TheAgitator.com
Lefty Activist Site Slags Righty Think Tank for Being . . . Too Soft on Crime?
Monday, November 9th, 2009Yep!
I have a post up at Hit & Run smacking Media Matters around for a slimy hit on the Heritage Foundation.
21 Responses to “Lefty Activist Site Slags Righty Think Tank for Being . . . Too Soft on Crime?”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
It just shows how partisanship continues to overwhelm sanity on criminal justice policy issues. Anyone who advocates something other than draconian retribution across the board opens themselves up to attacks from the other side. “Lefty” or otherwise, I think the legacy of the Willie Horton ads has generally destroyed most major differences the two big parties once had on criminal justice issues. That’s why the stuff chronicled by this website goes unnoticed in so many circles. The Republicans and Democrats are on the same page and in a lot of districts pledging to be tougher on crime, regardless of the rationality behind it, wins the votes of our simpleton fellow citizens cowed by the culture of fear.
Well now we know that Chris Harris is either a very very bad reader or he’s dishonest. I’m guessing dishonest.
Given world history, why would anyone think liberals and left-wingers were “anti-police” or “soft on crime”? I know the left often comes across like that, particularly when one looks at the moronic “anti-globalization” protests and such. But it’s obvious that when they take over the government, they learn to like the police state very much.
“Given world history, why would anyone think liberals and left-wingers were “anti-police” or “soft on crime”? I know the left often comes across like that, particularly when one looks at the moronic “anti-globalization” protests and such. But it’s obvious that when they take over the government, they learn to like the police state very much.”
I don’t know what the anti-globalization protests could possibly have to do with being seen as “soft on crime.” (Is capitalism a crime now?)
Perhaps it all has to do with the bleeding hearts that everyone knows that the liberals have. (You know, the ACLU, Amnesty International, etc…)
Dear RobZ,
I think you’re having a difficult time following the conversation here.
Perhaps you should consider reading before writing.
Hope this helps.
Many think the left are “anti-police”, in part because at various protests- such as the anti-globalization idiocy-fests- it’s left-wing idiots vs. police.
My point is that the left absolutely loves government power, which in its rawest form is police power.
Dear Dan Dan,
Is it that you think anti-globalization demonstrations make people imagine liberals and leftists to be soft on crime?
Or is it that you think that the concerns for civil rights expressed by liberal organizations(eg. ACLU and Amnesty International) don’t cause some people to think that liberals and leftists to be “soft on crime.”
Thank you for your help.
Rob
Oh fer christsakes, the Media Matters article is a hit piece and is typical of the kind of stupidity we get when these sides back into partisan camps. It’s a childish reaction to the left being considered “soft on crime” because organizations like the ACLU’s protection of civil liberties often result in arguing the causes of accused or even convicted criminals. Harris could have saved alot of time by writing, “Oh yeah?! Well, I’m rubber you’re glue…” This kind of shit is why I won’t choose a political party.
I’m not clear why it’s a “hit piece” to criticize the Heritage Foundation’s use of the term “trivial conduct” with respect to child abuse.
skunky, that’s a total strawman. No one in their right mind argues that child abuse is trivial conduct. What they are arguing against is the way “trivial conduct” like peeing in an alley or streaking gets someone lumped together with bona fide child molesters.
Just because a law is labeled “the defense of children act” or whatever sacred cow you want to throw out there, it doesn’t mean that protesting the law is arguing for abuse, or domestic violence, or whatever the issue is.
Laws have unintended consequences, which this site has chronicled frequently, and in depth.
Anyone who is truly concerned with catching and stopping child molesters, or sex traffickers, or any other human scum you care to name, would realize that lumping everyone you possibly can into that category not only punishes innocents, but also makes the job of finding the true criminals that much harder.
Ah, partisan bullshit. Why would anyone even take any media reporting seriously?
Skunky, the problem is a lot of these terms are being defined into meaninglessness. “Child abuse”, “Child Pornography”, “Sexual Harassment”, “Sex Offender”, even “Rape” are being defined to where normal behavior is criminal. A 7 year old boy pushes a girl on the butt to get her to move (bent over to tie her shoe holding up a moving line) and the school threatens, even charges, sexual harassment. Teenagers text nude pictures to each other and they are tried as adults for child pornography (the irony in that escapes our legal system). A woman gets drunk, horny, and seduces a drunken guy, regrets it the next day, and the guy is charged with rape because she couldn’t possibly consent because she was drunk (but so was he). Yell at your kid and they are now trying to call that child abuse. Urinate on the side of a country road, get seen by a family pulling over to do the same thing, and you are now a sex offender (usually only if you’re male).
“There oughta be a law” is one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language.
MD Guy #10,
“Anyone who is truly concerned with catching and stopping child molesters, or sex traffickers, or any other human scum you care to name, would realize that lumping everyone you possibly can into that category not only punishes innocents, but also makes the job of finding the true criminals that much harder.”
Absolutely dead on, as is the rest of your comment. My wife hit the sex offender database for our area and was shocked at how many were in a 4 mile square area. A lot of Class Ones, a number of Class Twos, and a few Class Threes. I explained to her that the time her boss peed in the bar parking lot made him a Class One, the 18 year old that had sex with his 16 year old girl friend (what happened to age proximity? our laws used to incorporate that) might be a One or a Two, some Twos may be very bad depending on circumstances or pleas, but the Threes are the ones to really worry about.
I’m against the Sex Offender List as it is now, but I’m not for sex offenders, real sex offenders. The people that have promoted lumping in all of these trivial acts are the ones standing in the way of dealing with the real criminals.
I’m not clear why it’s a “hit piece” to criticize the Heritage Foundation’s use of the term “trivial conduct” with respect to child abuse.
Skunky, did you even read the fucking article?
As Radley makes abundantly clear, the Foundation tracks ALL pending legislation in this area. The fact that the progress of the legislation means that the Foundation thinks people interested in the topic might want to read about it, and that that any particular judgment is being rendered on the legislation.
Wow, that got garbled. Sorry.
Trying again.
As Radley makes abundantly clear, the Foundation tracks ALL pending legislation in this area. The fact that they’re tracking the progress of the legislation means that the Foundation thinks people interested in the topic might want to read about it, and not that any particular judgment is being rendered on the legislation.
Being tough on crime is another way of using fear mongering to control the populace. Not so much that people are afraid being victims of criminals, but it’s the fear of being labeled as one. That is fucked up.
When being a horny teenager is just a thin line from from being a child molester, we’re gonna produce a lot of emotionally fucked up kids. “Oh my god, I get arroused by my classmates and the government tells me that makes me evil! What am I gonna do! AGH!” I imagine Tweek from South Park saying that to himself and cutting his wrists open.
But I guess when the kids start becoming even more emotionally unstable, that’ll be proof that we’re winning.
BTW, why can’t I buy “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police” for the Kindle?
If you wrote that in Word, Radley, you can publish it for the Kindle in about 48 hours.
And/or you could do what George Will does, and take a bunch of old columns on a particular topic, slap an introduction in front of them, call it a “book” and put it up on Kindle and sell it for $2. I’d buy it.
#10 | MDGuy
Well done!
A little off-topic, but maybe not: here in Lincoln a guy was sentenced to 8-15 years for having sex with a 15-year old girl. The guy’s ex-girlfriend apparently set it up and told him the girl was 18 to set him up for this:
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_410638a6-cd81-11de-bbfb-001cc4c03286.html
I’m so proud of the town I live in.
#19, this shit can happen to ANYONE. Men are bad, women are pure, sex is evil — we’re still Puritans looking for witches to burn.
Would you expect something different from George Soros?