My Segment on Stossel

Debating Wendy Murphy on age of consent laws and sex offender registries.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Five-Star Fridays

I was looking for a video of Deep Purple’s “Hush” and stumbled onto what might be the coolest thing ever uploaded to YouTube.

Possibly the coolest thing ever uploaded to the Internet.

And I had no idea the Playboy After Dark series is available on DVD.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Slow-Mo Lightning

Pretty nifty.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark
ADVERTISEMENT

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse. Unless You’re in Law Enforcement.

Part of a recurring theme. In addition to my prior post today, here’s a roundup of other photography/video stories in the news of late:

  • Earlier this month, Carlos Miller—who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog—was “banned” from Miami’s Metrorail system after guards from the firm hired to provide security for the system, and then Miami police officers, wrongly told him he wasn’t permitted to shoot video at the train station. Miller returned this week with his camera and a crew from HDNet TV. Things got violent.
  • The Washington Post catalogs a number of incidents in which police have arrested, harassed or detained photographers and cell phone videographers in jurisdictions where the law is quite clear on their right to record and photograph in public.
  • The New York Times photography blogger David Dunlap documents another incident.
  • Also from the Times, an incident in which a photographer was wrongly stopped by police from taking pictures at an Amtrak station. He was shooting for a photography contest sponsored by Amtrak.

The common thread in all of these stories is that the police were wrong on the law, and the photographers were right. If the photographers had been mistaken, they could be arrested and charged. Not knowing the law isn’t an excuse for breaking it. But when law enforcement officials don’t know the law, and wrongly prevent someone from photographing or recording, or even illegally detain and arrest someone, it’s a shrug and a sigh and we all move on.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

I’m Pretty Sure There Isn’t an Ap for That

Another arrest for shooting video of an on-duty cop, this time in Ohio.

When a deputy sheriff began questioning Melissa Greenfield’s boyfriend at a Delaware County truck stop, she began recording video with her cell phone.

She never thought that she, or her phone, could be viewed as a danger as she documented the activities of public employees in a public place.

“I’m a 115-pound, 20-year-old girl wearing a cervical collar with nothing but a cell phone. I was not going to harm any officer,” Greenfield said yesterday.

However, a sheriff’s sergeant saw the situation differently after Greenfield announced that she was recording video “for legal purposes and our own safety.”

Sgt. Jonathan Burke wrote that he repeatedly ordered Greenfield to place the “unknown” object in her pocket and keep her hands free. When Greenfield refused, she was arrested and charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest.

Burke wrote in his report that he feared that Greenfield could have been holding a dangerous object such as a “cell-phone gun”…

“Not knowing what the item in her hand was and having prior knowledge of all types of hidden weapons, including a cell-phone gun, I asked her several times to place it in her pocket and to keep her hands free,” Burke wrote.

Greenfield said that, while driving her to the jail, Burke said that it was “unacceptable for me to be filming his activities.”

“I wish I could be surprised,” she said, “but I’ve heard so many stories of incidents like this happening before. … There’s no law against videotaping police encounters.”

Emphasis mine, to draw attention to the utter inanity of Dep. Burke’s report.

Greenfield is right. There’s no law in Ohio against videotaping police encounters. Unfortunately, there’s also no punishment for cops who violate the rights of Ohioans who try to do it.Delaware County Sheriff Walter L. Davis III is defending Dep. Burke and his cell-phone gun fears.

Greenfield says when she got the phone back, the video had been erased. Davis denies any of his deputies erased the video. Must have been a glitch.

Greenfield spent three days in jail. She pled no contest to the obstructing official business charge and was fined $20.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Late Morning Links

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Photo of the Day

New York.

ManhatanNight2

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Chained Childbirth

This is awful:

Latiana Walton went through most of her labor at Stroger Hospital with an arm and leg chained to her bed, she remembers.

As contractions surged through her body, she could not move or change position to relieve the pain. A Cook County correctional officer repeatedly refused to remove the restraints, she said, even when a doctor objected, saying that he was unable to administer an epidural.

“I actually said to the guard, ‘Where am I going?’ I’m crying. I’m in pain,” recalled Walton, 26. “‘I’m not going to get up and run out of the hospital.’”

On Aug. 27, 2008, Walton, who had been arrested after she missed a court date on a retail theft charge, became one of an estimated 50 women who give birth every year while in the custody of the Cook County Jail.

Shackling women during labor is illegal; Illinois became the first state to ban the practice in 1999, and nine other states have followed suit. But more than 20 former jail inmates, including Walton, have filed lawsuits since 2008 against the Cook County sheriff’s office, which runs the jail, alleging that they were handcuffed by the wrist or shackled by the leg while giving birth. Most of these women, according to their attorney, had been arrested for nonviolent crimes and were awaiting trial…

Officials at the sheriff’s office say their policy follows the law. A pregnant woman can be restrained, according to the policy, until a medical official confirms that she is, in fact, in labor. “When does’labor’ begin? Our officers aren’t trained to know, the state law doesn’t say, so we rely on medical personnel to advise us,” Steve Patterson, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office, wrote in an e-mail. “Once a medical person advises us someone is in labor, restraints of whatever sort are removed.”

But the plaintiffs’ attorney argues that restraints were, in his clients’ cases, removed too late or not at all. He contends that sheriff’s officials interpret “labor” as the moments immediately before birth, and that guards sometimes deny requests by doctors and nurses to remove the handcuffs and shackles. “When you talk to these women, they say,’Yeah, when I’m delivering and I’m pushing, that’s what they consider labor,’” said plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas G. Morrissey. “They remain in shackles and handcuffs until the baby is about to be delivered.”

At risk of getting overly high-minded here, this seems like the sort of thing that goes hand in hand with a generation of tough-on-crime talk, and a country willing to put 1 in 100 of its citizens behind bars. It all can have a dehumanizing effect. These aren’t people first, they’re criminals first. Clearly there’s something larger at work when law enforcement officials see a woman in labor not as as a mother-to-be in need of medical attention, but an accused thief and flight risk in need of shackling right up until delivery.

The Cook County lawsuit echoes a story last November from Maricopa County, Arizona, where sheriff’s deputies kept a suspected illegal immigrant shackled to her bed while she gave birth. And of course inMaricopa County, of all places, there’s ample evidence that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies see immigrants as something less than human.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Photo of the Day

Took full photographic advantage of my Manhattan penthouse perch this week. Lots more of these to come.

ManhattanNight1

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Morning Links

Three bullet points of good news this morning. Granted, all three are qualified victories. But hey, that’s better than three bullet points of bad news, right?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Let’s Hope He Doesn’t See the Spotted Dick

Cullman, Alabama:

A local pastor’s complaint about a brand of underwear being sold with “pornographic” pictures on the packaging at the Cullman Walmart reportedly led to a recall of the product.

Frank Boren, pastor of New Hope Christian Center Church of God in the Springhill community, said he noticed the questionable underwear package while shopping at the store in May.

“I was in there shopping for some underwear one day, and looked at the men’s pictures on the packaging,” he said. “On a few of the packages they were very pornographic in the way they were dressed, in skimpy underwear, so I went to the manager and asked her if she thought it was inappropriate to be displayed.”

After filing a few more complaints in the following weeks, Boren said the questionable packaging eventually disappeared from the store’s shelves.

Full story here.

Thanks to Thomas Pearson for the link.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Conclusions in My Economist Debate

Our concluding arguments have been posted in my Economist debate about legalized gambling.

You should go vote for me, if for no other reason than that my argument includes a bad pun taken from a Kris Kristofferson lyric.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Morning Links

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Just a Thought

If you’re going to call me as a known ‘tard (which I’m guessing is short for the charming put-down, retard) and a ‘bagger (which I’m guessing is short for some form of douchebag) because I called Shirley Sherrod a liar for misusing the word lynch, you should probably have read enough about this dustup to know that, well, I didn’t call Shirley Sherrod a liar for misusing the word “lynch”.

In fact, I’m the guy who defended her. It’s a minor detail, I know. But understanding that is kinda’ critical to you being able to comment on all of this without looking like a complete clown. Go back and reread the post you linked to, neophyte blogger. Then try again.

MORE: Looks like he has corrected the post. Thanks!

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Jeffrey Lord Defends Himself

Jeffrey Lord has responded to my criticism of him for his ignorance of what the word lynching means.

In the face of overwhelming ridicule and criticism, including from his own colleagues and commenters . . . he’s doubling down. Honestly, his response is so weak that picking it apart almost seems cruel. I think it speaks for itself.

He has asked me to post a retraction. That isn’t going to happen.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Morning Links

I’m headed to NYC today to tape another segment for John Stossel’s show. Consider this an open thread until I return. No fighting, loud talking, smoking in the prone position, or playing grabass. Anyone fighting, loud talking, smoking in the prone position, or playing grabass spends a night in the box.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

When Buildings Come Alive

Way cool. Nine more examples here.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

The American Spectator’s Mistaken History

As if there already wasen’t enough self-inflicted damage from last week’s Shirley Sherrod affair to go around, The American Spectator manages yet more this morning, posting a shameless, ignorant column by Jeffrey Lord.

Lord insinuates that Sherrod is a liar for using the word “lynch” to describe a 1940s murder in Baker County, Georgia. Bobby Hall, a relative of Sherrod, was beaten to death by sheriff’s deputies who had come to arrest him for stealing a tire. Lord says Sherrod’s characterization of the beating as lynching is dishonest and inflammatory.

It’s possible that Ms. Sherrod simply doesn’t know the truth…

It’s also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack — and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday — a very long time — of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal “anti-black jack” or “anti-fisticuffs” laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add “glamour” to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?

Again, I have no idea.

There is also a third possibility for what appears to be a straight-out fabrication. Having watched Ms. Sherrod’s speech and read the transcript, I think it’s abundantly clear that she is a liberal or progressive political activist.

Lord also has no idea . . . what he’s talking about. The term lynching refers to a mob execution unsanctioned by law. It’s often associated with hanging, but there are dozens of documented, racially-motivated lynchings in American history that had nothing to do with hanging. (The murder of Emmit Till is probably the most famous example.) Lord is also flat wrong about federal anti-lynching legislation. These bills sought to punish local governments for sanctioning or refusing to prevent all forms of lynching, not just hanging. Here’s the text of the Dwyer bill, the first piece of federal anti-lynching legislation, introduced in 1918:

…the phrase “mob or riotous assemblage,” when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense.

The bill never uses any form of the word hang. The more famous Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill also made no distinction about a lynch mob’s chosen method of execution. Had either bill passed, they would have held local law enforcement responsible for failing to prevent extrajudicial mob murders of any kind, including murder by black jacks and fisticuffs.

But Lord isn’t finished. Sherrod mentions in her speech that Hall’s murder made it to the Supreme Court, which overturned the civil rights conviction of Sheriff Claude Screws by a 5-4 vote. Lord next criticizes Sherrod for not telling her audience that one of the justices who overturned the conviction (Hugo Black) was not only a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but also an FDR appointee, New Deal supporter, and a “committed liberal activist,” just like Sherrod. How conniving of her!

It gets even better. Lord also helpfully informs us that….

Hugo Black was, of course, a lawyer. His law partner? That would be a man named Crampton Harris. Mr. Harris was the Klan “Cyclops” of the Birmingham Klavern. Does this weird term ring a recent bell? It should. “Exalted Cyclops” was the Klan post held in a later time in West Virginia — by another prominent future Democratic Senator named Robert Byrd.

It goes on like that. There’s no question that there’s a long, ugly history of racism in the progressive movement, and that today’s left glosses over that history. But it’s more than a little absurd to suggest Sherrod was being dishonest for not drawing all sorts of connections between progressives and racism simply because a New Dealer sat on the Supreme Court that denied her relative justice.

But that is Jeffrey Lord’s charge. So black people, take note. If you’re ever giving a speech in which you recount a racially-motivated injustice, be sure you’re thoroughly familiar with and relay to your audience not only any subsequent legal action related to the case, but also the political affiliations of any and all judges who presided over those legal proceedings, both at trial and on appeal, and whether or not they or any of their business partners (and presumably family members, friends, or golfing buddies) were racist. Also, and most importantly, never, ever, ever talk about any historical racial injustice without also mentioning that the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat (be sure to mention this part, it’s important!), was once an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan.

Anything less would be dishonest.

UPDATE: On The American Spectator’s blog, John Tabin and Phil Klein both take issue with Lord’s article. Good to see. Klein does object that my headline to this post implies that Lord’s article reflects an institutional position at The American Spectator. Though I do think the publication as a whole deserves some scorn for publishing the piece in the first place, Klein’s point is is still well-taken. His and Tabin’s posts show that not all the staff agrees with Lord or with the decision to publish the article.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Sunday Evening Dog Blogging

Daisy has a new boyfriend here in Nashville. He’s a staffie named Leo who lives in our building. He’s quite handsome.

DaisyBed

DaisyBunny

DaisyBunny2

DaisyNap

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

Sunday Links

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark