Politics: J'accuse!

[LessinSF]

Don't know why those links aren't working now, but the photos are of naked men on leases, handcuffed to bars and with women's panties on their heads.

Speaking of which, despite Bush rebuking Rumsfeld, I am once again struck by the lack of accountability in this country. No longer does "the buck stop here." There are no generals with the even a tenth of the honor of the Russian air marshal who resigned when Matthias Rust landed his Cessna in Red Square. We cry for the head of Ken Lay for tolerating an atmosphere of deceit and fraud. We hold prison wardens accountable for the behavior of guards. Where is our similar sense of outrage against whichever generals/politicians allowed discipline to get this lax, ultimately probably hurting our Iraq efforts (such as they are) more than ten indiscriminate bombings of crippled baby ophanages.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but, the basis of the SC opinion that held that having different kinds of residential zoning (as opposed to zoning residential, industrial, and commercial and letting the chips fall where they may within those zones) was based on a health, welfare and safety rationale. Which makes NO SENSE.

However, this is not my area, and that case may have gone by the wayside and there is now some other basis for that kind of zoning.

Or maybe it was about covenants. Either way. Unless there is going to be an overall minimum amount of land or square footage or whatever per person, zoning a particular area for residences that are on a certain size lot or that have a certain level of residency, while allowing smaller lots and larger numbers of people in a different area, can't be about health, welfare and safety. There are people living in both places -- if the smaller lots and larger numbers of people is unhealthy, unsafe, and not good for welfare, it is equally bad for both groups.

Maybe an STP problem, but I have no idea what Supreme Court case you're talking about. Could you explain and/or link?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or, in other legal news, that the law passed to keep this lively woman alive was ruled unconstitutional (I assume under the Fla. const.).

It is under the FL constitution. The law provided that for this woman, and ONLY this woman, the governor of FL could overrule a decision by her closest family member (husband) to withdraw the feeding tube of a woman in an irreversible coma.

Now you want the gov't micromanaging people's lives? By passing single-use laws? The issue had been litigated extensively and the husband prevailed, so, instead of letting the family work it out amongst themselves in a personal responsibility kind of way, the governor decided he needed to intervene for this particular person.

And you could slide the eyelids up on a dead person, hold it by the back of the head, and make it look like that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Don't know why those links are working now, but the photos ar of naked me on leases, handcuffed to bars and with women's paties on their heads.

Speaking of which, despite Bush rebuking Rumsfeld, I am once again struck by the lack of accountability in this country. No longer does "the buck stop here." There are no generals with the even a tenth of the honor of the Russian air marshal who resigned when Matthias Rust landed his Cessna in Red Square. We cry for the head of Ken Lay for tolerating an atmosphere of deceit and fraud. We hold prison wardens accountable for the behavior of guards. Where is our similar sense of outrage against whichever generals/politicians allowed discipline to get this lax, ultimately probably hurting our Iraq efforts (such as they are) more than ten indiscriminate bombings of crippled baby ophanages.

FWIW, I'm outraged.

There is a slideshow of the new photos at http://www.washingtonpost.com The one of the woman with the leash is on the front of the homepage.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Duplicity
Maybe an STP problem, but I have no idea what Supreme Court case you're talking about. Could you explain and/or link?

I said several times, I dont' remember the name of the case. It may well be cited in this one, though. I will look later.

1. Warth v. Seldin, (1975)

2. Facts: ¹s are minority citizens and associations of Rochester, NY. Æs are members of the zoning commission of Penfield, a city adjacent to Rochester that has allegedly discriminatory zoning laws, preventing the building of low and moderate income housing.

3. Procedural Posture: The lower courts dismissed the case for lack of standing.

4. Issue: Whether the ¹s had standing.

5. Holding: No.

6. Majority Reasoning: The ¹s must show that they have suffered some concrete injury or threatened injury from allegedly illegal action to satisfy the consitutional requirements of cases and controversies of Art. III. Also, the ¹s must show that their grievance is not just a generalized one of a large class, and that they are not bringing an action on behalf of a third party. The ¹s must also show that a favorable ruling would provide actual relief, not just speculative relief. Here, none of the minority citizens has alleged facts that show an actual injury, they are merely representatives of a larger class. None of them has ever lived, or alleged that they would live in Penfield were the zoning laws different. Also, they have not show that a favorable ruling would allow them to get the housing they need. The various organizations fail standing for the same reasons.

7. Dissent Reasoning: [Brennan] The court views each separate ¹ as if it were bringing a separate lawsuit, rather than seeing that their allegations are intertwined to be sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. One can not expect the ¹s to have enough knowlege, prior to discovery, to allege specific enough facts that the majority requires.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, I'm outraged.

There is a slideshow of the new photos at http://www.washingtonpost.com The one of the woman with the leash is on the front of the homepage.

Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/in...st/06PSYC.html

"In 1971 researchers at Stanford University created a simulated prison in the basement of the campus psychology building. They randomly assigned 24 students to be either prison guards or prisoners for two weeks.

Within days the "guards" had become swaggering and sadistic, to the point of placing bags over the prisoners' heads, forcing them to strip naked and encouraging them to perform sexual acts."

The study was ended a week early because of the inhumanity; four of the students who were assigned to be prisoners had breakdowns.

Nifty.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It is under the FL constitution. The law provided that for this woman, and ONLY this woman, the governor of FL could overrule a decision by her closest family member (husband) to withdraw the feeding tube of a woman in an irreversible coma.

Now you want the gov't micromanaging people's lives? By passing single-use laws? The issue had been litigated extensively and the husband prevailed, so, instead of letting the family work it out amongst themselves in a personal responsibility kind of way, the governor decided he needed to intervene for this particular person.

And you could slide the eyelids up on a dead person, hold it by the back of the head, and make it look like that.

I refer everyone back to this post. I renew the sentiment in it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I said several times, I dont' remember the name of the case. It may well be cited in this one, though. I will look later.

I'm guessing you're thinking of Euclid v. Ambler. But it was decided in 1926 (Lochner, indeed), when we still were accepting tired, poor huddled masses, the wretched refuse from the teeming shore of other countries.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm guessing you're thinking of Euclid v. Ambler. But it was decided in 1926 (Lochner, indeed), when we still were accepting tired, poor huddled masses, the wretched refuse from the teeming shore of other countries.

that is indeed the case. Ty, read it, it's ludicrous.

"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circum- [272 U.S. 365, 395] stances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances. "

Yeah, because kids don't live in apartment houses.

What's Lochner?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/in...st/06PSYC.html

The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment were required reading (and disturbing viewing) in my undergrad psych classes, mostly to make the point that no one was allowed to do cool experiments on human subjects anymore. The idea is that human subjects don't trust that they were chosen precisely because they were representative of humanity in general, so when they find out what they were capable of, they think they were somehow uniquely capable of evil when the reality is (and the point of the experiment was) that anyone can do evil in the right environment --- that is, when they're given permission.

Zimbardo and Milgram were high school classmates who wound up conducting obedience experiments on opposite coasts from each other. That must have been one fucked up high school.

I think the more disturbing studies are the ones that show death penalty jurors all seem to recall the judge actually telling them they were supposed to vote "death." It's a basic fact of life that within groups, shared responsibility means no responsibility.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
that is indeed the case. Ty, read it, it's ludicrous.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I find that passage remarkably prescient.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oll/index.html

47/47 for Reg. Voters.

Kerry 49, Bush 48 -- likely voters.


SPC Graner and his buds may have (at least temporarily) enahnced the Iraq effect.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Perhaps not surprisingly, I find that passage remarkably prescient.

If apt buildings take over your McMansion neighborhood, you can move. Just like people whose apartments get too expensive can move, instead of getting rent-control passed as a LAW to protect them from the big scary market. Why do kids in single-family areas get nice lawns and stuff and kids in apartment areas dont' have the same protectible right to sunshine and fresh air?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why do kids in single-family areas get nice lawns and stuff and kids in apartment areas dont' have the same protectible right to sunshine and fresh air?

Why do kids in some neighborhoods get driven around in Mercedes SUVs and kids in other neighborhoods slum it in Town & Country minivans?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Zoning is the new polygamy. Someone had to fill the refreshing void left by Not Me's absence.

Curse you, GGG for this topic!

S_A_M