donkeyrock
shared this story
from  reddit: the front page of the internet.
|
| submitted by Nomadmusic to todayilearned [link] [99 comments] |
Source: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
donkeyrock
shared this story
from  The Honest Courtesan.
|
If they come for me in the morning, they're coming for you that night. – Monica Jones
Eleven months ago Monica Jones, a transgender sex worker, activist and social work student at Arizona State, was arrested for “manifestation of prostitution”, Arizona's label for the tyrannical laws which allow cops virtually everywhere in the United States to arrest any woman they like by claiming she “acted like a whore”. The tag “Lack of Evidence” is full of such instances, and I synopsized a few of them in “Be Careful Who You Rape”:
…When prostitution is criminalized to any degree, women who carry condoms, answer personal ads, wear sexy lingerie, go without lingerie, fail forced “virginity tests”, ask a cop if he's a cop, “act sexy”, go out after dark without a male chaperone, or even just “look like a prostitute” are regularly arrested and charged with having sex for a reason some people don't like…
Though there have been a few cases of such ridiculously-flimsy charges being struck down lately, those were not in Phoenix, Arizona, a city so addicted to authoritarianism it has kept Joe Arpaio in office for 22 years. Jones argued in class with Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, the ethically-retarded academic paid by Arizona prohibitionists to produce bogus “studies” for them; she was thrown out of a previous “diversion” program for refuting the lies and exaggerations the propagandists were trying to drum into their victims; she has prominently protested the blatantly-unconstitutional Project ROSE; and she has posted Backpage ads to warn sex workers about the stings held to force women into the program. In other words, she was a known enemy of the Phoenix prohibitionist machine and ventured into public (i.e. cop territory) during a time she knew they were out hunting; it was a virtual certainty she would be arrested. And though many activists expressed shock and surprise when she was found guilty eleven days ago, I would've been extremely ...read more
Source: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
donkeyrock
shared this story
from  Police State USA.
|
(Source: Facebook / Justice for Candy Middleton)
RAINS COUNTY, TX — A man says that when he called police to report that his home had been burglarized, he waited hours for an officer to arrive — only to witness his dog promptly being shot in the head by the responding deputy. He says when backup arrived, they mocked and intimidated him with a taser.
On April 18th, Cole and Jayna Middleton discovered that their home had been broken into. Several items had been stolen, including the family's firearms. Mr. Middleton phoned the Rains County Sheriff's Office for help.
Mr. Middleton, a farmer and cattle rancher, tended his crops while waiting approximately 2.5 hours for a deputy to arrive and take a police report. Middleton's father was in the pasture with him, along with the family's beloved pet and trusted cow-herder ‘Candy.' Candy was a 3-year-old Blue Heeler (also known as an Australian Cattle Dog) and weighed approximately 40 pounds. She was sitting in the back of a pickup truck as they worked.
When Rains County Deputy Jerred Dooley arrived, Middleton and his father both say they witnessed the deputy stick his head into the door of their house, which was nearly 40 yards away. Candy barked at the unknown stranger, hopped out of the truck and approached the house “bark[ing] like all good dogs do,” Middleton described.
Cole Middeton and his father immediately made their way up to the house to meet the deputy, but it was already too late. Candy was dying on the ground of a gunshot wound to the head.
“I shot your dog, sorry,” Middleton remembers Deputy Dooley telling him.
‘Candy' lies dead after being shot by a Rains County TX deputy. (Source: Facebook / Justice for Candy Middleton)
Middleton says that Candy was shot behind the ear — in the side of her head — a wound he believes indicates that she was not facing the deputy.
The deputy then retreated to his squad car, and using his vehicle loudspeaker, ordered the men “do not approach the vehicle.” Reinforcements were called.
Middleton says that he could not bear to see his dog “yelping and thrashing in unbearable ...read more
Source: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
|
donkeyrock
shared this story
from |
It's A Bad Thing That Doctors Can't Own Hospitals Anymore
Doctors can't own hospitals anymore -- a direct result of government policy, writes Loren Heal at FreedomWorks.org -- and this is not good for patients:
Doctors effectively can't own new hospitals any more. That's because the Big Hospital lobby convinced the leftists who designed Obamacare that physicans owning hospitals was a conflict of interest. That's right: according to that theory, the people who have devoted their lives to the study of medicine want to own hospitals so they can profit by withholding care, or by overcharging for it.The trouble with that line of reasoning is that the non-physicians in charge of hospitals and insurance companies have no such conflict. Their incentives are to provide as little care as possible while charging as much as they can. Their desire to protect their personal reputations and adherence to ethical code are not as strong as for physicians.
As a solution, he'd like to see a repeal of Obamacare. Anybody think that is likely to happen?
via @ScrewedByState
...read moreSource: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
donkeyrock
shared this story
from  Overlawyered.
|
President Obama has signed a bill he deems unconstitutional — it purports to (very slightly) restrict presidential authority to receive certain foreign ambassadors on U.S. territory — while issuing a signing statement calling the measure “advisory” [Josh Blackman] If Congress tries to get away with something unconstitutional, isn't it more consistent with the President's oath to defend the Constitution for him to veto it rather than sign-and-ignore?
One might sympathize (if not necessarily agree) with a President who gave up and signed a 400-page omnibus funding bill containing an unconstitutional provision on page 237 about the Cedar Rapids post office. But a bill whose whole point is unconstitutional is supposed to be the easy case, no?
Tags: constitutional lawAllergic to vetoes? is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
...read moreSource: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
donkeyrock
shared this story
from  Popehat.
|
Today's guest author, Jim Ardis, is the Mayor of Peoria, Illinois.
Ladies and gentlemen, the rule of law is what separates us from animals and barbarians and people from Joliet. It is that rule of law that I now invoke to prevent so-called "satire" from being used to abuse my person and position.
By now you have heard that someone pretending to be me on Twitter has breached the peace by suggesting that I am some sort of corrupt, disturbed drug fiend. The statements attributed to me have been scandalous, personally hurtful, and textually ambiguous.
Let me clear some things up right now:
People may believe that they can get away with mocking me or saying unpleasant things about me because of the "First Amendment." They are mistaken. Here in Peoria we have a system that respects the law — and respecting the law means respecting the Office of Mayor. When I was victimized by satire — abused by someone with no regard ...read more
Source: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
donkeyrock
shared this story
from  Marginal REVOLUTION.
|
From Mark R. Rank:
…Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell and I looked at 44 years of longitudinal data regarding individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience these different levels of affluence during their lives. The results were striking.
It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What's more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.
Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12 percent of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, a mere 0.6 percent will do so in 10 consecutive years.
It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60).
A further example of such fluidity can be found in an analysis by the tax-policy expert Robert Carroll. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Carroll showed that between 1999 and 2007, half of those who earned over $1 million a year did so just once during this period, while only 6 percent reported millionaire status across all nine years.
There is more here, via Greg Mankiw.
...read moreSource: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog
