j666
March 22, 2014, 12:36am
13661
Well, I’m staying off the golf courses if this is passed.
ETA: And, yes, that sounds like some rich guy whose soon-to-be-ex-wife has a boyfriend buying a law to stalk her with.
In divorce, separation, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts.
“He’s really good-looking, Your Honor!”
“But, does he really care about you as a person? Is he really sensitive to your emotional needs?”
“C’mon, Your Honor, I ain’t had none in two years – that’s how we got here!”
In other news, cars are for people who don’t necessarily want to drive, and forks are for people who don’t necessarily want to eat.
Kobal2:
I like this part more :
Everything else she’s spouting is garden variety, if virulently toxic, wingnuttery ; but this one’s right peculiar. Are there a bunch of 10/29 Truthers out there I hadn’t heard of, of is Atanus’ crazy sui generi s ?
I think I’ve found some hint as to where she’s coming from – see this article, “10 insane lessons religious schools are teaching American kids” :
So here are 10 further examples of totally dishonest lessons brought to you by “school choice” (aka, your tax dollars). This time I focus on five of the scariest history lessons kids are learning thanks to the popular A Beka Book title, America: Land I Love In Christian Perspective, plus five of the publisher’s most notable profiles of historical figures, taken from a variety of its books.
1. The Great Depression: Made Up to Spread Socialism
In a section titled “More Rumors,” America: Land I Love In Christian Perspective takes on the origins of the Great Depression. The book explains that,
“Some people wanted to create an imaginary crisis in order to move the country toward socialism. They spread rumors of bank mortgage foreclosures and mass evictions from farms, homes and apartments. But local banks did all in their power to keep their present tenants. The number of people out of work in the 1930s averaged about 15 percent of the work force; thus 85 percent continued to work. Most had to take a pay cut, but prices also declined during the Depression, enabling people to buy more for their money.”
See! The Great Depression was really a great hoax!
In the “Propaganda” section, under the subhead “Exaggerated Fiction,” students learn that,
“In 1939, John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath. This novel described the plight of the Okies, farm families from Western Oklahoma who went to California in search of jobs. Most families who went west did not experience the hardships that Steinbeck presented in his novel. Steinbeck openly supported labor violence and strikes instigated by socialist groups to keep the Okies from earning a living as migrant farm laborer in California…. Socialist photographers and artists produced misleading pictures of the… mountaineers of Appalachia. These mountaineers did not have the modern conveniences of homes in the town or cities but they did not consider themselves to be poor. The Depression actually had little effect on their lives.”
So, the Great Depression was a figment of the liberal, socialist, artistic imagination… a figment that happens to be supported by indisputable empirical evidence of a severe economic crisis.
So I guess after years of trying to blame the Great Depression on FDR (never mind that it was underway before he became President) and failing they’ve decided that the whole thing was fakery.
Oh-kay…
Someday the detached rich are going to figure how clever FDR was art keeping their asses from being up against the wall (“Hey! you young people without jobs! Let’s all go into the wilderness and dig up roads for pay for a while instead of grumbling about starting a Revolution, how does that sound?”). They’ll probably realize this when their own asses are against the wall.
Never heard that one before, actually; the standard line is that the New Deal only made things worse – which is the opinion of a minority of economists and a very small minority of historians.
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the “New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped,” but that the “New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression.” They claim that the New Deal “cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery”. They say that the “abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s”.[169] Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.[170] However, Cole and Ohanian’s argument relies on hypotheticals, including an unprecedented growth rate necessary to end the Depression by 1936,[171][172] and by not counting workers employed through New Deal programs. Such programs built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles (1,100,000 km) of roads, 1,000 airfields and employed 50,000 teachers through programs that rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system.[173][174] Lowell E. Gallaway and Richard K. Vedder argue that the “Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs.” They suggest that without Social Security, work relief, unemployment insurance, mandatory minimum wages, and without special government-granted privileges for labor unions, business would have hired more workers and the unemployment rate during the New Deal years would have been 6.7% instead of 17.2%.[175] In reply, economic historian Brad DeLong wrote that there is “literally nothing” to the arguments made by Gallaway and Vedder, and the duo made “flawed conclusions” based on “flawed foundations”, and the entire foundation “is made out of mud”.[176]
In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, anonymous questionnaires were sent to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: “Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.” While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement “with provisos” (a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.[177]
Morgyn
March 24, 2014, 5:49pm
13670
There’s a new (to me) Rush on the airwaves, and he’s just as crazy as his better known cohort.
His name is Erik Rush, and he claims that Malaysia 370 was hijacked by Obama to Diego Garia, where all the passengers and crew were interrogated and killed.
The AATP article has links to Rush’s blog post and to a sound file of his radio show.
Balance
March 24, 2014, 6:28pm
13671
Is there even room on Diego Garcia for that many more people? On the plus side, I guess you could handle the waterboarding in parallel by making them all lie down at high tide…
Morgyn
March 24, 2014, 6:33pm
13672
Not like they’d be there long, in his scenario. The sharks would be happy.
smithsb
March 24, 2014, 6:46pm
13673
Morgyn:
There’s a new (to me) Rush on the airwaves, and he’s just as crazy as his better known cohort.
His name is Erik Rush, and he claims that Malaysia 370 was hijacked by Obama to Diego Garia, where all the passengers and crew were interrogated and killed.
The AATP article has links to Rush’s blog post and to a sound file of his radio show.
Couldn’t open at work - but WHY?
Just asking?
Balance
March 24, 2014, 7:08pm
13674
Why is the dirigible in flames?lost his hat ?
Skammer
March 24, 2014, 10:05pm
13675
zut:
I wondered the same, and found this article, which describes “Wrentham Selectman Robert Leclair” as the “former president of Fathers United for Equal Justice, has reportedly gone through a bitter divorce.” Weirdly, that article is from 2011 , so apparently Ross has submitted the same bill on behalf of LeClair at least two separate times.
Wrentham!? Woo-hoo, shout-out to my little home town.
I don’t know who LeClair is, but there is a good chance I went to high school with him or members of his immediate family.
(Wrentham, like many New England towns, does not have a mayor. It is run by a Board of Selectmen who are directly elected in an annual town meeting, unless things have changed in the last 20 years).
Ross has a defense, of sorts:
Ross’ staff told ThinkProgress that the senator is “not in support” of the bill. It was filed on behalf of a constituent, Robert LeClair, as a courtesy to him. Massachusetts law allows legislators to put forth a citizen’s piece of legislation, as Ross did in this case, though there is no requirement that they do so.
If you don’t have to put the bill forward, I think it’s hard to argue that you don’t want the bill put forward. But maybe not having it spring like Athena from his fevered brow is at least a bit of a comfort.
So… do Republican legislators typically introduce whatever bill one of their constituents might happen to suggest to them?
This is going to be the best thread ever .
silenus
March 24, 2014, 10:32pm
13677
Truth be told, it isn’t just the Republicans. A little research will show that, especially in state legislatures, lots of bills are put forth on behalf of private interests. You can bet those bills were at least partially written by said interests.
Wrong Rush; you linked to the flaming Nazi gas bag, not the newRush linked in the original comment. Easy mistake to make. I can clearly tell deer scat from pig shit, but have a hard time discerning between porcine varieties.
Yes. Obama and the CIA can grab a plane mid-air, murder hundreds with impunity and glee, yet Erik Rush is safe from the CIA Death Squads because…they can’t find him?
