The music of torture

I read on CNN.com today that some noisy teens who were causing a nuisance in their community are being penalized in an unusual(albeit effective in my mind) way. They are being forced to listen to Barry Manilow. With this in mind, here is my top ten list of bands/singers who would provide the most effective form of punishment for people, regardless of their age.

1) Michael McLean (I wouldn't even listen to it as a missionary)

2) Depeche Mode (aka Depress Mode)

3) Guns & Roses (aka Scums & Posers)

4) Cher (Plastic Surgery 101)

5) Barry Manilow (Coco Cabana: need I say more)

6) Blink 182 (Mike Tyson is their lead vocalist)

7) REO Speedwagon (RrrrrrrEO Speedwagon)

8) Neil Diamond ("Sweet Caroline" should not be said 63 times in one song)

9) REM (I don't feel shiny or happy when I hear them)

10) Yanni (Is he a computer programmer or a musician?)

Baffling quotes from judicial opinions

I read many court opinions in the course of a week (because my job primarily consists of sitting in front of a computer and conducting research). In doing so, I have come accross a number of rather interesting, inscrutable, and inexplicable quotes from the cases I've read. Where noted, I also found a couple interesting opininions on http://www.lawhaha.com/. They have a page of "strange judicial opinions."

1) “The literal terms of the statute do not stand in the way of our conclusion.” Sandler v. Bd. of Adjustment of Springfield Twp., 113 N.J. Super. 333, 345 (App. Div. 1971). (Note: Such terms usually do not stand in the way of the New Jersey judiciary's agendas.)

2) After citing Marbury v. Madison: "The result of this unconstitutional doctrine of judicial supremacy has been an increasing shift of the balance of powers from the elected executive and legislative branches of the federal government to the unelected judiciary ... The turning away from our national compact by federal courts now threatens our country with a constitutional crisis." Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth. v. City of Birmingham, 912 So. 2d 204, 223 n.21 (Ala. 2005). (Nice idea, but I'm pretty sure its too late for a Marbury-induced "crisis.") (lawhaha)

3) "Because of the extraordinarily sprawling and complex nature of this case, it would be desirable that there be an initial trial on the limited issue of the type and nature of the substances generated by each defendant, such initial trial to be followed by separate trials on such other issues as may be designated closer to the time for trial." Kenney v. Scientific, Inc., 204 N.J.Super. 228, 250 (Law Div. 198). (I hope this is merely a product of unedited dictation.)

4) "When an ordinance has both a valid and an invalid purpose, courts should not guess which purpose the governing body had in mind." D&M Asbury Realty v. City of Asbury Park, 2005 WL 3693210 N.J.Super. (App. Div. 2006). (Typically, your guess is as good as mine.)

5) "Before deciding the merits of this case the Court must address a troubling issue. The computer industry and other courts have adopted the term “pizza box” to describe the package in which the document containing the terms and conditions of the agreement is shipped. As a matter of law in the State of New York, such a container is not a “pizza box.” No self-respecting New York pizza would be caught soggy in such a box. The container may pass as a “ pizza box” in those parts of the world that think food from Domino's, Little Caesar's, Pizza Hut, and Poppa John's is pizza. In this Court's opinion such a classification cannot be recognized east of the Hudson River." Licitra v. Gateway, Inc., 189 Misc.2d 721, 723-24 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2001). (lawhaha)

6) And this might be the funniest ever, again from lawhaha: "I am not trying to be facetious; but before today, some spouses might have chosen to live in the Eleventh Circuit because they could wiretap their own telephone without being liable under federal law. Even if we think it unlikely that someone would live in our Circuit to avoid liability under federal law for wiretapping their spouse, it is our job to ensure that someone cannot be punished retroactively for doing so, as the act was clearly lawful." Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212, 1228 n.13 (11th Cir. 2003) (Edmondson, J., Dissenting). (This is for real. A judge really said this.)

In a concurrence, another judge satirically addressed the Dissent. "I suppose, then, a conversation between a couple sitting around their breakfast table in, oh say, Colorado (the Tenth Circuit having rejected Simpson years ago) might have gone something like this:

Jim: Honey, I've been thinking, we ought to move to Alabama.
Liz: But Sweetheart, I thought you liked living in Colorado.
Jim: I do, Sugar, but there's a problem.
Liz: What's troubling you, Sweetie?
Jim: Well, Punkin', Colorado is in the Tenth Circuit, and its federal appeals court has held that if I wiretap your private conversations without your knowledge and consent, I may have to pay you damages if you find out and sue me in federal court. But if we move to Alabama, which is in the Eleventh Circuit, its Simpson decision will allow me to invade your privacy electronically without having to worry about your having a civil claim against me in federal court.
Liz: But Honeybun, doesn't Alabama's criminal eavesdropping statute make it a crime to covertly record conversations without the consent of at least one of the parties to the conversation?
Jim: It does, Snookums, but all I'm worried about is the potential civil cause of action in federal court, not having to serve time in the state slammer.
Liz: You'll look so good in jailhouse stripes, my Love. When do we move?"

(This stuff is too good to make up.)

7) To be continued...

Anyone who considers Proposition 8 discriminatory either misunderstands or manipulates the law

I keep seeing the argument in opposition to Proposition 8 that the Proposition is “discriminatory.” The claimed reasoning follows that denying persons the ability to marry persons of the same sex somehow violates their Constitution and unalienable rights. These arguments are bogus.

First, consider a very intriguing argument from my stake president, Ahmed Corbitt, which he explained in stake conference on Sunday. It comes from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Has God endowed men and women with the right to marry those of the same sex? Can anyone legitimately make that argument? I think not.

Second, "marriage" under the law is a legal contract entered into between one man and one woman. That is how American society has traditionally defined such contracts. Proposition 8 opponents are not really asking for the same contract enjoyed by one man and one woman. Nothing prohibits a homosexual person from entering into the same legal contract that has traditionally existed in America and elsewhere. They are instead asking for a new and different contract—a contract with a new definition. The essence of what they are asking for can be boiled down to either: (1) a request for additional privileges or (2) a request for an alteration of an existing privilege. Traditional marriage and the “marriage” sought by opponents to Proposition 8 cannot coexist, as they are mutually exclusive.

Third, the argument propounded by opponents to Proposition 8 creates a slippery slope. I don’t usually ascribe the “slippery slope” philosophy, but I make an exception here because it is so apropos. I also note that this is not really a legal argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is a likely consequence of such. The slippery slope—a slippery slope of morality—applicable here is that the same arguments that support allowing same-sex marriage also support allowing polygamy, polyandry, human-animal marriage, marriage in incest, and marriage to trees (for the tree huggers). Surely, we don’t want that.

Reading law out of context

It is interesting how one can manipulate the law by reading it out of context. For example:

"[M]olesting wildlife is prohibited on or from Authority property." N.J.A.C. 19:2-5.6.

"[N]o vehicle shall be permitted to make use of any expressway." N.J.S.A. 27:25A-21.

"[S]tigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and cultures, and increase the risk that they will be exposed to discriminatory treatment." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1996a.

"The Department may deny any application for a dam permit." N.J.A.C. 7:20-1.4.

"[M]inority and women-owned businesses, the Excecutive Director, in his discretion, may modify." N.J.A.C. 19:2-7.2.

"[T]he violation of the provisions of subsection i. of this section shall result in injury or death." N.J.S.A. 27:25A-21.

"[C]areful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C.A. § 6901.

"[H]oof upon the expressway at any time, unless acting under contract or permit." N.J.A.C. 19:2-4.2.

"[A]pply lead paint to toys, furniture or the exposed interior surfaces of any dwelling as defined in this act, or to any exterior surface that is readily accessible to children." N.J.S.A. 24:14A-1.

"[I]t is in the public interest to establish a greenhouse gas emission." N.J.S.A. 26:2C-38.

"Torment, torture, maim, hang, poison, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate a living animal or creature." N.J.S.A. 4:22-17.

Mormon and Black Gay Haters

I kept a close eye on the Proposition 8 election results on the Wednesday after election day. I primarily relied upon CNN.com because they regularly updated the election results as they came in and because they provided interesting exit polling information. One bit of information that I found particularly interesting was the exit poll based on race. I was surprised to learn what has now become common knowledge: that more than 70% of black voters in California supported Proposition 8. Support for the Proposition was especially high for African-American women. (Does this mean we can thank Barak Obama for its passage?) And this was in California! Imagine the support the black community would have provided to such a measure in a more conservative and religious-minded state like Alabama or Mississippi.

Since that Wednesday, I have read several articles and seen many pictures and videos placing the majority of the blame for the Proposition's passage on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The nature of much of the blame cast at the Church has been derogatory and even downright nasty. This got me thinking: what if those casting derogatory comments at the Church cast their comments instead at the black community? After all, it is likely that a larger percentage of African-American's supported the Proposition than did Mormons, especially if one includes the entire membership of the Church (i.e. including those who are not actively Mormon).

With this in mind, let's pretend this oppostion was aimed at blacks instead of Mormons. Pretend the anti-Prop 8 slogans of the day were: "F#%!ing blacks" on large illuminated signs hung from San Fransisco homes, "black hate out of my state" on a protestor's sign, and "Blacks--Child-molesting bigots" outside of your local NAACP office. Wow! That would get your attention.

Quality advertising

I found this ad to be very amusing. Apparently, she not only lost her flab in two weeks, but she also lost her tan.

Sam's Church Do

I tried to convince Amber that Samuel should go to church with this hair do, but she felt otherwise.

Very funny McCain-Obama comic

Opinion cartoon in the Augusta Chronicle by Rich McKee