home

Wednesday Open Thread

Your turn. All topics welcome.

< ABC Reporter Says Serino Leaked Zimmerman Info | The Constitutional Issue In the ACA Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Bipartisanship lives on the fringes... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    R-Paul & D-Kuch both want to audit the Fed.

    It's dead on arrival in the Senate, but thanks for trying to disinfect via sunlight fellas.  

    CAKE IN 2 MINUTES! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    This is called a 3-2-1 Cake.

    Ingredients:
    1 box of  Angel Food Cake Mix
    1 box of Regular cake mix, the flavor you enjoy
    1 can of frosting

    Mix equal amounts of cake mix.  I use the two full boxes, wire whisk them together  then split them into a few baggies.  It stays fresh.

    When you are ready for a speedy sweet treat, mix:
    3 tbs of Cake Mix
    2 tbs of water
    Mix thoroughly
    Microwave for 1 minute
    Icing!
    Done.

    Note:  The volume almost triples so whatever microwave safe thing you use make sure it has room for expansion.  I mix the cake in the same container I am going to be a chow hound with.  I hate to wash dishes and anything fancier for guests I spoon the cooked cake into dessert bowls and serve while still warm.  With the icing it isn't that pretty (spread-ability issues) so I still prefer a cake-pan-type for company.

    Next batch is going to German Chocolate Cake.  I am a total choc-o-holic so any kind of fudge cake and icing is heaven!

    (( I am a  TEAM CAKE! kind of gal!  ))

    Excellent! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    I am copying this to my files right now.

    Thanks!

    (a fellow choc-o-holic)

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#41)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    I could take credit for it.  It came from a now defunct blog and I would give a shout out to the poster that shared if I could.  It is just so freaking easy.  Since I live by myself making a whole cake is just ridiculous. I can make it on whim which is in retrospect, not necessarily a good thing.  ((side-eyes the scale!))

    My motto is now:

    If it makes me happy, it makes everyone else around me happy!  WIN-WIN!

    Parent

    The Michigan Court of Appeals (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    Strikes down a stun-gun ban AND says that the Second Amendment applies to open carry in public

    Yikes.

    "On the other hand, Heller states that concealed weapons may be banned, but makes no such statement regarding openly carried arms. Indeed, Heller cites with approval two state cases that struck down laws prohibiting the public carrying of hand guns. The Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to `carry' as well as the right to `keep' arms. Likewise, the Michigan Constitution specifically allows citizens to `bear' arms for self-defense. We therefore conclude that a total prohibition on the open carrying of a protected arm such as a taser or stun gun is unconstitutional."



    Thank Goodness (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    Self defense is a fundamental right.

    The tyrants in my city of Baltimore and my state of Maryland are about to learn that when they lose their appeal against trying to make "concealed carry" a "privilege".

    I live in a city where one can't even carry pepper spray or a taser. I've been randomly assaulted (maybe racial ; probably gang initiation) 3 times and mugged once. Yet while not allowing me tools to defend myself the city and state have consistently "washed their hands" of any legally enforceable duty to protect me. So here's the thing: either guarantee me protection or take your damn hands off my personal weapons.

    Parent

    I should clarify (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    My statement should have been "trying to KEEP concealed carry" a privilege. Which the goofuses hand out to political big wigs, cops, and celebrities and deny everyone else.

    Parent
    Way to go Hackers! (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    Those that know me know I love a good bank robbery...some hackers lifted 60 million Euros.  And the heist ain't over!

    It's never felt safer under the mattress;)

    Curious what the legal minds here (none / 0) (#3)
    by BTAL on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    think about this.  My layman's understanding is that this really opens up the options for the defense.

    The General Court passed it, and now the governor of New Hampshire has signed it as of Friday, June 22, 2012. The law of the state now reads at RSA Sec. 519:23-a as follows:

    "519:23-a Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."



    Link


    Seems like (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    By telling a jury they can nullify the law, there would be a whole host of unequal verdicts, and it would all depend on what jury a defendant gets.

    It also seems like this could lead to more and more court proceedings as things get appealed because "Johnny" got off because of jury nullification, but "Susie" was convicted of the same crime because jurors followed the law.

    IMO.

    Parent

    Aside from our vote... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    which is for the most part pointless, jury nullification is all the power we got to combat unjust laws.  Big fan of jury nullification.

    I hear what you're saying about the potential for more "different rules different fools", but that sh*t is rampant regardless.  

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    Johnny's idea of what an unjust law is might differ from Susie's.

    Parent
    Thats what deliberations are for... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    acquitals preferred, but a hung jury works too, maybe give the prosecutor pause about bringing such charges in the first place and messing with their W-L record.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    I think you have a warped view of what prosecutors do and don't do.  Do some bring charges they shouldn't?  Absolutely. Just as some defense attorneys aren't good at their jobs, but that doesn't mean the whole bunch are corrupt.

    But do you think public servants, not making tons of money, with budget crunches getting tighter and tighter all the time, are just charging everyone with everything they can come up with?

    They have neither the time, nor the resources to have a personal vendetta that they act upon against people you would call "oppressed".

    Parent

    Our prison population... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:29:33 PM EST
    tells a different story...if we got two nickels we'll spend one on locking people up.

    Budget crunches?  Tell that to the public defenders office, always the red headed stepchild when it comes to criminal justice funding.

    Parent

    Here are some numbers (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    See for yourself.

    State Prosecutors Operating Budgets (2007 - last year compiled)

    The total operating budget ($5.8 billion) of state prosecutors' offices in 2007 decreased by 5% from the $6.1 billion budget for 2001 (inflation-adjusted to 2007 dollars) (not shown in table).

    The average operating budget for full-time prosecutors' offices in 2007 ranged from $526,000 for those serving fewer than 100,000 residents to $49.3 million in jurisdictions serving more than 1 million. The average part-time office's budget was $157,000

    Indigent Public Defenders. (This is a harder number to compile and compare because of how the different states pay for indigent defense attorneys).

    In 2007, 957 public defender offices across the nation received more than 5.5 million indigent defense cases.
    • Misdemeanor cases accounted for about 40% of all cases received by state-based public defender offices and about 50% of the cases received by county-based offices.
    • Half of all state-based public defender offices had formal caseload limits in place in 2007.
    • Total expenditures in public defender offices exceeded $2.3 billion in 2007.

    Yes, the state has more resources, but they don't have infinite resources to devote to cases just to satisfy a prosecutor's personal crusade. But if you are held to prove cases "beyond a reasonable doubt" and you have more than one client (the PEOPLE of the state), it is logical that you might have to spend more to prosecute.

    I know you disagree, and that's ok, but I promise - they are not sitting around plotting how they are coming to get every single person.

    Parent

    I believe you... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:53:09 PM EST
    it's not the handful using the power Dr. Evil stylee I'm worried about, but the everyday justice system meat grinder we hardly notice, everybody playing their part, paying the mortgage.  I know my main beef is with lawmakers.

    And sh*t I'm no angel, I'm the jerk on the phone left to enforce corporate policy I'd like to nullify.   But nobody's freedom is on the line.  And jurors can't be fired;)

    Parent

    Jury Nullfication goes on all the time (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    Whether it's hidden behind other purported motives or not.
    I've long looked askance at courts trying to pretend this power doesn't exist.

    Let me put it this way: If I'm on that jury - and I might be willing to not disclose in order to get on it - no medical marijuana grower goes to jail.

    Jury Nullification is just another check on the government assuming powers it shouldn't have and it also serves as the founders "nod" to cultural norms. The American people - the ones who decide many of these cases - get to judge not only the defendant but the LAW itself.

    Lawyers, Judges, don't like that? Tough luck, you and the law you serve are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

    Parent

    Hear Hear... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    The People vs. includes those in the box. It's got your name on it you have the right to object.

    You shoulda seen me on grand jury duty couple years back...I was a no true billin' bullsh*t charges daily. Unfortunately, on all but one charge of one case most fellow jurors went the DA's way.  I'm proud of that one no true bill.

    Parent

    I think me and you agree on many things,Kdog (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    And disagree on quite a few too, though sometimes the disagreements are more as to degree rather than type.

    I probably am most farthest away from you on things such as illegal immigration, but I think on the other thread you saw I wasn't an absolute racist or fascist about it, as I did say I'd legalize everyone already here, expedite the poor guys trying to get in the legal way, seal the border and actually punish companies that exploit and mistreat "brown people" (you use this phrase alot) rather than the people themselves, to use just one example.

    I think we both agree on things such as the need for curbs on globalist crony capitalism.

    Parent

    Besides (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    Generally being a reason to be held in contempt - not following the law, there ARE other mechanisms for "checking this power" - it's called  "VOTING" and "GETTING INVOLVED".

    Tough luck, you and the law you serve are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

    Again, the problem is, many people think the laws you admit you would not follow as a juror ARE serving the people and that you would be the problem.

    Parent

    Jbindc's After School Special - Get Involved! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:00:04 PM EST
    Most people?
    I dare say MOST PEOPLE are for legalizing marijuana at least in the places where it is ok to use for medical purposes.

    And I don't care about "contempt". Try jailing me for jury nullification.

    I've read alot about this stuff. Nullification is one of the few powers the common people have left.

    As for voting... don't make me laugh. Our system is currently too corrupt for voting to solve much of anything.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:00:13 AM EST
    Just because a small majority of people may agree that marijuana should be legalized, does not mean that a majority of the people would (or would think it's ok to) ignore the law if they were sitting on a jury.

    Nice leap in logic, though.

    Parent

    I surely do hope you've never been and (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    never will be selected as a juror!

    Parent
    A little help.. (none / 0) (#10)
    by hexorcist on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    Or any of the law professionals here, confirm or refute something for me please?

     As per Brown v State,
    "There is no doubt that False Imprisonment is listed as a necessarily lesser included offense* of the crime of Kidnapping in the Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions . Additionally, there is no question that , so listed, those instructions are required to be given."

    And as per the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (page 123) Manslaughter -must- be included for the jury instructions on Zimmerman's trial.

    (* - "Necessarily Lesser Included Offenses" are noted as "Category I")

    Is this correct?

    Whoops (none / 0) (#11)
    by hexorcist on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Missed the info for Brown v State, here it is. It starts on page 3 or 4.

    Parent
    Colorado wildfires (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    Wildfire season is always scary, but usually it's in the high country.  I can't remember the last time there were evacuations from a fairly major city.


    Just watched the news (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    and a whole subdivision was lost to the flames.  That is such a beautiful area so I feel very bad for the residents.  

    There was a man interviewed who wouldn't leave without taking his flag from his front yard.  It was the flag from his 24 yr old son's military funeral.  He was killed in battle.

    Heartbreaking.

    Parent

    The Denver firefighters down there... (none / 0) (#55)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    last night estimated that 300 homes were lost.  A two mile long wall of fire coming down the slope into the valleys on the NW side of CS.  

    There are just no words to describe that kind of destruction and devastation.  Its amazing the nobody has been injured or killed.  

    I'm truly frightened about the 4th of July weekend, even with the fireworks bans.

    Parent

    That is a spot (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:01:02 AM EST
    of good news in an otherwise devastating situation.

    Parent
    If Obama's people were smart... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    they'd get a commercial produced with the clip of Rmoney's statement about learning the lessons of Wisconsin and not needing more police, firefighers, etc. interspersed with clips of the firestorm that happened in the Springs last night and the very coordinated emergency response from local, state, federal and military personnel and run that in all TV outlets along the Front Range.  

    Parent
    Germany Makes Religious Circumcision a Crime! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    As of today in Germany, religious-based circumcision is considered bodily harm-a criminal offense regardless of parental consent. Circumcisions carried out for medical reasons, however, are not illegal.

    The ruling was inspired by a groundbreaking case, argued in a regional court in Cologne, where a doctor circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy at the request of the boy's parents. When the boy was hospitalized for hemorrhaging four days after the procedure, prosecutors were notified and the doctor was charged with grievous bodily harm, or Korperverletztung, in German.

    This is the first case in German history where circumcision has been considered bodily harm in a court of law.

    You could read more on the ruling here.  Other reports suggest this ruling will only apply to the Cologne region.  But that isn't entirely clear.

    Although I'm open to other arguments, it's very hard for me to read this as anything but antisemitic.  And, given Germany's history, it's an uncomfortable ruling to say the least.

    But I'd be interested in other takes on the story.

    My BF (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    (who is "culturally Jewish") was more succinct:

    "F*cking Nazis"

    Parent

    My initial reaction was .... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    close to that as well. Though a bit more verbose.

    Parent
    ouch (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    this is just bad form on their part since I imagine that's how most people will take it.

    Ironically I suspect it's more antimuslim than antisemetic, there's aren't a whole lot of jews left in Germany to bother.

    Parent

    It may indeed be (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    antimuslim more than antisemitic (and although Muslims are also Semites, I realize that you are using the term to refer to Jewish people).  And it's true that there are estimated to be around 3 million or more Muslims, as opposed to only an estimated 200,000 Jews, still.....given Germany's history with regards to their Jewish population, this will not be taken well at all, and I would have thought that the German court might be a bit more sensitive to this than they apparently appear to be.  Not a good move on Germany's part.

    Parent
    agree the sensitivity to it is there (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    although some cbs article I just read said it was more like 4 million to 100,000.

    The other reason I bring it up has less to do with numbers and more to do with current culture.  I'm surprised they did this because they do tend to be very sensitive towards remarks of anti jewish sentiment.  But along with the rest of europe, there is a fairly strong anti-muslim/immigrant sentiment right now.

    And no, not a good move, because that's the first thing people will think.  And it's not like anti-muslim sentiment is any better than anti-jewish sentiment.

    Parent

    I agree, CST (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    Anti any ethnic, religious, racial, national origin, sexual orientation, etc group is unacceptable.

    Parent
    100,000 ain't chopped liver ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    there are only about 13,400,000 Jews in the entire world.

    Parent
    didn't mean that (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:34:42 PM EST
    Just pointing out that they are not the only (or even the majority of) people affected by this. The case was brought due to the injury of a muslim boy during a circumcision.  I'm not trying to imply that the Jews aren't affected by this - but I doubt that's where the motivation for it came from.  Just based on my understanding of the current cultural environment in Germany today.  It's not that the Jews left in Germany aren't concerned, it's that for the most part Germans aren't concerned with the Jews that are left in Germany.

    Parent
    We elected to keep our sons intact. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    Cosmetic surgery on infants just seems wrong to me. There's little, if any, medical justification for circumcision.  And, of course, there are a certain percent that cause significant harm to the child.

    Parent
    how do you feel about ear piercings? (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    Or for that matter repairing a cleft lip?  Or delivering babies at home instead of in the hospital?

    Truthfully I feel similarly as you about it, and I probably would elect not to if I had a son and my husband didn't care (if I ever got married and had a son with someone who did care I feel like I'd leave the penis decision making to the one with a penis).

    But I think when it comes to stuff like this you err on the side of freedom unless there are serious ramifications to not, which I'm not convinced there are in this case.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    Do you want links on male circumcisions gone wrong?

    I mean, forget totally that it's elective surgery and that any purported health benefits are still contested to this day. Forget that it might interfere with the sensitivity of the organ during sex - no one is sure about that. Forget all that, because we'll assume you didn't know. Did you know that kids have had their sex "changed" because of botched circumcisions? Did you know that a very few have died? Are those important enough considerations for you?

    Parent

    I don't really approve of the practice (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:50:32 PM EST
    myself.  I just think in this case it's best to err on the side of freedom.  There are many things in life that are inherently somewhat dangerous and not illegal, and I think that's how it should be.

    The leading cause of death among infants is premature birth.  Recent studies suggest that obesity in the mother gives a higher likelihood of premature birth.  Should we start prosecuting mothers who over eat?  They might be killing their child.

    They are important enough considerations that I wouldn't do it myself.  They are not enough for me to say - let's pass a law banning a very common cultural/religious practice.

    Parent

    Then you should have no problem (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    With small "nicks" to the female sexual genitalia either. Many many cultures and religions practice various forms of female circumcision, some milder than what we do to male infants some even more terrible.

    As for "premature birth" and all that, those arguments don't apply in this case.
    Here you have a healthy , already born baby boy.
    Should you perform elective non-consensual possibly life-threatening surgery on him for no reason whatsoever other than your ancient superstition or to "let freedom ring"?

    It seems to me we have no problem passing laws to protect babies from "common religous practices" - if they are GIRLS.

    Parent

    not all nicks are created equal (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    And no, that's not a comment on girls > boys, but the anatomy issues are vastly different.  If you nick my finger I bleed a little, if you nick my eye I go blind in that eye.

    If we're talking about removing some skin from, say, the earlobe, or even the outer labia, I probably wouldn't think it should be banned.  But you know, and I know, that's not what we're talking about.  And no, the difference is not gender.  I would be opposed to people cutting off the tip of your penis for the expressed purpose of reducing your sex drive and leaving you a stub with a hole to pee out of too.

    Parent

    Hey, at least you are consistent (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    But in fact, quite a few people aren't, and even the smallest nicks are prohibited.

    Meanwhile the maiming of boys goes on apace.

    Parent

    Men can change laws and traditions (none / 0) (#57)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:44:42 PM EST
    Slayer, remember that men dominate the leadership of almost all religions. (I can't think of one where women dominate.) Men are the majority of lawmakers in almost all countries. Why do you think men are so hellbent on maiming boy babies?

    Laws arose to stop female genital mutilation, which causes many health problems. Here's what WHO says.

    Are you saying that male circumcision hurts the heath of men more than FGM hurts women? If so, I'd be curious on the statistics.

    Parent

    I'm not arguing that (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    I might argue that it hurts baby boys more than SOME types of FGM hurts baby girls, but even then that's not important. That's mere Oppression Olympics, and I don't deny that the most severe types of FGM are worse than a successfully performed male mutilation.

    It shouldn't matter. There's no legitimate reason to be messing with a male or female infants genitalia solely due to cultural or religious concerns. Babies cannot consent, and they don't deserve to have their future sexuality or their lives put in danger simply to please their parents.

    As far as changing things, women were, in some cases, the major practitioners of, and even proponents of FGM , and that didn't stop feminists and their allies from successfully appealing to the conscience of women and men in both the developed and developing (though to a lesser extent) worlds, such that the problem is outlawed in many countries and greatly amoleriated in others.

    Similarly, it will take women and men to work together to end male circumcision as a common practice. Women vote for politicians here, and women perform most of the child care and the raising of children - that is, women have more "cultural" power than men, and pass down most of the norms in our society. We will need the votes of women and the women's networks to spread the information about this. It's often still taken for granted, and the risks of it aren't as widely known. More to the point it's cruel, but no one much seems to care about the pain of a baby boy.

    Parent

    Slayer, you started it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    Three times you compared male circumcision to female-genital cutting, including the proposed "nicking" of the clitoris. (You said cervix, but that's incorrect.)

    It certainly sounds like your comparing oppressions when you say,  "No one much seems to care about the pain of a baby boy."

    A nick or pinprick to the clitoris doesn't appear to be a widely practiced form of FGM, but rather a suggestion in hopes of keeping parents from doing worse.

    Can you tell me what forms of FGM hurt girls less than male circumcision does?  

    The main problem of FGM is it comes from a tradition of controlling women's sexuality. There is no form, even the proposed nicking, that is medically justified. The reason pediatricians suggested it was in hopes of stopping FGM.    

    Male circumcision is not done to control men's sexuality. It arose out of a desire for health and cleanliness. There are studies concluding that it reduces infections, including HIV, and cancer in men. I'd hesitate to ban the practice until we have more information. Here's what the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics say. I'm all for baby boys getting analgesics to prevent any pain if they get the procedure.

    I agree that women often performed or supported FGM in Africa and parts of Asia, but for good reasons. Because of discrimination, married women had a greater chance of survival. Attitudes are changing to some degree, but many men would not accept a bride who had not undergone FGM.

    I disagree that women have more "cultural power" than men. Men still predominate in the upper ranks of religion, medicine, media, law, politics, business, education, etc.  

    Parent

    Circumcision was not common practice ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:57:09 AM EST
    ... in the country until the late 1800s. It's going to take education and time. But making it against the law is counterproductive, IMHO.

    Parent
    Cleft lip surgery? Sure. Home deliveries? Sure. Circumcision (male or female)? No. Just seems barbaric to me. I agree, leave it up to the owner.

    Parent
    do you think it should be illegal (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    or do you just not approve and wouldn't do it yourself?

    If it's the latter we are on the same page with all of that.

    Parent

    That's your choice as a parent. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:51:27 AM EST
    The only acceptable medical rationale that I could see for circumcision would be an overly tight foreskin that precludes or greatly inhibits proper functions -- which is rare, but it does happen.

    But one should not impose one's personal choices about circumcision upon religious minorities such as Jews and Muslims, and I fear that this is the underlying motivation in Germany. The country's past behavior on the world stage should logically make people suspect of such actions.

    Parent

    Oh GEEZ louis! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    We can't make a NICK on a female child's cervix, but it's somehow ok to perform surgery on babies or pre-school age boys without their consent, and often not even by trained medical personal(not talking just about Germany, but male circumcision in general including in the US)?

    You do know that some boys have lost their penises and a few have even died due to this stuff don't you?

    If you want to do that for your religion, then wait till the 13th birthday or something like that when the kid at least has some semblence of an ability to consent.

    Parent

    IMO it shouldn't be a crime (none / 0) (#42)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    once the boy is of legal age to make his own legal decisions about body modifications.

    Doing it to children - infants - on the other hand, who have no say in the matter and can't defend themselves... what if my religion required priests to perform ritual surgery on the genitalia of female infants? Everybody on board with that?

    Parent

    San Francisco... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    had some circumcision ban talk last year.  I have no reason to believe the prosecution is antisemitic, just inappropriate absent gross negligence, sad as it is.

    Personally I'm in the pretty f*cked up thing to do to a baby/kid if ya think about it camp.  That being said, banning it would be dumb.  Pushing circumcisions underground will lead to more injuries and deaths. Better off in a hospital or not afraid to go to one.

     

    Parent

    I didn't see the search box.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by hexorcist on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    But I did find this after seeing your reply and looking to the right. Thanks for your reply!

    You are welcome--and very gracious (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    not to point out I had it exactly wrong!

    Parent
    yes, I deleted your comment because (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:40:37 AM EST
    I said the opposite: manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder 2.

    Parent
    New question.. (none / 0) (#46)
    by hexorcist on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:42:56 PM EST
    Because of what I said was Brown v State (which turned out to be State v Russell Sandborn - dang google for taking me to the wrong document) the way I'm reading it is that: if the lesser is noted as a "Category 1" it must be included in the jury instructions and "Category 2" is optional based on what is presented at trial. Manslaughter is listed as a "Category 1" but Jeralyn said that it may not be given to the jury. Am I misunderstanding State v Russell Sandborn?

    I can't answer that one. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    Anger Management vs Stand Your Ground (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:16:52 AM EST
    "When you take your gun, two magazines, your videocamera and your cellphone" [to document your confrontation] "that was premeditated,"

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-stand-ground-20120627,0,983062.story