Leftists are economic nationalists, I don’t see why you’re surprised
by the MJ article. Don’t you recall Chucky Schumer (he had a perfect SAT score) trotting out Paul Craig Roberts (featured Counterpunch columnist) to denounce free trade?

I am not certain that anyone should have their lives ruined for having consensual sex with a teenager, but I am damn sure that a sixteen year-old boy should not have his life taken away from him because he had sex with a 13 year-old girl (especially, but not only, since she lied about her age).

Did I miss an “equals” sign in there some place? The fact that we recognize it as hysteria seems to suggest that some people are not guilty, or are not as guilty, or some shade of grey, whereas the system only allows for black and white.

The people who want these kids labelled as “sex offenders” are the ones who had a child who was actually sexually assaulted. The ones who cry for lenience are the ones whose children were involved in consensual, yet still illegal sexual encounters.

The issue seems to be less of one of hysteria over sex offenders, than one of making sure that people who are convicted of such crimes are actually guilty of harming someone else.

“There just is no higher purpose for government than keeping the public safe,”

Umm, no the highest purpose of government is to ensure liberty (and to follow the Constitution). But hey, I had to dig that up in that old piece of crap, the Declaration of Independence, you, shmucky-politician-boy, probably know better.

It is not in dispute that people who rape small (pre-pubescent)children are nearly always afflicted with a serious illness that makes the likelihood of reoffending off the charts unless properly monitored. Logically, this justifies registries, online mug shots and ankle-monitors. However, as was sadly inevitable, the tough-on-crime monkeys have extended this to apply to people that do completely normal things (or at worst show some poor judgment) that are frowned upon, but pose no increased risk of reoffending over any other person. Of course those same monkeys have undermined any efforts for the public to understand that some (most) “sex-offenders” aren’t “kiddie diddlers.”

I don’t agree with the premise underlying the buying American article but it’s not “exceptionally stupid” by any means.

Are you joking? Let me see, an article that violates two of the most well established and widely held views in economics, specialization of labor and comparative advantage.

There are two reasons we don’t consume things only within a 20 mile radius (or even 200 miles) anymore and why such attempts to push us in that direction are stupid.

Seriously if this were a good idea why not let the states impose tariffs and trade restrictions on each other? Why not let cities and counties do it? It restricts trade, raises prices, and has negligible effect on employment. Always has, most likely always will.

So, yeah its exceptionally stupid.

Oh and I bet the complete jackass that wrote that article bemoans the poverty in other countries. Talk about needing a smack upside the head with a clue-by-four.

Of course, one problem is that police often ignore the guidelines in calling an Amber alert. For example, issuing an Amber alert when it is a parent abduction in a custody dispute could often fail to meet all the criteria for calling an alert (one fo the criteria is that the child must be in imminent danger of death or injury).

I couldn’t find it on the site. Perhaps they’ve taken it down.

You can pretty well count on the fact that any law named for a kid who had something horrible happen to him is a ill-conceived piece of crap.

I can’t remember if I saw it here or at Reason Hit & Run, but I remember seeing a piece a month or two ago talking about how laws named after someone are almost universally bad (whether it be child or adult).

For further evidence they employ Kevin Drum. His forays into econo-blogging are simply excreable.

And RE: Nando’s comment, often the jury is just given the question of guilt or innocence, (and often under the instructions that they have to convict if they find that the facts are A, B, and C) and the judge then sentences and decides if the person has to register. Even then, the statutes don’t always allow the judge the discretion — if the jury found them guilty of a particular violation, then they have to register. Period.

Remember, zero tolerance means zero thought.

One thing I can say is I can see myself, just for fun, torturing the ex-husband in this case for weeks on end. WTF is wrong with people?

Shell casings were found at Horiuchi’s position but the investigation took the platform that it would be nearly impossible to match up to the rifle. (of course, its perfectly okay to apply the same failed, unproven “science” on us, advertised as 100% effective in solving crimes when being sold to bill makers)