An attorney in Louisville, KY who’s defended others in Judge Sean Delahanty‘s courtroom tells voters why he should be re-elected. She notes that Judge Delahanty is respectful and regardless of sex, woman or man or race and religion you will be treated fairly in his court. She believes District Court Judge Sean Delahanty wants the best result for individuals. He’s known to be impartial and caring.
The LBA Poll recently noted him as the most competent candidate for District Court Judge in Division 6. His rating was the highest of any District Judge.
To learn more about Sean Delahanty, District Court or any local Louisville race visit our Complete Voters Guide which has maps, statistics, links to register to vote, and a build your own sample ballot tool.
Sean Delahanty a District Court Judge in Louisville, KY since the late eighties is seeking re-election to Division 6 in the November 6, 2018 General Election. He has released four videos by four people for viewers and will air these on local television stations over the last few weeks of this midterm election season.
In this video Judge Delahanty appears to explain why he hopes to be re-elected.
Viewers are welcome to learn more about his campaign at https://www.seandelahanty.com. Judge Delahanty also has a growing Voter’s Guide available that covers almost all of the local races in Jefferson County.
View other videos by the campaign at Youtube
As District Court Judge it has been my honor over these last twenty years to marry two people in my courtroom. I’ve married over a thousand Louisvillians since January 1 1990. I come down from the bench in the middle of the courtroom for all to see I marry two people. I see no difference in love be it a man or a woman I just see love.
“The brain my take advice but not the heart. Weigh it and sink it deep, no matter. It will rise and find the surface.” – Truman Capote
The FBI team examining sexual misconduct claims against US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have not yet interviewed his main accuser, her lawyers have said.
Writing to the FBI, attorneys for Professor Christine Blasey Ford said it was “inconceivable” that the agency could conduct a thorough investigation without interviewing her.
Prof Ford has testified that Mr Kavanaugh assaulted her as a teenager.
The judge vehemently denies that.
In a letter written on Tuesday to FBI director Christopher Wray and FBI general counsel Dana Boente, Prof Ford’s lawyers noted that it was five days since the fresh background check was launched.
They said the agency had not responded to the offer to interview Prof Ford, or “a series of emails and letters in which we identified witnesses and evidence that would likely assist the FBI”.
The letter went on: “This afternoon, we learned of media reports that the FBI does not intend to interview either Dr Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. We hope that this reporting is inaccurate.”
FBI ‘could finish investigation early’
The lawyers’ concerns emerged amid reports that the FBI could wind up its investigation well before the deadline of this Friday.
Citing unnamed Republican aides, the Wall Street Journal reported that the bureau could finish “as soon as” Wednesday.
The FBI is known to have interviewed Mark Judge, a boyhood friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s, whom Prof Ford said was in the room when she was assaulted. Mr Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a written statement that he did not recall any such incident – but he was not asked to testify in person.
The agency has also spoken to the judge’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez, who alleges that he exposed his genitals in her face during a college drinking game.
President Trump reiterated his support for Mr Kavanaugh on Tuesday, saying he believed the Senate would approve the judge.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Mr Trump said: “My whole life I’ve heard, ‘you’re innocent until proven guilty’, but now you’re guilty until proven innocent. That’s a very, very difficult standard.
“It’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of.”
At a rally later in Southaven, Mississippi, Mr Trump mocked last week’s Senate testimony by Prof Christine Blasey Ford, without mentioning her by name.
The audience laughed as the president said: “Thirty-six years ago this happened: I had one beer! Well, you think it was…? Nope! It was one beer.
“Oh, good. How’d you get home? I don’t remember. How’d you get there? I don’t remember. Where was the place? I don’t remember.
“How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know! I don’t know! What neighbourhood was it in? I don’t know.
“Where’s the house? I don’t know! Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know! But I had one beer. That’s the only thing I remember. And a man’s life is in tatters.”
What will happen to the FBI report?
The FBI will pass its findings to the White House, which will give them to the Senate. The contents are not expected to be made public.
Senators will then vote on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of trying to derail the nomination on Monday, declaring: “The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close.”
Mr McConnell did not specify when exactly the vote would be held, but it is expected to be on Friday or Saturday.
Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said Friday would be too soon. She argued that senators need more time to evaluate the FBI’s findings.
In a presidential election, 40-some years from now:
Candidate Adolf Shitstain McHannibalLecter may have committed a little tax fraud, money laundering, grand theft auto, methamphetamine dealing, first-degree serial murder, genocide, and treason, he might have blown up the entire state of Delaware as a science project, and he might have built a doomsday device and held the Earth ransom for one million dollars, but shrug, boys will be boys, amirite?
But what’s this? Candidate Dorothy once assisted in hiding an illegal iguana! IGUANAGATE! IGUANAGATE! LOCK HER UP!
Dumbing of Age
Above we’ve provided an update 2018 Sample Ballot for all District Court Judicial Races for the November 6, General Election. This is also available as well as more information about many other races in our Complete Voters Guide section.
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
The bodies of 34 Indonesian students have been found under a church which was buried by a mudslide after the quake in Palu, say aid workers.
At least 844 people are confirmed to have died in the disaster, but the number is expected to rise as remote areas are reached.
The aid and rescue operation is being slowed by damaged infrastructure and continuing strong aftershocks.
There are fears some survivors may still be trapped under the rubble.
The students are part of a larger group of 86 students who had initially been reported missing from a Bible camp in the Jonooge Church Training Centre in Sigi Biromaru.
The whereabouts of the other 52 students are not known.
The 34 bodies were found in Sigi Biromaru, just outside Palu, which was struck by a 7.5 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami on Friday.
Aid workers told the BBC they were still in the process of retrieving the bodies, and were being hampered by mud.
“The mud conditions in that area are terrible, we have to walk about 1.5 hours to reach [the mudslide area], that makes it very difficult,” Ridwan Sobri, a spokesperson for the Indonesian Red Cross told the BBC.
Mr Sobri said the identities and ages of the students could not yet be confirmed.
At a collapsed seven-storey hotel in Palu, rescuers are still hunting for survivors.
About 12 people have already been recovered from the ruins of the hotel building – only three came out alive.
“We have to be very careful so we don’t risk hurting any survivors when we move the debris,” the head of the rescue team, Agus Haryono, told Reuters.
An estimated 50 people were thought to be trapped in the Hotel Roa Roa when it collapsed on Friday.
Across Palu, blocked roads, a damaged airport and broken telecommunications have made it difficult to bring help into the affected area, and impossible to contact more remote regions.
With hospitals damaged, injured people have been treated in the open and at least one military field hospital has been set up.
The military has taken over the airport to fly aid in, and injured people and other evacuees out.
But for thousands of people wanting to get the first commercial flight out of Palu, the wait continues.
“I’d get a plane anywhere. I’ve been waiting for two days. Haven’t eaten, barely had a drink,” 44-year-old food vendor Wiwid told news outlet Reuters.
Those who are stuck are struggling to get hold of food and clean water – which is in short supply. Some have taken to raiding damaged shops for essential products.
“We don’t have any other choice, we must get food,” one man told AFP.
And for hundreds of thousands of children in Sulawesi, their lives will never be the same again.
“Many of these children will have experienced unimaginable trauma and distress, seeing things no child should ever to have to see – losing their mother or father, and watching everything they have known washed away,” said charity organisation Save the Children’s Program Implementation Director Tom Howells in a statement.
Many children have been forced to sleep in makeshift shelters or on the street, with little access to food, medication or emotional support, added Mr Howells.
- How Indonesia’s tsunami warning system failed the victims
- Why Sulawesi’s tsunami is puzzling scientists
Across the city, mass graves are being dug, one of them to hold up to 300 bodies.
On the outskirts of Palu, bodies were brought for burial by lorries. At one mass grave which measured more than 50 metres (165ft), the smell of decomposition was said to be “overpowering”.
‘In the thousands’
The 7.5-magnitude quake occurred at a depth of 10km (6.2 miles) just off the central island of Sulawesi at 18:03 (10:03 GMT) on Friday, setting off a tsunami.
The earthquake was powerful but shallow and with more lateral than vertical movement, not typically the kind of tremor that sets off tsunamis.
Vice-President Jusuf Kalla has said the final death toll could be in the thousands while the Red Cross estimates that more than 1.6 million people have been affected.
The first of September’s Patreon bonus strips is up, and y’all voted for Jocelyne! (it was up a few days ago actually, but this space was busy promoting my CXC2018 table) Any Patron can go log on to the Dumbing of Age Patreon and go check out her strip. There’s also a cat!
also i have a drip now, which is like a patreon but run by kickstarter, and it’s still in beta so it’s not quite up to patreon functionality at the mo’, but if you want a way to support me that isn’t patreon now i have one thank you
Dumbing of Age
OCT 30 2014
I penned this article as a direct response to the recent, “Zero-Sum Game: Women Guard Sex, Men Guard Commitment, No One Wins” by Lauren Martin.
Ms. Martin recently wrote about dating from an interesting viewpoint: It is a zero-sum game, a give-or-take relationship, in which someone always loses. And, it would seem that women always lose because men have a lot from which to choose when in the dating scenario. Well, I beg to differ.
My feminist self would like to speak of equality, but I would be a dreamer to believe such equality exists. So, my economist self would like to bring logic to the rescue in the case of women and reality.
A zero-sum game is one where, if you and I are two players, any individual who loses or gains would be equivalent so that if we sum up our payoffs, the net result would be zero. Now suppose, in a very realistic sense, that we date many people throughout our lives and there was an equal probability of winning and losing.
In such a situation, where we can assume to date an indefinite number of people, our expected gains and losses would sum up to zero. If this is true, why would we date anyone in the first place? In this case, shouldn’t we be simply indifferent to dating, given that the payoff (zero) is equivalent to when we were not dating?
Incidentally, we would not just be indifferent, but rather, against dating. Why? Because although we may win and lose the same amount, the losses hurt more than the gains. That’s classic prospect theory for you. Getting a chocolate may make you happy, but losing a chocolate would make you really, really sad (assuming you like chocolates).
So, in a dating-game situation, where we have equal probabilities of winning and losing, the potential losses hurt me more than the potential gains. My probabilistic emotional state, then, looks negative, so I would never play such a game.
There is one case, however, when you would want to date: when you expect your personal probability of winning to be more than 50 percent.
Similarly, the other person would also only date when he or she expects a higher probability of winning than 50 percent. People would, therefore, self-select and date only if they think there’s a stronger than 50 percent chance of relationship success.
The exception is people who consistently play with weak opponents, this not being a judgment on the people themselves, but on their expertise in the game being played.
The zero-sum game — we are aware — has negative long-run payoffs and there is no incentive to play. (Of course, the payoffs are negative on an average emotional level, so if you don’t care about the emotional aspect, you might not even consider dating).
But, people do date and play this game — are they all illogical? There are two ways to answer this: Firstly, people start with a bias about themselves having a higher probability of winning.
After an extent of experience (the length and depth required depends on the person), the people would realize that playing a zero-sum dating game is not worthwhile.
The assumptions on which this game is based do not cover the entire scope of events. Yes, dating may be a zero-sum game; love, however, is not. For two people in love, their jointly maximized utility would be higher than the sum of their individual utilities from when they were alone.
So, if a happy me falls in love with a happy you, we would each be individually super happy. This is definitely not a zero-sum game. Rather, it is a rare situation where everybody gains. In such a situation, dating makes sense.
If we rule out love, there is one more crucial aspect we must factor in: Why do we view men as sexually-driven beings and women as the emotional ones? The two aspects are not mutually exclusive. Yes, one could say that women seek commitment; it is purely instinct for women to seek a mate for her children.
A guy who cannot commit is a guy who cannot give security to a woman’s future children. There is nothing fiercer than a mother’s love, not even a lover’s love.
It should be no shock if a female seeks commitment from the breadwinner of the family, which is traditionally male. But, we forget an important part of the argument: Men, too, are naturally designed to look out for women whom they want to mother their children.
With the shifting roles and these pervasive needs, the solution for women is simple: You have the potential to simultaneously be breadwinners and caretakers. Men shouldn’t be chosen out of necessity, but rather, out of choice. Able men should value you.
It is time to stop playing the victimized role. Be an empowered, independent woman, and the game, lady, is yours.
Although it most definitely has had some low points, I think I’m going to go ahead and call 2018 my favorite year in terms of celeb relationships. I mean, from Grandavidson to Jailey to Shia and FKA Twigs, new couples are popping up left and right. And now there’s another one on the rise! A recent Instagram post suggested that Nicki Minaj may be dating Lewis Hamilton. (Elite Daily has reached out to both of their representatives for comment.)
OK, some backstory. When Minaj appeared on The Ellen Show earlier this month, she made some very candid comments on her love life. She explained that she’s been enjoying dating two dudes at once.
“There is a new boy, but he and I have kind of fell back a little bit,” Minaj told DeGeneres. And that’s not all! In addition to the new boy, she’s also got a “newer” boy who has “been around for a couple weeks now.”
I have no official intel on whether or not Formula One star Lewis Hamilton is the new boy, the newer boy or possibly even another even newer boy. But it looks like the two are definitely getting serious about each other.
Rumors started swirling earlier this month when the two were spotted together at New York Fashion Week. That was our first clue that they might be an item, though admittedly, it’s not a great hint. I mean, they could’ve just been friends who just so happen to share a strong interest in fashion!
This next clue is what has me convinced that the two have to be more than friends.
Minaj posted a selfie of herself and Lewis looking very sexy riding around in a race car in the desert while Cosmopolitan reports the pair are on vacation in Dubai. She captioned the post, “🇹🇹🇬🇩 Caribbean tingz what I on. Me & Lewis gettin paper like what ink dry on. #Versace ”
Attending a fashion show with a male friend? OK, I get that. But attending fashion shows and riding around the desert in his race car while on vacation across the world together? Seems a little more than friendly to me.
If Hamilton really is in a relationship with Minaj, let’s all be clear on one thing: He should be treating her like the self-proclaimed queen that she is. And that means giving her some sweet, sweet loving at least three times a night. I mean, remember the line in her song, “Barbie Dreams,” that literally goes, “if he can’t f*ck three times a night, peace”? Yeah, that’s not a joke.While she wouldn’t expect that frequency from a live-in boyfriend, she does demand it from a boyfriend she doesn’t regularly see. “If you see someone once or twice a week, then, yeah, three times a night,” she told DeGeneres. “When I see you, [it’s] three times a night! If you can’t hang, goodbye! I’m not wasting my time.”
She clearly hasn’t said goodbye to Hamilton yet, so it looks like he’s doing something right.
While we have no idea how serious the pair are, Minaj made it pretty clear during her appearance on Ellen that she’s not really looking to be tied down right now. “I went from a six-year [relationship] to a 12-year [relationship] to a two-year [relationship] and then I was just ready to chill and relax,” she told Degeneres. “I didn’t know who I was minus a man. I’m finally learning who I am and I love myself. Everything I do now isn’t about pleasing some man and that makes me feel so empowered. I can come and go as I please.”
Whether or not she does end up officially dating him, I really hope she maintains that same feeling of empowerment because, duh, she’s a queen.