"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's pretty much what I was talking about. Covenant marriages have stricter opt-in provisons, but they don't supplant the family law of the states where they are allowed.

Furthermore, the states that allow covenant marriages also provide that the protections of the abuse laws, child support, etc. can't be abrogated.

you know under sharia you can beat shit out of the wife, only if she disobeys of course, but I'm sure you and Atticus are right. It's all the same.

If Hil signs the law, what happens now that women have no rights, is she grandfathered in for the rest of her term?

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nah, Slave is the paper abortions guy. It's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT version of the fuck-'em-and-dump-'em-without-consequences fantasy.

No worse than an attican dentata fantasy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona have covenant marriages. Can someone asplain to me how what the good Archbishop is talking about is any different? An opt-in to more strictures, rather than an opt-out of the general rules?

BTW, I think having a two-tiered family law system is a horrible idea, but I'm pointing out that some states have done it without the world ending. And yes, they have done so to appease a religious minority without changing the rules that 95% of people operate under.

not to be a timmy, but didn't you mean "opt-in to more stitches"?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's pretty much what I was talking about. Covenant marriages have stricter opt-in provisons, but they don't supplant the family law of the states where they are allowed.

Furthermore, the states that allow covenant marriages also provide that the protections of the abuse laws, child support, etc. can't be abrogated.

What about Indian reservations, what with the confusing application of state, federal, and tribal law depending on the identity of the plaintiff/victim and defendant?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What about Indian reservations, what with the confusing application of state, federal, and tribal law depending on the identity of the plaintiff/victim and defendant?

the dems are digging their argumentative grave two dimensionally. why complicate it to 3?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the dems are digging their argumentative grave two dimensionally. why complicate it to 3?

Putting aside the questionable utility of calling the Archbishop of Canterbury a Democrat, you'll find no post of mine favoring either sharia law in the U.S. nor covenant marriage in Arkansas. What you will find is a GOP presidential candidate WITH DELEGATES who is in one of 'em, which means you've got more apologizing to do about accommodating religious nuts than I do, mon ami.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
Deutsche Bank CEO is trotting out a parade of horribles about the evils that will happen if the US allows the credit rating of MBIA and Ambac to fall. The Deutsche is taking about big problems because the European banks were foolish enough buy a ton of CDO's in 2005 and 2006, when lending standard were really low.

US taxpayers shouldn't bail out a bunch of foreign investors. To hell with that. Europe can bail out its own banks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...9NM&refer=home

Has anyone written a study highlighting the flaws in the models that led to this "subprime" debacle? Anyone middle or upper middle class who looked around his neighborhood for the past few years and saw all the people becoming "mortgage brokers" and the dangerous credit vehicles you'd hear people talking about could see there was no oversight and it was a game of musical chairs.

I know I sound naive here, but is there a component to this mess that involves Wall Street simply being so disconnected from Main Street that all these banks thought they could somehow use a model to hedge or spread risk so thin they could avoid the fallout of a bubble the simplest John Q. Public could see was turning into an imminent mushroom cloud? I'd love to see somebody analyze how anecdotal evidence could have been utilized in conjunction with the empirical stuff to have created better risk assessments.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't see how it would be possible to have any matter that is subject to the laws of a state (or State) be dealt with in a court other than one that is sponsored by, and subject to the laws of general application in that state.

If Muslims wish to have Sharia govern how they (and by they I mean specific Muslims, not the whole faith) marry and divorce, then they have the ability to work within a parallel system.

Traditinal Jews still sign a Katubah when they marry, and still obtain a Get when they wish to divorce, but the marriage is still subject to tthe laws of the state in which they marry or divorce, and there is no doubt as to which wins in a case of conflict.

Traditional Jews are not in any way comparable to the sort of people who seek to install sharia. Radical Islam specifically seeks to trump the secular state's laws.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the dems are digging their argumentative grave two dimensionally. why complicate it to 3?

Three is a significant number in regard to Islam, since it is the Godfather III of religions.

Even L. Ron Hubbard had the creativity to come up with his own characters for Scientology. The Koran's like one of those recent sequels to Jane Austin books my wife likes to read.

Maybe "Return of the Jedi" is a better analogy.

I don't buy any of them, but really, Islam's got some serious issues in re: literary merit.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Traditional Jews are not in any way comparable to the sort of people who seek to install sharia. Islam specifically seeks to trump the secular state's laws.

More accurately, some Muslims are bothered by the fact that there are people who are not following God's law. Fortunately we don't have anybody like that in America to take the ludicrous position that our government should conform its laws to some kind of "natural law."

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't see how it would be possible to have any matter that is subject to the laws of a state (or State) be dealt with in a court other than one that is sponsored by, and subject to the laws of general application in that state.

If Muslims wish to have Sharia govern how they (and by they I mean specific Muslims, not the whole faith) marry and divorce, then they have the ability to work within a parallel system.

Traditinal Jews still sign a Katubah when they marry, and still obtain a Get when they wish to divorce, but the marriage is still subject to tthe laws of the state in which they marry or divorce, and there is no doubt as to which wins in a case of conflict.

This is all solved by getting government out of marriage, and just having it governed by contract law. As it is, as you note, some default rule can be contracted around (prenups)m, but others can't (parental obligations).

In a broader sense, although I don't think it work in in most Western countries, some do have dual legal systems. For example, Muslim Malays are subject to a form of Sharia law and a separate court system, but the Chinese, Indians, and miscellaneous are not. I don't know, however, if one can somehow opt out or in to one system or the other by conversion, excommunication, or other method, and I am on an airport terminal and don't have the time to look it up.

LessinKohSamui, Thailand

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Has anyone written a study highlighting the flaws in the models that led to this "subprime" debacle? Anyone middle or upper middle class who looked around his neighborhood for the past few years and saw all the people becoming "mortgage brokers" and the dangerous credit vehicles you'd hear people talking about could see there was no oversight and it was a game of musical chairs.

I know I sound naive here, but is there a component to this mess that involves Wall Street simply being so disconnected from Main Street that all these banks thought they could somehow use a model to hedge or spread risk so thin they could avoid the fallout of a bubble the simplest John Q. Public could see was turning into an imminent mushroom cloud? I'd love to see somebody analyze how anecdotal evidence could have been utilized in conjunction with the empirical stuff to have created better risk assessments.

Or, as I think of it, where amongst the so-called big swinging dicks of I-banks and the lot was a single soul with sense? Isn't this an indictment of every top-20 business school as judged by the performance of their graduates of the last 30 years? I will swear by Plated's Picks over the collective wisdom of every over-paid lemming at Merrill, Goldman, Morgan, Deutche, etc.

LessStillInTheKohSamuiAirport

[bling trade]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Or, as I think of it, where amongst the so-called big swinging dicks of I-banks and the lot was a single soul with sense? Isn't this an indictment of every top-20 business school as judged by the performance of their graduates of the last 30 years? I will swear by Plated's Picks over the collective wisdom of every over-paid lemming at Merrill, Goldman, Morgan, Deutche, etc.

LessStillInTheKohSamuiAirport

The smart bankers and brokers knews the flaws in their models. The problem is that the business guys make a lot of money by selling companies financing and selling investors securities, whether the stuff sold is good or bad in general, at the price sold, or for the particular issuer/investor. And that since Reagan, the regulators haven't really been willing to use their powers to control the bankers, brokers, etc. The Fed, the Comptroller, the SEC, and FASB could do a lot to control things, but they generally don't seem to have the political will or backing to do so.

And as for the lemming analysts at the banks, those guys are in the entertainment business. A big part of the reason the bank has them is to cheerlead, so clients want to do transactions, and the bankers and brokers get paid for executing them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
More accurately, some Muslims are bothered by the fact that there are people who are not following God's law. Fortunately we don't have anybody like that in America to take the ludicrous position that our government should conform its laws to some kind of "natural law."

do you really argue with other lawyers for money? this is like the Washington Generals.

listen, yes there are born-agains that want to change the way the entire US is ran. that is fair. if they can get the votes, god bless. and if someone can convince the US voters to turn to sharia, I'll help hook up the speaker on my town square for the prayer calls. Of course, since at least 50% of the population would be voting in their last election if it passes, I kind of doubt it'll go through.

what I was posting about is a group saying "let us out of your laws, and let ours apply, cause, you know, we're different*". That would be like the born agains saying "okay, W couldn't get rid of abortions, so here's what we'll do, when Billy Bob kills one of them abortion docs, he doesn't go before your Courts, we'll figure out what to do with him- it really is a matter for his religion". so far I haven't heard too much talk about us going down that road.


* Wonk, the jews don't need the governement to bless gets, etc. because none of it is enforceable to anyone who doesn't want to follow the law. say if a woman can't get a get, do you think a state judge won't marry her to the next guy?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you really argue with other lawyers for money? this is like the Washington Generals.

I'm bad with sports analogies. Does this violate our new civility code?

what I was posting about is a group saying "let us out of your laws, and let ours apply, cause, you know, we're different*". That would be like the born agains saying "okay, W couldn't get rid of abortions, so here's what we'll do, when Billy Bob kills one of them abortion docs, he doesn't go before your Courts, we'll figure out what to do with him- it really is a matter for his religion". so far I haven't heard too much talk about us going down that road.

I already said I don't agree with Rowan Williams, but even if I did, where are you getting this? Where does he say there should be two criminal codes, and which one applies depends upon the perpetrator's religion? You're beating the living shit out of a straw man.