The whole bunch of us slipped up on producing a Weekend Open Thread this week, but we’re peeling off this story we spotted before the weekend’s over, while it’s still ripe. Sorry for having frittered away our time — it should have been easy as pie — but after reading this story, you can understand why we’d want to slice down our time at the keyboard and maybe even split. And if that source makes you shake your head, here’s Smithsonian Magazine aping it and here’s the story from the New York Times doing its Times-y flambe on the topic.
By the way, snopes tends to disagree with this thesis, but they are notoriously anti-alarmist. Still, our of fairness, go read their piece too. (All can agree that it’s not all bananas that may be heading for the trashbin of history, but the most popular and familiar species of the fruit is among them.)
Much of great importance happened this past week, and more is coming up next week, and we will try to get to it in time, which might never happen. For now: this is your Weekend Open Thread. Talk about the doom for bananas or anything else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of decency and discretion.
About Greg Diamond
Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-disabled and semi-retired, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally ran for office against jerks who otherwise would have gonr unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that.
Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too.
He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)
His daughter is a professional campaign treasurer. He doesn't usually know whom she and her firm represent. Whether they do so never influences his endorsements or coverage. (He does have his own strong opinions.) But when he does check campaign finance forms, he is often happily surprised to learn that good candidates he respects often DO hire her firm. (Maybe bad ones are scared off by his relationship with her, but they needn't be.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY
*Kudos to Sgt. Jay Cook and the New York State PoliceTroopers! Cook, a 21 year veteran of the police agency and an NRA Firearms Instructor knows his firearm and what a .40 Caliber Glock can do. Two Shots…..Two Hits! Now we can start to grasp and inquire about the distance. As the photos of Sweat show….the boy was in excellent shape…..and could probably run like a deer. When he refused to stop…and Sgt. Cook gave chase…he soon realized he wasn’t going to run this dude down. So…….. “Halt…Halt…bam bam Told you to stop slime!” “Gun shot……looks pretty bad to me boy!” The Hollywood Producers are already writing the script……and looking for the two main actors. Which actors should play Sweat and his buddy?
*Kudos to Sgt. Jay Cook and the New York State PoliceTroopers! Cook, a 21 year veteran of the police agency and an NRA Firearms Instructor knows his firearm and what a .40 Caliber Glock can do. Two Shots…..Two Hits! Now we can start to grasp and inquire about the distance. As the photos of Sweat show….the boy was in excellent shape…..and could probably run like a deer. When he refused to stop…and Sgt. Cook gave chase…he soon realized he wasn’t going to run this dude down. So…….. “Halt…Halt…bam bam Told you to stop slime!” “Gut shot……looks pretty bad to me boy!” The Hollywood Producers are already writing the script……and looking for the two main actors. Which actors should play Sweat and his buddy?
Now that SCOTUS has redefined marriage to their liking – what are the arguments against 3 – 4 or more person marriages? Don’t say tradition – that argument has been thrown out the window.
*As long as it has nothing to do with religion…..there is little reason not to believe that marriage between a man and his horse or a woman and her dog…..may not be off the table. However, getting the tax write-off might be a little tough to convince the IRS or the Congress….in order to change the law. Who cares? Remember “Paint your Wagon”? One woman two husbands? How about that?
That arrangement (FMM) is termed polyandry.
*Or PollyAnna thinking….we agree!
Actually, “tradition” would argue in FAVOR of polyandry. Ain’t you read your bible?
The arguments against it would be policy-based: benefits that go to spouses are manageable with just one spouse, but become unmanageable when an indefinite number of people may at any time be added to the contract. The “reform” is also unnecessary: any group of people may, according to their tradition, call themselves married according to their religion or whatnot, and can by contract give one another various rights (along with sexual opportunities), but there’s an strong policy argument that the state itself should only be required to honor and keep track of one mate per customer.
Also, unlike same-sex marriage (where all persons were simply considered to be equal), plural marriage really DOES affect those outside of it by reducing the number of “marriageable” partners out there. (You think that “all of the good ones are taken” is a problem NOW? Wait until Donald Trump buys up all of the wiives in your neighborhood.) But the comparison to same-sex marriage would be more like this: would we accept a law where a woman could marry as many men as she wanted to, but a man could only marry one woman? No, because that WOULD be discriminatory.
To each person, one mate. Easy to make work, hard to abuse.
I missed that part of Holy Writ where one gal has a lot of husbands. Where is that?
Really, the government should just get out of the “marriage” business altogether – approving or banning. Why do I need a government document to confirm my marriage? Or a civil union for that matter; that is just another term for the same thing.
I may need the government for the arbitration of the dissolution. That’s about it.
Sure, no problem. But let’s take it one step at a time. Today, let’s get rid of community property. Tomorrow, joint tax returns. The next day, hospital visitation rights. Who has an idea for unnecessary government marriage-related intrusions to eliminate on Thursday and Friday?
Marriage and tax filing status, community property, and hospital visitation rights are not mutually exclusive.
I agree with Mr. Zenger. The simplest and BEST solution is to remove government from interpersonal relationships entirely. There’s simply no reason anyone needs government approval regarding whom they choose to live their life with.
“Mutually exclusive”? What did you read into my comment?
So … you’re saying that government should not provide, recognize, or force private parties to provide any additional benefits or rights or privileges to one’s chosen (one at a time) life partner? Because that would wipe out everything I mentioned.
I don’t think that you’re saying that, but I’m not sure what you are saying.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Government shouldn’t be in the business of defining good and bad when it comes to personal relationships. Freedom of assembly means freedom of assembly.
Hospital visitation and property inheritance really have nothing to do with state sanctioned marriage. Those are contractual agreements that can function and thrive without a piece of paper labeled marriage licence.
Why do you keep using the word “marriage?” Those issues may be contractual but they have nothing to do with a religious-tinctured institution.
Anyway, all that stuff you mention is just government defining, post hoc, the parameters of an institution it has no business sanctifying (satire intended). And that’s okay if you want everything clear: the government has an interest in laying out ground rules so long as it is going to be the referee later.
But we’d be better off letting people form their own contracts.
Let’s take an easy one: spousal survivor’s benefits under Social Security. Right now, it’s easy: such benefits go to the spouse. How would you have the government do it? Or would you just get rid of this and everything like it?
(If so, please campaign on this platform in those elections where are preferences are not aligned.)
Yes, that’s easy.
As a competent adult you get to name your “spouse.” You get one spouse at a time. All it has to be is human. The government doesn’t pay benefits to pets and rhododendrons. None of this has anything to do with marriage, or betrothal, from which the word spouse is derived.
So the government quits using the word spouse and gets out of the marriage racket (sorry, no more license revenue and ridiculous ceremonies performed by acetate-robed bureaucrats under plastic-vined archways).
No one has to use the plastic-vined archway for a ceremony, although my wife and I did (because it was fastest) and it was sort of nice. I can’t quite believe that that is the cost of government that you’re so eager to cut.
Look: people have to register with the government that they have become a couple (and thus a single economic and social unit) because that’s how we keep track of who has access to the benefits of that status and we don’t want that status to be too ephemeral because that makes it too easy to game the system. (Becoming wed is easy; divorcing is more difficult.)
If your argument is that the process of becoming wed should be a mere civil union for everyone, that’s fine: it’s just an unpopular notion that won’t likely get enacted. But as a theoretical approach to solving what is mostly a non-problem? Sure, that might work, somehow.
They have to register with the government?
BULLSHIT.
“We” don’t need to keep track of anything. Society functioned for thousands of years without state sanctioned marriage. The only reason it exists today is because The Church of England and the government of England were the same thing.
In the bible, it’s all polygyny. Sorry, that should have been “polygamy” down there; I made the mistake of copying off of skally.
*Based on this thinking your shouldn’t have an Executor for any Will on the planet. Just offer a Fellini land grab for all…….when there is a disolution.
Diamond – “To each person, one mate. Easy to make work, hard to abuse.”
Who are any of us to judge others life choices? Love is what counts. Don’t be a hater Diamond.
I base my comment on Supreme Court case law, presented in one of the prior opinions on which Obergefell is based.
You know what case law is, right? Do some reading and you’ll see where this question was answered.
Diamond: “You know what case law is, right?”
I think you had better read this article Diamond – “10 personality traits you will be hated for” – You nailed 6 of them.
http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk/blog/10-personality-traits-you-will-be-hated-for/
You don’t seem to know what case law is. You don’t seem to know how and when to use it. I apologize for using slightly demeaning language hinting at you to read the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which answers the question of “why 2, rather than 3 or 4 or 7 or 35?” quite nicely. What I had actually wanted to say is you are a squawking, squalling, bleating idiot who just transcribes arguments from people more capable of abstract thought without the inclination or means to evaluate them because they fit your comfortable and psychologically self-protective delusions. But normally I don’t get that personal and vicious, because I am your host here — and besides, to descend into the gutter is to fight on your turf.
I hope that aggressiveness and insult are personality traits that you can better appreciate than mild disdain. Take a break and reflect on that for a few days. We’ll get along without you somehow.
And, before I forget, in that same spirit of grunting and directing you to someone else’s writing, here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/is_polygamy_next_after_gay_marriage_chief_justice_roberts_obergefell_dissent.single.html.