Friday Highlights

Whoo.

  1. Ms Bathory was close.
  2. Human’s are nothing if not adaptable.
  3. Remembering 9/11 and something about it you probably didn’t know.
  4. Max-Sec in the deep south.
  5. Yikes.
  6. More yikes.
  7. Constitutional authority … but don’t worry, Mr Yoo is for it.
  8. Unintended consequence (but … easily predicted consequences should not be unintentional. So is it an intentional consequence then?)
  9. The wrong air force.
  10. Mr Kerry, “if you don’t study” … comes back to haunt, eh?
  11. Let’s see, it is “regrettable” that a guy who thinks it OK to offer that the Israeli Prime minister would wear the teeth of Palestinian children publicly doesn’t get tenure … Hmmm. What’d that site offer on various conservative remarks that lost people jobs or positions?
  12. Incoherence from the left, noted.
  13. We’re waiting for the really really cool lightning bolt.
  14. Liberal much? Geesh. So, do you think that next week they write an essay comparing Mr Obama to Joseph Kony? ‘Tis about as logical and as outrageous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    They call the police, and their husband is out of a job, they can’t pay their mortgage, and they and their children are potentially headed for poverty.

    Inequality has gotten extreme if the only possible ways to make a living in the US is multimillionaire football player or collecting bottles on the street for the deposit.

  2. Boonton says:

    Constitutional authority … but don’t worry, Mr Yoo is for it.

    Interesting take that the 2001 authoriziation of force cannot be used by Obama to attack ISIS because it only applied to those involved in 9/11 and Al Qaeda has disavowed ISIS.

    Yet reading the actual authorization on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#Text_of_the_AUMF we see:

    Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States…

    That would seem to do it.

  3. Mark says:

    Booton,

    Inequality has gotten extreme if the only possible ways to make a living in the US is multimillionaire football player or collecting bottles on the street for the deposit.

    This is one of the sillier responses you’ve offered to my remarks. Apparently they guy who offers that economic incentives are stronger and more prevalent than we know, figures this doesn’t apply to domestic violence. Look the remark was about a “zero tolerance” policy by the NFL toward domestic violence. If you are seen on “TMZ” or twitter (not to say indicted or convicted) of domestic violence the suggested policy is you can never work in the NFL. So. You are the wife or fiance of a star like Mr Rice. He hit you. Right now you live in a $10 million dollar home, he makes $8 mill a year in salary + another $20 million in endorsements. If anyone finds out he hit you that will disappear. Neither you nor your spouse have any skills outside of his amazing physical gifts and tolerance and aptitude for a very violent game (recall quarterback Kurt Warning was stocking grocery shelves and out of the league before the Rams picked him up and he won a super bowl … why do you think Mr Rice and his fiance might not face near poverty if he loses his NFL connections entirely?).

    The real question is, however, why you don’t think that the women and children of these men will not have strong economic incentives to hide any evidence of abuse even if it exists? Seriously pretending such incentives don’t exist is (as noted) easily predicable and therefore as noted, part of the design.

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Well, at least you didn’t cite the authorization for force in the Middle East by Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates.

    Question: what act of international terrorism has ISIS engaged in? Seems to me their efforts thus far have been local.

  5. Boonton says:

    Question: what act of international terrorism has ISIS engaged in? Seems to me their efforts thus far have been local.

    Kidnapping of US citizens as well as citizens of NATO allies and murdering them.

    I don’t really see how you can’t argue the post-9/11 force resolution would not apply.

  6. Boonton says:

    . You are the wife or fiance of a star like Mr Rice. He hit you. Right now you live in a $10 million dollar home, he makes $8 mill a year in salary + another $20 million in endorsements.

    Another way of viewing this might be MR. Rice is paid $28M+ to NOT beat his wife. Just imagine a UFO landed and offered every man who did not beat a woman $28M. I suspect many men would not beat a woman as that is a powerful incentive. Would all violence against women be eliminated? No I suppose some men just cannot control themselves and would beat a woman and try to hide that from the UFO. Perhaps they would even try to get the woman to go along in exchange for some of the payout.

    If that works they still have paid a heavy price for their violence. And since you are harping on incentives doesn’t increasing the price of something mean typically a person will buy less of it?

  7. Mark says:

    Am back.

    Another way of viewing this might be MR. Rice is paid $28M+ to NOT beat his wife.

    Not making sense. Mr Rice is paid to do something few people can do, running back in the NFL requires many talents. You and I have managed not “not beat our wives” for some time now. Oddly we aren’t paid millions to do that.

    My point was this was a disincentive for the (future) Ms Rice to report violence. I remain unclear on why you find that untrue, seeing as you never addressed that.

  8. Boonton says:

    Welcome back, I was about to dispatch the search parties. I see you went Ulysses on all the spammers who tried to litter your blog in your absence.

    Not making sense. Mr Rice is paid to do something few people can do, running back in the NFL requires many talents. You and I have managed not “not beat our wives” for some time now

    Or Mr. Rice is paid to produce income to his team and the cartel that the team belongs too (the NFL, a business cartel explicitly exempted from anti-trust law). This requires him to be a better running back than 99.99% of the population and it also requires him to manage to avoid doing lots of things like beating his wife, running a dog fighting operation, killing people, doing illegal drugs, etc. etc. As common as ‘not beating your wife’ is and as uncommon as being a NFL quality running back is, fact remains Mr. Rice is not so essential that he cannot be replaced. So the notice is now out there that part of your $28M you are paid is to avoid doing things like, beating your wife.

    My point was this was a disincentive for the (future) Ms Rice to report violence. I remain unclear on why you find that untrue, seeing as you never addressed that.

    Let’s imagine the NFL doesn’t care about him beating his wife. Mrs Rice has an incentive to report and not worry about his future income (which she is legally entitled to share) being destroyed. So on one hand there is a disincentive to report. On the other hand her bargaining power is greatly amplified under the current policy. By reporting she can destroy tens of millions of dollars of his future income. In that case she could divorce him and demand 75% instead of 50% of his income (otherwise she will report).

    From the point of view of the NFL player, the costs of beating your wife seem much higher to me. Yes perhaps in some limited circumstances you may be a bit safer from getting a criminal charge because your wife would rather not want to report you. $5000 invested in anger management classes have now seen a dramatic increase in their ROI, no?

  9. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Some corrections first ..
    1. (the NFL, a business cartel explicitly exempted from anti-trust law) This is, as far as I can see, not relevant. You may not like the major sports getting Congressional economic special treatment, but in this case I don’t see the relevance.
    2. Yes perhaps in some limited circumstances you may be a bit safer from getting a criminal charge because your wife would rather not want to report you.No criminal charges have been offered in the Rice case. There are other individuals currently featured in this NFL kerfuffle who have been indicted, just not Rice.

    In the Rice case, the timeline as I’ve heard it is, in the Spring an incident occurred. Police reviewed and no charges were offered. The NFL mgmt saw the video (but deny that, even though it’s pretty clear everyone there was given the video), Mr Rice however was given a 4 week suspension. Then the video was released publicly and went “viral” … the NFL mgmt changed the suspension because of the publicity to permanent/indefinite and started talking about 0 tolerance.

    My point is that a zero tolerance policy which holds that if you are accused of spousal abuse then you will have a permanent suspension leads to a strong incentive for a spouse to not-report. I am not arguing that the player does not have a incentive to not beat his wife.

    Ultimately this is about what policy best reduces actual wife beating. Seems to me identifying abusers and correcting their behavior can only be done by the NFL to players if they remain in the league. Kicking them out will just you have angry poor men who beat their wives but not in the NFL.

  10. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    In that case she could divorce him and demand 75% instead of 50% of his income (otherwise she will report).

    One more correction. Mr Rice was not yet married. This was his fiancee.

  11. Boonton says:

    #1 Has nothing do with with whether I like the NFL getting special treatment, the fact remains an NFL player works for two bosses, the team owner and the NFL and both obligate him to meet their interests.

    #2 No criminal charges? Given the incident was video taped in public I’m a bit surprised by that. Police do have the power to make a charge even if the victim is unwilling.

    My point is that a zero tolerance policy which holds that if you are accused of spousal abuse then you will have a permanent suspension leads to a strong incentive for a spouse to not-report.

    Which brings me to my point about paying someone $10M not to beat his wife. Suppose you did. That $10M would clearly also be an incentive for his wife to not report an attack…yet it seems pretty clear on balance you’re putting a bigger incentive against violence than towards covering up violence.

    One more correction. Mr Rice was not yet married. This was his fiancee.

    Then her incentive to cover it up is even more limited as she has no legal claim to his income to begin with….yes she was planning to marry him but plans are, of course, always subject to change.

  12. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Re #1, but the “cartel”/not-cartel nature of the NFL is not relevant. That the NFL has business exemptions does not enter into this discussion.

    Re, #2, yes. No criminal charges, they didn’t feel it warranted such. This was an angry fight between two people, she was charging at him in anger when he struck her.

    Another corrections, to begin with….yes she was planning to marry him but plans are, of course, always subject to change. It is my understanding those plans were not changed by this incident and to this date still have not.

  13. Boonton says:

    Re #1, but the “cartel”/not-cartel nature of the NFL is not relevant. That the NFL has business exemptions does not enter into this discussion.

    The business relationship of the NFL to the player does, though. The player is paid not just to play well but also to serve the interests of the NFL.

    It is my understanding those plans were not changed by this incident and to this date still have not.

    Then it sounds like we either have true love here….or her assessment of his long term earning power is still indicating a positive figure rather than a negative one.