But my entire point is: a corpse's rights and mine equated? The hell?

I'm leaving the office soon, but don't think of the criminal law as enforcing your rights, think of it as enforcing the right of the state (which I know you will question). The state sees its interest as including not fucking with corpses. This is in a similar realm as enforcing wills-- you're dead, what do you care?

ETA: In a murder case the state is also not interested in your "right" not to be murdered, it is interested in preventing murder, among other things.

Okay, so then the lawyer intended the state to admit sees it comparably against its interests for you to be raped as for someone's corpse to be boned?

I can see that as a wish, just not as a plan.

This is in a similar realm as enforcing wills-- you're dead, what do you care?

I kinda disagree, but I don't have much energy to follow it up with anything much. Same realm, perhaps, but same degree? At least with a will you know what the deceeased cared enough to stipulate.

Cool women doll sets.

Sad but reasonable reaction to transplant.

Timelies all!

Happy Birthday lori!

Happy Anniversary Plei and Paul!

My current earworms are "The Last Saskatewan Pirate" and a number of things by the Pyrates Royale.(A local group that is one of the mainstays of the MD Ren Faire)

Given that we Buffistas have a Fay and I have a cousin Ronnie in Thailand - here are the best links I could find on the Coup there.

BBC [link]

Asia Times [link]

Blogger who seems to know a little bit about Thailand: [link]

To tell you the truth I'm still confused after reading these - but it is a little more informed confusion.

Okay, so then the lawyer intended the state to admit sees it comparably against its interests for you to be raped as for someone's corpse to be boned?

I don't entirely understand this sentence, but just because the remedy is the same does not mean the interest is.

ita, I want the boots you linked to. And the cool ass women dolls. I think my fave was Harriet Tubman.

just because the remedy is the same does not mean the interest is

That's basically what I was saying, minus the convoluted edits.

In my head the remedy is criminalisation. Sexual assault is the shape of the criminalisation, and the state would be comparing these things (or their interests in preventing them) as way too similar by conflating the law punishing (preventing? I feel I'm at the edge of a semantic morass here) them.

How much effort does it take (you're speaking to someone who never watched any Schoolhouse Rock and who, as she types, wonders if she's even thinking of the right show) to get anti-necrophilia on the books, considering it's already on the books in a number of states? Prohibitive?

I may not think it's inherently wrong, but it seems so clear that most people do that I'm surprised it's not explicitly illegal in all states.

it seems so clear that most people do that I'm surprised it's not explicitly illegal in all states

It probably got caught up in "if we don't talk about it, it won't happen" avoidance. Kind of like in the middle ages, when the Inquisition would distribute books to local priests of questions to ask in the confessional. They found out that too many people were going "What's that?" then going out and trying the new sins they'd heard about.

OK, I'm watching Studio 60 from last night, and is it just me, or is it hard as hell to understand? As in, the background noise is LOUD, and the dialogue is muffled? Or is it just my TiVo? I'm hoping it gets better soon, maybe. Argh. Yay, closed captions, but eeesh.

OK, I'm watching Studio 60 from last night, and is it just me, or is it hard as hell to understand?

I thought the plotting was dense but I had no trouble with the audio.