Another HN h/t.

The judge denied reconsideration of his own incredibly wrong decision and I was left unable to explain to my clients why they were being penalized for doing exactly what the contract required them to do. The most awful feeling I had in ten years of law practice was that "Mr. Jones" feeling, from the Bob Dylan song: "There's something happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" All too often, in state court, there was the feeling that what happened had nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the inner workings of a club of which I was not a member. The New York state courts, in New York City, are owned by the Democratic party. Judges are elected for fourteen year terms in elections where they are faced with no serious opposition; endorsement by the local Democratic club ensures election. The people who are selected are all too often not intellectual luminaries or legal scholars (unlike in the federal system) but are attorneys who have been associated with the Democratic party for many years and are up for a reward (typically, they are the ones who do not have enough on the ball to be elected to the state legislature or city council). They see the same lawyers every day, many of whom are also involved with the party, and if you are a complete outsider, as I was, you will probably not win the same number of your cases, or at least of your motions, as an insider.

Labels: law, New York

Seems to be a wise policy.

Along with a crackdown on traffickers, he proposed rigorous addiction prevention programs in schools and doctors’ offices, as well as more rehabilitation options for addicts. “We must address it as a public health crisis,” Shumlin said, “providing treatment and support rather than simply doling out punishment, claiming victory, and moving on to our next conviction.”

For what it's worth, I suspect treating abortion as a public health crisis would probably be the best way to end it. H/T to HN.

Labels: morality, politics

Prevalent on both sides of the aisle, it seems.

Labels: politics

Keeping the baby. Should you express disapproval? No!

I think the thing to do is affirm what can be affirmed here: the decision to choose life and to love her and her child. If she asks (which she won’t) if you approve of having children out of wedlock, you can tell her the truth: that it’s not so much about Breaking Rules as it is that single motherhood is tough on her and her child, which is why your faith urges marriage. The law was made for man, not man for the law. But lots of moderns, Catholic and non-Catholic, imagine it’s the other way around and fear that God wants to punish our sexual sins for the sake of The Rules. But the truth is the rules are there, not because God wants to punish, but to protect us. Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/08/a-reader-asks-about-a-pregnant-neighbor.html#ixzz3BRCLLqOs

And I love this comment.

I know of one family where the daughter got pregnant at 16, and their "good, Christian" acquaintances urged an abortion so she could "get on with her life". After the baby was born, the grandfather made a point of carrying the child up to those people and saying, "This is my granddaughter, isn't she wonderful?"

Labels: catholic, prolife

In order to prevent their suffering.

According to Dawkins, the issue of who should be born comes down to a calculation based upon possible suffering. "Yes. Suffering should be avoided. [The abortion] cause[s] no suffering. Reduce suffering wherever you can."

Well Richard, let me clue you in on something, for many more or less normal people, life is suffering. Perhaps we should kill them too? And as the article notes, they don't really suffer much.

Although it is widely believed that people with Down syndrome are doomed to a life of suffering, in one large survey 99% of respondents with Down syndrome said they were "happy." At the same time, 99% percent of parents said they loved their child with Down syndrome, and 97 percent said they were proud of them.

I bet that's better than the average American.

First Things also gets into the game, noting that suffering is often a good.

Suffering is not a moral evil to be avoided. Suffering can have meaning and value. Ask Victor Frankl. Or Mohandas Gandhi. Or Martin Luther King, Jr. Or, if you’re willing, ask my children.

Apparently the author has two children with Down Syndrome.

Labels: prolife

I've spawned a new blog at http://gymopedia.blogspot.com to record reviews of gyms I've been at. Totally irrelevant to the mission of this blog, and not terribly interesting to most.

Labels: metablogging

Handy!

Labels: New York

Come on, you have to be impressed by the statement. The problem is no longer Pantaleo killing Garner, but “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.” This is poetry. This is genius. It was all about criminals demonizing cops, not cops killing people.

Selling loose cigarettes - now with summary death penalty.

Labels: New York, politics

Lovely.

The guidance note on reparations for conflict-related sexual violence goes beyond what UN staff has ever dared to say about abortion, at least publically. The controversial document instructs UN officials and staff to lobby for changes in law to permit abortion as a form of reparation for sexual violence against women. In the wake of the Secretary-General's note, UN officials advocating abortion won't seem “rogue” officials any longer, but rather good foot soldiers for the Secretary-General.

More violence is always the solution.

Labels: prolife