« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

Judge challenges backers of gay marriage ban

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 18:43 by John Sinteur in category: Pastafarian News

[Quote:]

A federal judge challenged the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know.

The unusual exchange between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution.

Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

[..]

“What really is happening is the voters who passed Proposition 8 are essentially on trial in this case, and they continue to be accused of being irrational and bigoted for restoring the traditional definition of marriage,” he said.

That’s because they are, dude. Oh, and here’s your “traditional” definition of marriage, which has in the past included:

1691 – Whites only.
1724 – Blacks, with permission of the slave owner.
1769 – The wife is property.
1899 – Polygamous Monogamous Marriage.
1900 – The wife can now own property.

1965 – Contraception is legal.
1967 – Interracial couples are legal.
1975 – The wife can have credit in her name.
1981 – The husband owns all property.
1993 – Marital rape is legal.


Write a comment

Jon Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 18:32 by John Sinteur in category: Funny!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Write a comment

Obama, Bush

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 15:53 by John Sinteur in category: ¿ʞɔnɟ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ

[Quote:]

For example, on the March 10 edition of his show, Hannity said to former Democratic National Committee financial committee chair Michael Brown, “Obama, since he’s elected, has tanked the markets.” Brown asked, “Oh, that’s Obama’s fault?” and Hannity responded, “That’s right.”

And Today:

cavuto

Fox News has the same temporal mechanics as the average Star Trek episode…


Write a comment

No, You’re Reading That Right

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 15:41 by John Sinteur in category: ¿ʞɔnɟ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ, Robber Barons

L1000504

[Quote:]

Gordon Hageman couldn’t believe the credit card offer he got in the mail.

“My first thought, it was a mistake,” Hageman said.

The wine distributor called the number on the offer, gave them the offer code and verified his information. Sure enough, it was right: the pre-approved credit card came with a 79.9 percent APR.

Yes, 79.9 percent.

The offer is for a Premier card from First Premier Bank, which is based in South Dakota. On its Web site, First Premier says it is the country’s 10th largest issuer of Visa and MasterCard credit cards. The site also says it “focuses on individuals who have less than perfect credit but are actually still creditworthy.”

“I think they’re trying to take advantage of me,” said Hageman.

Ya think?


Write a comment

Subprime and the Banks: Guilty as Charged

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 9:43 by John Sinteur in category: Robber Barons

[Quote:]

Apparently, when you say something long enough and loud enough, people start to believe it, even when it defies reality. Here, for instance, is the normally skeptical Barney Frank on the subject: “What happened was an explosion of loans being made outside of the regular banking system. It was largely the unregulated sector of the lending industry and the underregulated and the lightly regulated that did that.”

To which I can now triumphantly reply: Oh, really???

Last weekend, after the column was published, an angry mortgage broker — someone who felt she and her ilk were being unfairly scapegoated by the banking industry — sent me a series of rather eye-opening documents. They were a series of fliers and advertisements that had been sent to her office (and mortgage brokers all over the country) from JPMorgan Chase, advertising their latest wares. They were dated 2005, which was before the subprime mortgage boom got completely out of control. They’re still pretty sobering.

“The Top 10 Reasons to Choose Chase for All Your Subprime Needs,” screams the headline on the first one. Another was titled, “Chase No Doc,” and described the criteria for a borrower to receive a so-called no-document loan. “Got Bank Statements?” asked a third flier. “Get Approved!” In a number of the fliers, Chase makes it clear to the mortgage brokers that the bank doesn’t need income or job verification — it just needs to look at a handful of old bank statements.

But hey, they’re making a profit again, so why worry about the past? Time to get the bonus payments going again, and fuck the rest!


Write a comment

JP Morgan bankers on course for bumper bonuses

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 by John Sinteur in category: Robber Barons

[Quote:]

JP Morgan Chase signalled today that City firms are preparing to make huge bonus payments after it kicked off the US bank reporting season by smashing profit expectations.

The bank revealed it had set aside $7.3bn (£4.6bn) in the third quarter to pay staff, taking the total remuneration pot for the first nine months of the year to $21bn, 23% more than at the same time last year.

The admission by JP Morgan Chase that it was preparing to raise bonuses came as Goldman Sachs was expected to report that it too was enjoying a bumper year and its bonus pool could reach $22bn.

And no, that bonus money is not going to be paid to the people who bailed them out.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. I’m a little skeptical about that stat of one personal piece of mail per week–they must not be counting bills and other legit mail. I wonder though if the postal service would be viable without the junk mail income. Could the reduced volume support the infrastructure?

All About the Junk Mail

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 9:02 by John Sinteur in category: If you're in marketing, kill yourself

[Quote:]
allaboutjunkmail


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. A few years back, Canada Post ‘released’ data that indicated 10% of the mail (private letters) provided 90% of the income. Which seems to translate into the other 90% (junk mail) generates only 10% of their income. And guess which category rate goes up faster? Some business model!

Wall Street Smarts

Posted on October 15th, 2009 at 6:15 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

“IF you really want to know why the financial system nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008, I can tell you in one simple sentence.”

(a comment)


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Calvin Trillin is hilarious!

    The article about the demoted airline pilot was interesting. He has apparently unquestioningly worked in an industry that is terrible for the planet. His expectations that things could have continued unchanged are touchingly naive. Flight schools are full of bright guys who pay thousands of their own money to get trained as pilots. They aspire to be pampered heroes driving a bus. At some point the industry doesn’t need so many of them. Machines do more. The wage rates go down. This has happened repeatedly in the history of transportation (or any industry). Getting paid really well to do something you love is not a right, it’s a matter of good fortune.