Mlle. Zabzie

Members
  • Content count

    5,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mlle. Zabzie

  • Rank
    Well-Informed Doorstop
  • Birthday 08/25/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

7,620 profile views
  1. We are all basically in the middle of something that Kafka wrote, and it's all fine.
  2. The way I look at it, the judge wasn't the relevant finder of fact for that determination. The jury found him guilty. You then have to ask yourself why the judge found it necessary to find additional/different facts. BTW, newish parents hear a lot of crap about how "boys are easier than girls" to raise, and then it devolves into a discussion of high school, and, inevitably dating. It makes me so, so, so, angry. Raising CHILDREN of any sort is hard. But it implies to me that somehow some parents think that they have to parent boys less on these issues. INCORRECT.
  3. I lost my cat....inside the apartment

    So happy to hear!!!!
  4. It's actually no worse than grappa or similar. And some is better than others. But it's really fun to make fun of my in laws for their weird food customs.
  5. My inlaws also consume a fair bit of aquavit. For special occasions, they freeze a bottle in a bucket with rose petals. You then peel off the bucket and have the aquavit bottle in a melting ice sculpture. This is to disguise the fact that the contents are best used as an industrial solvent (as you note). But it's lipstick on a pig. I'm fairly certain that the crab thing above was invented after a couple of shots of aquavit. Shortly thereafter, I'm almost certain everyone was rushed to the hospital with a perforated esophagus.
  6. The agony of pedestrian walking patterns

    I live in a city where you learn to walk correctly or be mowed down by hyper aggressive commuters. I'm one of those commuters. I ENFORCE. And the rules aren't written anywhere. You learn, or you are doomed to circle Times Square in agony for eternity.
  7. Scot, are you sure you live in South Carolina? Like really sure? Have you checked recently?
  8. Another plug for 12-step programs (and Al-Anon) here. But I also completely agree that AA/12 step programs are not THE ONE TRUE WAY. They are decidedly NOT going to work for everyone (and absolutely could have negative consequences for some people). But for others, they are the ticket out and are amazingly successful. So, I think trashing all 12-step programs as completely ineffective is not true, nor is an attitude that all addicts should join 12-step programs. It seems to me that addiction, to the extent it is a disease or at least can be analogized as one (different subject) is something that needs personalized treatment, like, say, sophisticated cancer treatments. For some people approach X will work and for others it will be miserable and make things worse. To me the bigger point is how few alternatives there are that don't cost the GDP of a small country. AA has the benefit of running on donations, not huge contributions, and is accessible. Why shouldn't other approaches be as accessible? I think if we are serious about helping addicts who want to be helped, they should be.
  9. There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

    My reading of the case is that those comments are dicta (which means comments made by a judge which are not precedential under common law). But more generally, I think what this case and the language you quoted from the prior case are establishing (if I'm reading them correctly)* is that (i) we all have a right to travel on public rights of way (e.g., highways), (ii) the use of those highways under the customary means of travel for the time is a "right" in the sense that it is covered by the due process and equal protection clauses but that (iii) reasonable licensure, safety and similar restrictions on that "right" so long as they serve a reasonable state purpose, are reasonably related to that purpose and apply consistently and without discrimination, may be enacted by the state. So, e.g., the state has the right to restrict your ability to walk along interstate highways; or your ability to drive without your glasses on, etc. However, the state cannot simply decide that no one has the right to travel along public highways. I actually sort of remember (I think in Con Law, but might have been in property) that there are a series of cases regarding the ability of the Amish to access public highways using horses and buggies. I think they found in favor of the Amish, but said that the state could restrict which lane they could drive in and make them have certain safety gear. I therefore think that some of the rhetoric earlier claiming that a US government could outlaw the ability of people to drive cars tomorrow is likely overstated. (DM, on this specific point, I'm rather with you - not going to the philosophical argument of what a right is). To answer your other question, the common law of precedent is funny. Judges say all kinds of things in opinions, and judges love quoting other judges' opinions. However, the only thing they are technically bound by is the holding of the case - the actual bottom line statement on the law itself. Other commentary is known as "dicta" (translated "just some things that the other judge said, that may be nice but that I'm not bound by). There are times when judges perform somersaults to conclude that what was previously thought of as a holding is merely dicta, but I digress. *Note that to really do this right, you'd want to do extensive legal research surrounding these concepts, "keycite" or "shepardize" the cases to make sure that they haven't been overturned, and know in which jurisdictions they apply. I've done none of that. Interesting legal research question, frankly, but out of my area.
  10. My in-laws' crab thing is almost certainly against the Geneva Convention. It's indescribably awful.
  11. There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

    This is a case from a state court (Rhode Island to be exact). The case, if you read it, is also a due process case and focuses on the 14th amendment. Here is the holding of the case: "It is clear that the legislation which applies equally to all in a reasonably designated group is neither discriminatory nor class legislation. Under the clear wording of the act it applies to all operators or owners of motor vehicles who are involved in accidents involving personal injuries to one other than the driver of the car. Similar provisions were held to be constitutional and not violative of the equal protection clause in Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 159, 46 N.W.2d 52; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367, and Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003. We think that the exemptions in the act are reasonably related to the purpose for which the legislation was enacted and that therefore the argument that such provisions cause it to violate the equal protection clause is without merit." There was a prior holding within the case, partially overturning prior precedent, finding that the granting or revoking the license does have due process/equal protection implications, which sparked the further due process analysis leading to the conclusion above - that the law in question (which required a person involved in accident to either prove (s)he had paid all damages or basically put up a bond against such damages before his/her license was reinstated) did not violate due process.
  12. I agree with you in general, and PARTICULARLY with my inlaws' love of slathering mayo on cold crab and eating it on saltines. The smell alone...*shudder*. Anyhow, mayo, like many condiments, has its place, and if used sparingly, can be delicious. Used sparingly is the key element of proper mayofication though. Mayo in gross is....gross.
  13. There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

    I would have to read this in context. However, this looks to me like a 14th Amendment type case. That is, I think they are saying that the state can regulate the ability to drive, but that the rules and regulations connected to those regulations must be uniformly applied and not arbitrary or capricious. That is, saying "redheads can't obtain a permit to drive" wouldn't hold up, however, "the blind cannot obtain a permit to drive" would.