First of all, most judges won’t enforce this for someone who isn’t strategically important. Second, it will be seen as coerced under duress — and third, it very well could be forged. Hope someone steps up to help her!
Hotter than yesterday, but not too humid. The last day of August, and you know what that means: Only 30 days until my birthday!
I went out to Murph’s for pizza with my friend last night, and we were talking about how really awful the long-term outlook is now. “But in a strange sort of way, it’s so overwhelming that it’s become really useful in keeping me more in the moment,” I told him. “You know? Like right now, I’m sitting here having dinner with my friend and we’re talking and it’s all good, right this moment. And that’s all there is, but it’s a lot.”
I keep reminding myself.
Alex Pareene at Salon points out how repeatedly lucky Rick Perry has been with his investments:
Rick Perry is a millionaire. Nothing odd about that — lots of people who run for president are millionaires! — but he’s never really had a job outside of government and he didn’t inherit his fortune. Where did his millions of dollars come from? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram answers that question: He’s very good at making investments that look remarkably like examples of blatant corruption.
There was the time Perry bought some random undeveloped land in 1993, and then it turned out that rich businessman Michael Dell needed that land to connect his new house to the sewer lines. Perry made $342,994 selling it to him. And he’s made decent sums trading in stock in companies founded by Perry donors. And there was this bit:
Perry purchased the land from state Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, in 2001 for $314,770. Six years later, Perry sold it for $1.1 million, pulling a profit of $823,776. Perry has attributed the gain to a favorable market for Hill Country land.
“We bought a piece of property, the property appreciated and we sold it,” Perry said last year.
Critics, including the liberal watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, have suggested a dubious dealing considering that the man Fraser bought the land from and the man Perry sold the land to were business partners.
Conor Friedersdorf and David Frum think this all looks a bit crooked but the National Review’s Jim Geraghty says Perry is just constantly lucky, over and over again. Rick Perry should play the slots! (But only if the slots are owned by someone who needs the governor of Texas to grant him some sort of favor.)
So we have laws to make it impossible for grown women to get abortions they want and need, but we allow abortions forced on the mentally disabled. It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it?
HOUSTON (AP) — A Houston woman got an abortion for her 12-year-old mentally disabled daughter in an effort to hide evidence that her son sexually assaulted the girl, authorities said.
Will Bunch and I talked about Michael Vick’s new $100 million contract with the Eagles, new Phillie Hunter Pence, how the MLB ruined the game for young people, and oh yeah, some politics. You can click here to listen.
Since this horribly misleading and biased documentary is now playing on cable, I’ll direct you to this dissection.
And the poor, poor banks. Why are people picking on them?
The history of vibrators, told as a romantic comedy. Sweet!
Glenzilla on the L.A. Times’ Homeland Security spending series:
The LA Times, while skillfully highlighting these wasteful programs, depicts them as some sort of unintended inefficiencies. That is exactly what they are not. None of this is unintended or inefficient but is achieving exactly the purposes for which it is designed. That’s true for two reasons.
First, this wastefulness is seen as inefficient only if one falsely assumes that its real objective is to combat Terrorist threats. That is not the purpose of what the U.S. Government does. As Daniel Weeks explains today, the Congress — contrary to popular opinion — is not “broken”; it is working perfectly for its actual owners. Or, as he puts it, “Washington isn’t broken — it’s fixed”:
Our problem today is not a broken government but a beholden one: government is more beholden to special-interest shareholders who fund campaigns than it is to ordinary voters. Like any sound investor, the funders seek nothing more and nothing less than a handsome return — deficits be darned — in the form of tax breaks, subsidies and government contracts.
The LA Times, and most people who denounce these spending “inefficiencies,” have the causation backwards: fighting Terrorism isn’t the goal that security spending is supposed to fulfill; the security spending (and power vested by surveillance) is the goal itself, and Terrorism is the pretext for it. For that reason, whether the spending efficiently addresses a Terrorism threat is totally irrelevant.
Daniel Weeks comes to other conclusions that simply have no basis in fact (for instance, that trial lawyers, our last bastion of resistance against corporate abuses, are in effect getting a federal subsidy without tort reform) and I don’t particularly trust the company he keeps (he’s president of Americans for Campaign Reform, a “bipartisan” organization chaired by former U.S. Sens. Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Warren Rudman, and Alan Simpson, conservatives all) but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.