebody can't take a fucking joke that isn't singling anyone out. Maybe the joke was irresponsible, but they did take the necessary precautions -- like openly stating the whole thing was a joke during every break.

The deejays aren't to blame, here. Certainly not to the tune of felony charges. I mean, at what point do grown adults get to be responsible for their own behavior? And at what point do I get to live in a society where the government doesn't start LOCKING PEOPLE UP every time somebody gets embarrassed?

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22008430

UK lawyers appear to be ready to argue that a brain injury makes this chap a more responsible gun owner somehow.

LOGIC

[Junkenstein]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/04/pat-robertson-blames-ivy-league-schools-for-lack-of-miracles-in-america.php

Apparently "Sophisticated" people experience less miracles. Unlike "Humble" Africans.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22011598

Australia saw how much fun the UK is having with child abuse inquiries so it's holding one of it's own.

A national inquiry into child sex abuse has opened in the Australian city of Melbourne, with more than 5,000 people expected to provide evidence of "abuse and consequential trauma".

PM Julia Gillard has warned that the commission will unearth "some very uncomfortable truths".

She said that its opening was an "important moral moment" for Australia.

The inquiry will look at religious groups, NGOs and state care providers as well as government agencies.

But commission officials have warned that it is unlikely to complete its task by the end of 2015 as requested.

They say that is because the scope of the inquiry is so large - in relation to the number of people testifying and the number of institutions who may be affected by the allegations.

The probe will look into institutional responses to the sexual abuse of children.

I would think the results somewhat inevitable. Systemic failings. Culture of silence. "Learning from mistakes". Add your cliché of choice.

[Cain]

Oh, the Australian case is interesting in its own right.  It's safe to say the Catholic Church, to give one example, operated with a culture of impunity.   In fact, it reads like an organized crime ring, with priests threatening witnesses with dogs and, in one case, a firearm.  Priests were moved out of the country to prevent prosecution, evidence went "missing" with alarming frequency and the situation was so bad the NSW Chief of Police came out and said that the Vatican was interferring in the case.

There have also been a number of rumours about a well connected ring operating in South Australia, though I'm struggling to find my initial source on this.  A 1970s Australian TV "light entertainment" star was also convicted of sexually abusing several children only a year or two ago.

And then there is this http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/paedophile-bust-saved-children-20110316-1bxau.html

THREE Victorian children have been ''saved'' by federal police who helped smash the largest international online paedophile network ever uncovered.

The three boys, and another from New South Wales, all aged under 14, are some of the 230 rescued from harm worldwide during investigations that found an internet forum, which sought child abuse material, had 70,000 members.

Subsequent arrests have shown at least some of this network is based in Australia.

[Junkenstein]

Oh great. Will read more around it. The list of offenders is strangely similar though. Guess that's part of the shared heritage thing. Similar cultures trust similar authorities?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21999352

Pakistan Militants doing what they do. In this case attacking the local power plant.

[Elder Iptuous]

Samoa Air becomes first airline to implement "pay as you weigh" system

[Juana]

North Carolina demonstrates its total lack of understanding of the Constitution, the process of amending the Constitution, constitutional law, and history.

iser on Apr 3, 2013 at 10:32 am


The Constitution "does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional" according to a resolution sponsored by North Carolina House Majority Leader Edgar Starnes (R) and ten of his fellow Republicans — a statement that puts them at odds with over 200 years of constitutional law. In light of this novel reading of the Constitution, Starnes and his allies also claim that North Carolina is free to ignore the Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

    SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

This resolution is nothing less than an effort to repudiate the result of the Civil War. As the resolution correctly notes, the First Amendment merely provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and, indeed, the Bill of Rights was originally understood to only place limits on the federal government. For the earliest years of the Republic, the Bill of Rights were not really "rights" at all, but were instead guidelines on which powers belonged to central authorities and which ones remained exclusively in the hands of state lawmakers.

In 1868, however the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified for the express purpose of changing this balance of power. While the early Constitution envisioned "rights" as little more than a battle between central and local government, the Fourteenth Amendment ushered in a more modern understanding. Under this amendment, "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," nor may any state "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment completely transformed the nature of the American Republic, from one where liberties were generally protected — if at all — by tensions between competing governments to one which recognized that there are certain liberties that cannot be abridged by any government.

There is some academic debate about whether the architects of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states because these liberties are part of the "privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or because they are liberties that cannot be denied under the Constitution's "due process" guarantees. Regardless of the correct answer to this academic question, however, one of the most important judicial projects of the Twentieth Century was a series of Supreme Court decisions applying most of the Bill of Rights' limits to state governments. This project completed the work the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment began nearly 150 year ago — reconstructing America as a nation that recognizes certain civil rights which no lawmaker is allowed to trample. The right to be free from government endorsements of religious is one of these civil rights.

So when Starnes and his colleagues lash out against this one freedom, they are not simply lashing out against some court decisions that they disagree with. They are rejecting the most transformative moment in American constitutional history and denying that their side lost the Civil War.

A class on the Constitution should be required for entry into governing bodies in this country.

[EK WAFFLR]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/04/florida-djs-april-fools-water-joke/63798/

[Junkenstein]

That's not entirely unlike one of my first brain spasms here.

Seems it's caused rage among those who resent being reminded of their stupidity. Surprising.

[Elder Iptuous]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/04/florida-djs-april-fools-water-joke/63798/

it amazes me that there are people that have not heard that joke a thousand times...