RIO DE JANEIRO (AP)-Brazilian police investigating the death of former boxing champion Arturo Gatti are working on the assumption his wife strangled him with her purse strap.
But police spokeswoman Milena Saraiva says Monday nothing is being ruled out in the investigation, including the possibility another person may have been involved. Gatti was found dead early Saturday in a seaside tourist resort. Saraiva says police in the northeastern state of Pernambuco are focusing on Gatti’s 23-year-old Brazilian wife, Amanda Rodrigues. She is in custody and has been accused by police of killing Gatti. Rodrigues has yet to be charged and has denied any involvement in the death.
This is a somewhat sanitized version of what I read yesterday. Here’s what’s left out: LINK
The former junior welterweight champion was apparently strangled with the strap of a purse, which was found at the scene with blood stains, said Milena Saraiva, a spokeswoman for the Pernambuco state civil police. She told The Associated Press that the Canadian also sustained a head injury. Police said Rodrigues, a Brazilian, could not explain how she spent nearly 10 hours inside the residence without noticing that Gatti was already dead. [!] Rodrigues told police she had a fight with Gatti after dinner Friday night and he pushed her to the ground during the altercation, causing her to sustain minor injuries to her elbow and chin. She told authorities Gatti was drunk and that a third party likely committed the crime after he went to the apartment by himself. Witnesses had reported to police that the couple fought and that Gatti was drunk. Authorities were told the couple was extremely jealous of each other and that Gatti constantly complained about her clothing when she traveled to Brazil, Saraiva said.”
R-Rated Pics of Model Psycho Killer Wife. “Love Me,” no thanks.
The SodaPop Curtis Sotomayor Seinfeld Hearings “About Nothing.” Great article from Cato that is most educational.
“If you suspect this week’s Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor will be, like Seinfeld, a show about nothing, you are probably right. To understand why, we need to revisit an era that remade how lawyers and the public think about law, and especially the Constitution. In the 1930s, academics developed a philosophy they called “legal realism” to undercut judicial resistance to “progressive” statutes such as laws restricting the hours a baker or a woman could work. Legal realism elevated just results over the rule of law. It saw analysis of “the law” as an after-the-fact rationalization that allowed reactionary judges to conceal their empathy for the oppressed. Because legal realists believed judges inevitably made law when they ruled, they thought judges should decide cases with progressive ends in mind..Now, when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution, I agree that precedent should not bind the Supreme Court. The written Constitution remains fixed, regardless of whether past decisions have gotten its meaning wrong. I am grateful that the Supreme Court reversed Plessy v. Ferguson – the 1896 case that gave us “separate but equal” and an unconstitutional system of racial apartheid. Unfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called “islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights” to “islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers.” Unless they can explain how we know which precedents to follow and which to reverse – apart from liking the results – all pontificating about “stare decisis” is really about nothing.”
I got these from 4 different internet sites.
1. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because they never change anything! [not true, unfortunately, ask a guy in divorce court].
2. A radical feminist is getting on a bus when, just in front of her, a man gets up from his seat. She thinks to herself, “Here’s another man trying to keep up the customs of a patriarchical society by offering a poor, defenseless woman his seat,” and she pushes him back onto the seat. A few minutes later, the man tries to get up again. She is insulted again and refuses to let him up. Finally, the man says, “Look, lady, you’ve got to let me get up. I’m two miles past my stop already!”
3. Q: What’s the difference between a girlfriend and a wife?
A: 45 lbs.
4. Q: What is it when a man talks nasty to a woman?
A: Sexual harassment
5. Q: What is it when a woman talks nasty to a man?
A: $3.99 a minute
6. Q: What is another term for lesbian?
7. My favorite: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: The very choice of patritypical hypermacho sexual imagery in reference to what one might do with a light bulb exposes a deeply held and hegemonic bias objectifying the light bulb as both passive, willing victim and as compliant proxy for the colonial fate of southern hemisphere alterity.