joekerr's Comments (162)

“The problem is more systemic than just the modern day banking system. A lot of what’s wrong with the economy starts at home. I was watching a commercial on my huge TV the other day for a pizza chain. You could get 3 extra large pizzas for 5 bucks each. That started me thinking…how do you make a profit off a 5 dollar pizza? Who needs three huge pizzas? You figure with the cost of rental, the energy, the ingredients, labor and transportation costs, that this is an impossible equation. All those costs would have to be rock bottom and the labor super efficient and cheap. But yet as Americans, we demand that products are this cheap. Yet every time we make this demand, we are essentially draining our own pockets. It is us who work for beans an hour. We are the farmer who has to give away his crop at cutthroat prices. We are the consumer who buys more than they need. Wall Street may be greedy, but so are we. All these cheap, replaceable products directly impact our lives. We accept things like “planned obsolescence”. What we really need in this country is a return to quality, not quantity. So personally I am not surprised at all by the current environment. You think these bankers are greedy? Well they learned it at home.”

“You entirely right my friend. But I have this to say to you. Children really shouldn't be watching tv. When I was growing up (and I am not that old!) I was allowed to watch one hour of supervised television a night and Saturday morning cartoons...which no longer exist by the way. I find it hilarious when people like you preach about merit and morals and yet allow your children to be potentially exposed to stuff like this by plunking em down in front of tv or the internet. You don't want kids exposed to this? Then help fund some children's programs or volunteer or vote for that tax increase so we can have parks and the stuff we had growing up and then you won't have to worry about it so much. And oh yeah....take away the cell phone too.”

“Ahh the horrors of symbology!! (I know that's not a real word). Anywho, being an ex catholic, and I do mean ex as I was nearly excommunicated, I know all too well the haughtiness with which this religion comports itself and hypocrisy it exhibits everyday. So what if some non believer takes a whizz on your picture? Doesn't the bible say that men will test your faith and if an enemy strikes you, to turn the other cheek? It seems that Mr. Donohue is not that strong in his faith if he feels threatened by a comedic show that shows little regard for anyone, let alone religion. And I did notice that several posters mentioned that they would never parody Judaism, but aren't Larry David and Seinfield living parodies of being Jewish? Their own schtick is a walking, talking joke about being Jewish so I don't see the problem there. But then again that's the problem with satire. Some people actually believe it. Just like some people believe in a great big ghost in the sky and that after you die, you float up into the clouds and strum harps. Perhaps that's the real problem here. After believing in a fairy tale for so long, it becomes impossible to tell reality from fantasy.”

“True enough, but then you could say that everything we see on tv is "staged" to some degree, whether it is from something as simple as lighting, to whole entire made up events. I mean, what is the definition of news anyway? Is it only the facts and nothing but the facts or does it always have a tinge of humanity, of emotion interlaced with it? I believe the latter is true and as long as people accept that, then we always have a Fox news or some other incarnation of it. In fact, from what history has taught us, the guy who is telling the truth is often considered a pariah and conventional wisdom rules the day. So what I am seeing here, is conventional wisdom that says Fox isn't news when there really isn't a yardstick to hold that definition up to. So who is the "real" news and where can I find it?”

“But of the two stories you mentioned, neither originated on Fox News. They may have latched onto what they thought was a sensational story, but the fact of the matter is that these memes were spread in a different manner. Technically these stories and ideas were spread by bloggers and activists and then picked up by Fox News for no other purpose than ratings (see profit). If we are going to start deciding what is real news and what is not, then every news outlet can be found guilty of the same machinations and distortions as Fox. Personnally I believe the determination of what constitutes news and doesn't begins at home not at the White House. If we truly have that many stupid people in this country, then what's the point? Why would we even try? Because you and I both know that people aren't that stupid or evolution would have taken us all out by now. Simple fact of the matter is...Fox represents a very small segment of society that would find ANY reason to act like fools.”

“I for one kind of find this whole battle to be more than ludicrous. It’s almost as if both the White house and Fox News are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The average number of Fox News viewers is somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 million depending on what metric you use. This is 30 times less than American Idol (which is really misinforming people, by leading them to believe that they can be stars too!!). I fail to see the endemic danger to society posed by a network that gets less viewers than a rerun of Lost. Do I think Fox News is news? No, but neither are the other “cable” news networks. They are, for lack of better word, entertainment, though I fail to see how Glenn Beck and Olberman are entertaining. These networks operate off of soundbites, flashy banners and holograms. I think by even implying that somehow Fox has the ability to massively sway public opinion gives truth to the lie. I, for one, have a higher opinion of my fellow Americans, be they redneck or gangbanger. I don’t believe for a second that a large majority of people even pay attention to Fox beyond the occasional glance. I think the WH is doing itself a great disservice by even justifying FOX et al by lending them any credence whatsoever. You want news? Find it yourself. You want glitz and glamour? Turn on and tune in to cable news.”

“I've noticed that this seems to be more about gun ownership than it is about someone making threats against the president. What many people might not realize is that any threat made against the president is taken very seriously, even in cases of hearsay. To ignore any potential threat is to place the presidents life in danger. But it also extends to me making a threat against you. If I can reasonably ( not definitively) prove that you threatened to kill me, you will be investigated. Then if the police find means and opportunity, i.e. 43 guns and access to my person, you will probably be charged with something, EVEN IF you weren't actually going to do. The threat in and of itself is enough to send you to prison. Free speech does not protect you against making credible threats against any individual, not just the president. Now if the guy had said he was going to try to kill the pres with mind powers, then it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it has. Chances are the witnesses knew of his penchant for guns and took the threat seriously. Even if the guy wasn't serious, which he probably wasn't, he still had the means, the opportunity and by saying it out loud, the motive. That's a "book em Dano" situation. Goes to show you should keep your mouth shut around polite company.”

“The real problem with ALL media outlets is that they have one overriding principle. To return maximum value to the shareholders. In other words, profit. I mean who are we fooling? There was a time when there was a work ethic, a guiding principle and a real dedication to the craft. Those days have been long gone my friends. I'm not that old, but I do remember when Geraldo was considered an exciting reporter. During his heyday, is when the news began to die. No one heard it gasp its last breath, but I believe it was right when the talk show phenomenon was just rearing its ugly head. When sensationalism began to rule the airwaves and we all started carrying cameras in our pockets. So what did the news outlets do? They adapted and quickly. Profit was in entertainment, not information, otherwise PBS would be rich beyond imagination. And then the Gulf War happened and they never shut the gd thing off! The arrival of the 24 hour news cycle was here to stay. But how do you keep people watching? You make stuff up, you give stories legs they never had and you invent rivalries where they never existed. Thus you have CCN vs. FOX vs. MSNBC. And we all sit here entralled as they fed us exactly what we want. Excitement, indignation, and not least of all, anyhting we want to here. Welcome to the NOW generation.”

“I completely agree with you and it is a gd shame that you aren't allowed to get married. But I disagree with the notion that this story lacks merit or press because your own plight is not mentioned. There is a bevy of stories and currently pending legislation that are all in regards to an individuals right to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. But any steps backwards or any precedent that can impinge on someone's right to marry will impact your fight also. You should lend your full throated support of all marriage if you expect anyone to respect your right to get married.”

“You are more than welcome. Anything for my fellow compatriots.”

“And you wanna know what the really funny part of this is? It appears that the couple ALREADY has a child. So his argument falls even flatter. If he wanted to protect the child, then it stands to reason that he should have granted the license. That way the child could enjoy the full benefits of having married parents. By denying them the license, he effectively consigned the child to a life not replete with all the advantages (supposedly).”

“Nope, just an very active reader and I've been using search engines since they were invented. It's funny how informed one can be with just a few clicks of a mouse and a little cross reference.”

“But that's a difference between a PRIVATE transaction and one that is a PUBLIC transaction. Both are regulated by different laws. I can walk into the DMV blind, stinking drunk, but as long as I behave myself, they cannot refuse to help me because they cannot deny me my citizen's rights. Not so with a private business like a taxi company. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, (this does not apply to employment, however.) That is not a right but a private transaction and there is nothing in the law that says a private company MUST provide me with service. However if a private company denies service based on a discriminatory practice, then you have some repair in civil court but the burden of evidence is on you and often hard to prove without a doubt. Trying to equate the two is quite literally comparing apples to oranges.”

“They'll just bring up judical "activism" and say that since somehow, someway, we,(liberals) approve of that, then we should approve of it when it doesn't go our way. But that's a specious argument and they know it. Judges do reserve the right to interpret law as they see fit, but within a legal context. Discrimination cannot be a overriding factor in any judges decision. Sure this guy is small fry and his decisions don't amount to much, but I say he does have the ability to do irreparable harm. By denying this couple a marriage license he has effectively barred them from receiving the rights and protections afforded to married couples. This could have prevented them from health benefits underneath one spouse, tax incentives and breaks and even lead to them being denied for a loan because of their marital status. There is no amount of lysol you can pour on this pile to make it "ok".”

“Not familiar with Napoleonic law. Errr...what's your point? I would like to respond if possible.”

“It's referenced in the above article and in the first report on this horrid story. He did indeed tell them to go elsewhere, and they did get married. I cannot find out exactly where they went, but I saw them, the couple, interviewed on tv the other day and that's what they said.”

“Ahhh, but you can only recuse yourself in the interest of being impartial. "I don't wanna do it" is not a valid reason for recusation insofar as no one would have any reason to question his impartiality in a matter such as this. In fact if his personal feelings are so inflated as to cause him to be unable to perform his job in a functional matter, then he should resign from the position or face censure, or involuntary retirement or removal by the court. If judges could use the excuse that they simply do not like a certain arrangement or disagree with standing law, then the justice system would be of very little use. While there are some who would cry that "activist" judges do this all the time, there is very little in case law to support this notion. Quite frankly, he should have lied when asked what his reasons were, but thankfully he does indeed possess a small mind. He said it with little or no compulsion so I think it stands that he did indeed violate a host of civil laws and there is no ambiguity in enforcment of citizens rights or deference for discrimination.”

“1. Justices of the Peace ARE Judges in the State of Louisiana.

2. All judges are REQUIRED to adhere to the Lousiana Code of Judicial Conduct. This is code of conduct is enforceable by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The code of conduct expressly forbids any discrimination based on but not limited to the following section.

(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, and shall not permit staff, court officials or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

The grounds for disciplinary action against a judge are set forth in La. Const. art. V., § 25(C), which provides: On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or retire involuntarily a judge for willful misconduct relating to his official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in
office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony.

3. Recusation. A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which disqualification is required by law or applicable Supreme Court rule. In all other instances, a judge should not recuse himself or herself.”

“Well lookie what I got on my hook. You bit, I reeled you in. All judges, including a justice of the peace, in Louisiana are bound by a judical code of conduct. CANON 3 A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply: (4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, and shall not permit staff, court officials or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
The word “shall” is intended to impose binding obligations, the violation of which can result in disciplinary action.
So while he may not be brought on criminal charges, he can be brought up on civil charges, fined, censured and removed from the bench.
La. Const. art. V., § 25(C)
On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court
may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or
retire involuntarily a judge for willful misconduct relating to his
official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty,
persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in
office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony.”

“Ha! He did look exactly like I thought he would. Strange huh? I wonder what that's all about. Can you determine if a person is racist by the way they look? Maybe it's a genetic thing? I kid, but in response to the rest of your post, trying to determine why a person is racist, is like trying to figure out why someone likes chocolate. It's a mystery that has haunted mankind for thousands of years and I doubt we will ever find a root cause for it. Maybe the lust to destroy one another is hardwired into us and can never be fully eradicated. My only for humanity is that we will one day recognize this fault within ourselves and by knowing it, control it to a certain extent. But as long as we have people who refuse to see this trait and conflate it with other reasons, we will never escape its harsh realities.”

“From the Model Code of Judical Conduct. "(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so" Louisana considers a justice of the peace to be a part of the judicary system and therefore a judge. So this means he is duty bound to uphold the code of conduct prescribed by the courts. So while it may not have been a crime, it certainly flies in the face of how a judge is supposed to perform his job and it could be argued that it is also against the 14th Amendment, which says that you cannot deny any citizen his or her rights based on gender, age, race, or religion. So there, is that an informed enough "liberal", opinion for you?”

“I'm pretty familiar with the technique used to create a painting like OBEY and it ain't that hard. But is that the point at issue here? Lazy artist or not, he has created some fairly iconic art over the years, mostly in the same exact way. Critics aside, he's got some chops. As for the fair use issue, I can understand where he is coming from as a guerilla artist. When you "purchase" a picture from an org like Getty or AP, the usage restrictions on it can be burdensome and restrictive. For example, if you want to use the picture for something simple, like a print ad, you have to take into consideration the distribution of that ad. If it's local, they don't charge that much. But if it is going to be the principle piece, like a logo, or the image itself is the product, there is no way any artist can afford it. So I think in some ways, the system works against itself, in that it encourages poor broke artist to skirt the rules. And besides, where was the value in that picture BEFORE obey redid it? Was there even any there?”

“Well then you've been lucky. Not so much for me. I went to a private school and got a little grooming, which makes me "whitewashed" and then being of a lighter skin color means that I can't be all black, and I have literally had this said to me, "White people treat you different." or my favorite..."You've got good hair, so you can't be ALL black." What the he double hockey sticks does that mean? Really? Cause society certainly doesn't think so.”

“I don't agree with him at all!!! Not even a little bit. But his attitude and what he said is taken at face value in most parts of the country. But unless you are of mixed decent or dating, you would probably never notice a thing. It's never really "out there" like your typical racism, it is disguised as innocent questions, like, "you can't be all black" or somthing to that effect. Which means you care about what race I am. And if you do, then there must be a reason why. Right?”

“True that, but still...and this is weird for me to say, I'm a little glad it happened and made the news. I've always felt like this is one of those issues that has generally been ignored in our society. The discrimation that interracial couples (what a term!!) and their children face from both sided of the aisle is oppresive and constant. I finally got my family tree from my dad (white) and there was barely any mention of my mother let alone my sister and I. That was probably one the single most insulting things I have ever endured in my life and yet how uncommon is it? Everybody's got black friends, until their kid trys to marry one and then...the lid certainly comes off, doesn't it? So bravo to the MSN for finally giving us mixed people a little time in the press. It's a continuing story that needs to highlighted and have the sharp glare of truth shone upon it. Only by what we know can we hope to move forward.”