LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=661)

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!

Does anyone have any insight into China v. Japan? I know next to nothing about the situation, except it makes me a little uneasy.

ETA
Oh, and that I have a crush on Rob Gifford at NPR.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
By the way- they now estimate 300000 bodies found in Sadaam's graves- no word on whehter they were treated humanely before the bullet or stump crusher hit them.

Wow, that's a lot of bodies! That Saddam sure was a bad man. I guess the war was completely justified after all. I'm sure glad we didn't kill or torture anybody over there who didn't totally deserve it. :D

Just out of curiousity, what's the minimum number of bodies in mass graves sufficient to constitute a post-hoc justification for a U.S. invasion?

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone have any insight into China v. Japan? I know next to nothing about the situation, except it makes me a little uneasy.

China was a prohibitive favorite early on, based on Japan being so far out of its natural weight class. However, Japan has a history of surprising aggressiveness and skill, and having Uncle Sam in its corner is a big plus. Japan can be expected to hang in there and make things interesting until the late rounds, but in the end will be no match for China's size and staying power.

Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Wow, that's a lot of bodies! That Saddam sure was a bad man. I guess the war was completely justified after all. I'm sure glad we didn't kill or torture anybody over there who didn't totally deserve it. :D

Just out of curiousity, what's the minimum number of bodies in mass graves sufficient to constitute a post-hoc justification for a U.S. invasion?

The number has to be considerably higher than 3 million if it is determined that the dead were lawyers.

What do you call a million dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start!

[cue laugh track]

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
The number has to be considerably higher than 3 million if it is determined that the dead were lawyers.

I think there is a specific carve-out for lawyers in the Geneva Convention. Anything goes when it comes to hos and so forth.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. Okay, thanks. I sound like a bad person- would you take over raising my kids?

For the right price, sure.

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
China was a prohibitive favorite early on, based on Japan being so far out of its natural weight class. However, Japan has a history of surprising aggressiveness and skill, and having Uncle Sam in its corner is a big plus. Japan can be expected to hang in there and make things interesting until the late rounds, but in the end will be no match for China's size and staying power.

I'm not sure why, but you've become much funnier lately.

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure why, but you've become much funnier lately.

Thanks. Probably I've loosened up since the election, but it might also be the online courses from DeVry Tech.

baseless rumormongering

This is the type of thing that, if true, could lead to an insurrection.

Only two books on a flight? Are they crazy?

If the TSA guy misread the materials and it was supposed to be two books of matches, why the fuck is the TSA hiring morons like that?

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I agree with you, to a point, about "I don't know why people, that are not being stalked, want to carry firearms". Partly because I don't and don't want to carry a firearm.

But I'd extend your list from just "stalking victims" to storeowners and all kinds of other "good, certifiable" people in bad neighborhoods. In the genteel suburbs of Virginia, this seems almost entirely academic. But in Richmond, I'd imagine a few decent people might want to carry a gun just to walk around the neighborhood.

FWIW, I have an uncle who was a parole officer in VA. He is not only permitted to carry concealed, he is apparently REQUIRED to carry concealed, at all times, everywhere. He's been shot at by pissed off parolees, as have members of his family - fucking lousy job, actually. But then he retired at 55 with shockingly good benefits, so I guess it paid off.

Granted, the problem is determining what constitutes a good enough reason to be exempted from bans. But basically anyone who has to deal with criminals professionally seems to have a good argument IMHO.

If I have a reason to be carrying concealed, I would be very, very distressed at the prospect of there being a place I wasn't permitted to cary. College students and church-goers get stalked, too, even in nice neighborhoods.

BR(whackadoo, I guess)C

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I suspect that abortion of fetuses with Down's Syndrome or other detectable and severe developmental problems is disproportionately high in places other than China and India. Like in the US.

Once a woman reaches her late 30s -- I think it's 36 -- she is likely, if not required, to be screened during pregnancy for Down's Syndrome and several other serious developmental problems. That's because the incidence of such conditions begins to climb at that age (and increases to a really scary level within a few years). The process of this test leads people who would not otherwise consider having an abortion to consider it -- in other words, to consider terminating a pregnancy that was planned and desired, because they don't want to bring severely disabled child into the world. I have personally been through this discussion, though thankfully the tests were all negative and the decision we'd reached didn't have to be put into effect. And I know that I'm not alone in this. (In fact a friend recently went through the same process, but had to follow through with her decision.)

So, to answer your question -- I'm sure the incidence of Down's is lower than it would be because of abortion. I doubt that this trend began as early as 1973, however, because the testing procedures have gotten much more sophisticated and accurate in more recent years. And the overall incidence may well be up since, say, the 60s, because of other factors -- most importantly, more women waiting until they are in their late 30s or older to get pregnant.

Thanks Sidd. I think you are right. The person I am closest to in the world is a late-30's sister who is currently pregnant. She's been through a lot (not like, battered-wife/divorced/orphaned a lot, but like warzones/caring for dying parent(s) while raising young daughter and working as sworn police officer a lot). She used to be pro-choice til she had her daughter. Now she's fiercely pro-life.

Giving credit where credit is due, Sebby and others said a pro-life Catholic is someone who is pro-Life until they have a reason to have an abortion.

The most uncomfortable conversation I've had with her in probably 3 or 4 years was her telling me about the gender/medical likelihoods testing during pregnancy. She wouldn't say it, but it was implicit in the conversation that if the fetus tested for Down's syndrome etc... we were both going to hell for even thinking what we were thinking. So we just didn't say it, but it was there. Believe me, when people like me are having these thoughts, I can't help but wonder if anyone is having handicapped kids anymore. Which is why I asked FWIW.

Someone oughta do a study on this.

Hello

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Thanks Sidd. I think you are right. The person I am closest to in the world is a late-30's sister who is currently pregnant. She's been through a lot (not like, battered-wife/divorced/orphaned a lot, but like warzones/caring for dying parent(s) while raising young daughter and working as sworn police officer a lot). She used to be pro-choice til she had her daughter. Now she's fiercely pro-life.

Giving credit where credit is due, Sebby and others said a pro-life Catholic is someone who is pro-Life until they have a reason to have an abortion.

The most uncomfortable conversation I've had with her in probably 3 or 4 years was her telling me about the gender/medical likelihoods testing during pregnancy. She wouldn't say it, but it was implicit in the conversation that if the fetus tested for Down's syndrome etc... we were both going to hell for even thinking what we were thinking. So we just didn't say it, but it was there. Believe me, when people like me are having these thoughts, I can't help but wonder if anyone is having handicapped kids anymore. Which is why I asked FWIW.

Someone oughta do a study on this.

Hello

You make it sound as though what you and she were thinking was that she might abort if the baby tested positive for Downs (note: there are different severities of Downs, and it's my understanding that current testing methods can distinguish between mild and severe). How does this comport with "fiercely pro-life"? Perhaps "mildly pro-life" or "not quite as strongly pro-choice as she once was."

Which is to say, WTF, you are contradicting yourself. Unless you both think you will go to hell for carrying a disabled baby to term, which seems odd.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You make it sound as though what you and she were thinking was that she might abort if the baby tested positive for Downs (note: there are different severities of Downs, and it's my understanding that current testing methods can distinguish between mild and severe). How does this comport with "fiercely pro-life"? Perhaps "mildly pro-life" or "not quite as strongly pro-choice as she once was."

Which is to say, WTF, you are contradicting yourself. Unless you both think you will go to hell for carrying a disabled baby to term, which seems odd.

I addressed this with my attribution to the only valid point Sebby ever made!

Fiercely pro-life is a position some people would take right up to the moment of "hello Mr. and Mrs. Fiercely Pro-Life... care to raise and care for a handicapped child, and then leave the handicapped child in the hands of the state when your time comes"?

Another way of putting it is, fiercely pro-Life is
a.) for everybody else, no exceptions; and
b.) for us, unless we have a reason not to be.

Is it too late to test you?

Oh my God, just kidding :blush:

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone have any insight into China v. Japan? I know next to nothing about the situation, except it makes me a little uneasy.

ETA
Oh, and that I have a crush on Rob Gifford at NPR.

China & Japan: Now there is a scary situation. I worked at a law firm in Tokyo and got a crash course in Chinese and Japanese relations. Our law firm had many attorneys from different countries and one day there was a new Asian lawyer at the firm. I assumed he was Japanese. When I asked one of the more enlightened Japanese lawyers who the new Japanese lawyer was, I got a completely shocked response "can't you tell he is not Japanese!?!?!?!?". Pretty soon I had all sorts of Japanese employees of the firm asking me "is it true you can't tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese?". That is when I started to figure out that the Japanese think they are completely different, and completely superior to the Chinese. Deep down, most of them think that the atrocities of the war are exaggerated because they lost, and China benefited greatly by the presence of the Japanese. One of my neighbors was Chinese, and his family had lived in Japan for three Generations. He married a Japanese girl. However, he still could not obtain Japanese citizenship, and his wife's family disowned her because they got married.

One night I got drunk with the two Chinese lawyers in our firm, and their hatred of the Japanese really came out. Being the American moron, I thought Japan and America were allies and friends because we are capitalist, and China is the enemy because they are communist. They straightened me out. I figured they did not like the US because we slaughtered a million chines in the Korean war. They didn't care so much about that but were very angry that we were so nice to the Japense during the occupation. The United State biggest crime was building up the Japanese. Most night clubs in Tokyo would let me in (some did not allow any foreigners) but almost all nightclubs would not let the Chinese lawyers in.

When I travelled to China with Japanese lawyers we were treated really badly by the waiters etc in China. When I was not traveling with the Japanese lawyers I got much better treatment. The Chinese I did business with could not believe that I was working for a Japanese lawfirm. Whenever they found out I was working for Japanese law firm I was told about the atrocities during the war. It is also "common knowledge" in China that the Japanese offer normal jobs to unsuspecting Chinese woman and then they are turned into sex slaves and tortured constantly. They sincerely believes this happens to hundreds of thousands of Chinese woman. The Chinese are also well aware that the Japanese consider themselves superior and downplay the WWII atrocities which really rankles the Chinese.

When I told my Japanese collegues about the Chinese sentiment, they told me it was just propaganda and that the Chinese people could see through it. Besides, they were the true victims of the war because they lost and were hit with Atomic Bombs.

Obviously this is just a personal experience and I am projecting my experience onto millions of people. Normally, I would think that economics conquers all but this case may be an exception. I don't think the Japanese government (and people) fully appreciate the sensitivity and the anger over the World War II issue. This lack of appreciation could have catastrophic consequences.

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I addressed this with my attribution to the only valid point Sebby ever made!

Fiercely pro-life is a position some people would take right up to the moment of "hello Mr. and Mrs. Fiercely Pro-Life... care to raise and care for a handicapped child, and then leave the handicapped child in the hands of the state when your time comes"?

Another way of putting it is, fiercely pro-Life is
a.) for everybody else, no exceptions; and
b.) for us, unless we have a reason not to be.

Is it too late to test you?

Oh my God, just kidding :blush:

I appreciate your honesty.

The abortion issues sucks. I think there are two questions that define the abortion issue.

1) If abortion is illegal, what sort of penalty do you give a girl who has an abortion?
2) If abortion is legal, for someone who kicks a woman in the stomach trying to terminate her pregnancy, can you only prosecute them for assault and battery?

I think most reasonable people would say that if a woman has an abortion they should not be prosecuted for murder (or prosecuted at all for that matter). On the other hand I think most reasonable people would like to prosecute someone for murder when they assault a woman with the intent of ending her pregnancy.

These two "reasonable" positions seem to contradict eachother. I would like to keep abortion legal, but on the other hand I am glad that Scott Peterson got convicted of a double murder.