You mean it’s not THAT kind?
You mean nasty women in sensible shoes making me do what?
Oh no, no, no, no.
It seems our illustrious banc of increasingly, how shall I say this delicately, CRAZY MF’ing NUTS, have decided that the most minor of offenses (and only being charged) subjects the lucky recipient to a lovely and sexless full body search. Strip it ma’am!
Now, once upon a time, in a universe invented by me, a remember sitting in a classroom at MSU listening to a professor tell me all about his computerized model for predicting the outcome of cases before the supremest of Supremes. He had something like a 93% level of accuracy, so there was something to his madness.
I do very much recall that he suggested that one idea that played heavily on their collective minds in determining these “individual rights” cases, was the degree to which they could envision themselves or others of “their kind” being subjected to the objected of action. Most could see themselves, for instance, stopped in a store by mistake by a security officer who thought they saw something funny. So they were protective of people’s sense of personal privacy when confronted by rent-a-cops.
Well, apparently, five of ’em no longer see the possibility that they might be *gasp* arrested for some minor offense, even by mistake. So they have no problem with all your privaty parts swaying in the wind before strangers as they poke and probe parts unseen since your mommy wiped your butt.
I personally don’t know whether to be offended or excited. I’m still pondering. Denise finds it all odious.
I’m a fan of Andrew Sullivan. Which is not to say that I agree with him on a whole host of issues. But sometimes he is just simply right. If you didn’t see the piece he did on Christianity, then do please follow the link and read it. It’s really good. I’ve been kicking around a post about religion and organized religion for a bit, and this certainly helped to gel some ideas I’ve been bubbling up. The organized Church is to a real extent, merely the vehicle we choose to express our faith. When we start defending the institution, we are probably heading in the wrong direction.
Those of you who hang out here regularly, know that I loves me some quantum mechanics. I get all squishy doe-eyed when quarks are mentioned and singularities, and oh, be still my beating heart–dark energy. Well, here’s one that purely had me giggling. A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney, well, it does explain a lot. It does. Really. Think multiple universes and Romnealities. Think Romneverse. Delicious.
Bless her heart, Ann Romney is doin’ her best to stand by her man. He’s human! He’s funny! He’s a prankster! Ann assures us that he is no stiffy. Just “unzip” him and you’ll see. Well, gosh, I bet she didn’t mean it THAT way. But that’s the way we all took it.
We expect they are a fun family.
But I am concerned about one thing.
They name their kids weird too. Like Tragg.
What is a Tragg? Is it like a Trig or a Bristol or one of those Alaskan things?
Is there something we don’t know here?
Or did Sarah pick it up from Willard?
Wanna use an etch-a-sketch now Ann?
I probably should read more Susan Sontag. I definitely should read more Peter Abelard. I need more lives in order to read all the things I need to read. Which doesn’t even begin to account for all the things I want to read.
Ya know, the Supreme Court. I’ve been reading lots of opinions about what they will do. And why. Mostly about why. I mean lets start out with the fact that they have no enforcement tool. They depend on a sense of legitimacy which will encourage the active arms of government to do as they say. How precarious is that?
So far, it’s not been.
But plenty of folks were disturbed by Bush v Gore, and thought it was partisan.
Plenty of folks are disturbed by Citizens United. Plenty figure the Court is overly supportive of big business interests.
When something like 96% of all legal experts say that the constitutionality of the AHCA is clear, you have to wonder.
Do these black-robes actually care how history views them? Do enough of them care? Does Roberts care?
Kevin Drum at MotherEarthJones has a good article. Would a defeat of the health care act mobilize the Left?
I just read, (without citation) that Willard has said that an economy is simply the sum total of businesses. Has he been reading Rand? I guess workers, consumers, teachers, police, firemen, doctors, and on and on and on, don’t have a thing to do with it. Just fodder. If ever there was a man consumed with the idea that what he
does has done, is the only thing that matters, it’s Willard.
There has been comment on the fact that Newty and Ragin’ have failed to correct or to respond to ugly remarks made by supporters of theirs who ask questions. Things that have to do with the President being a “Muslim” and so forth. It turns out that Willard is cut of the same piece of cheap cloth, more than willing to allow slurs to go unanswered, and even willing to have his picture taken with them. Witness:
And there you have it.
- Tuesday Reads: Wisconsin Recall, Willard on the Defensive, SCOTUS, Another School Shooting, and Trayvon Martin Updates (skydancingblog.com)
- Quantum politics (openparachute.wordpress.com)
- Morning Joe Hosts Break Down Over Idea Of ‘Unzipping’ Mitt Romney (mediaite.com)
- US Supreme Court backs strip search on new inmates (promoteliberty.wordpress.com)
- Supreme Court Ruling: Strip-Searches Allowed for Any Arrest (doggonedmysteries.wordpress.com)