TheAgitator.com
Lunch Links
Monday, June 21st, 2010- Missouri lawmakers focus on the really important stuff.
- The one-sided immigration debate.
- Tennessee deputy threatens man videotaping police making arrests.
- Study: Blacks routinely excluded form juries.
- Atlanta woman wrongly arrested for asking “why?” to get $20,000. From taxpayers, of course. Not from the offending police officers.
- Here’s a great Vanity Fair interview with libertarian/magician/skeptic Penn Jillette.
- Harvard student illegally brought to America at age four, then threatened with deportation after trying to be board a plane earlier this month . . . will be allowed to stay.
“Last month, the Republican-controlled legislature passed one of the nation’s toughest state laws aimed at strip clubs and other adult-entertainment venues. It would ban nude dancing and the serving of alcohol in adult cabarets, force strip clubs to close at midnight and forbid seminude dancers to touch patrons.”
The small government conservatives are at it again i see. I sure am glad they want the government out of the personal lives of the citizenry. What would we do without them?
/eye roll
Ya, they’re cracking down on, ahem, massage parlors in Georgia, too. And here we all thought politicians WANTED to stimulate things.
More facts from the case of the Atlanta woman who will get $20K after being imprisoned for asking why:
1. The officer in question had been suspended without pay for most of the year for other incidents (apparently, he has quite a record)
2. Classic quote from the the police union about the risks that officers “face every day, and the split-second decisions they must make to protect citizens and reduce their own personal risk” Someone with a straight face applied this to a group of grandmothers on the sidewalk talking about a funeral. F’real?
I’d love to see the excuse they put down for my PhD-having colleagues. “Too smart to be fooled by my bullshit”, I expect.
Anecdotal, sure, but of all my friends and acquaintances in science and academia, only one has been allowed onto a jury.
Wait a minute…libertarians are supposed to be a bunch of rightwingers according to the media and all I see is a bunch of links promoting the liberal side of things. Now we don’t fit in a neat little box on the left or right. It’s almost as if there are more options than left or right.
It’s really nice to see that the Atlanta woman got some money. Can citizens bring civil suits against individual officers to extract compensation instead of letting the tax payer shell out?
I love Penn.
“The only way Obama can make it up to the gay people of this country is if he sucks off a guy on YouTube.”
That should be a national proposition for us to vote on in November. Vote Prop BO Blow on November 2nd!
@#4: Bronwyn:
There was an episode of the show Becker a few years ago where he got a summons for jury duty. They would ask questions, and as soon as he said “I read a book…” they would say dismissed, but when he mentioned the soap opera playing in the jury pool room, they were going to let him on a jury. That (a PhD, scientist, or other academic) are exactly the type of people a prosecutor doesn’t want on a jury. It makes reasonable doubt much trickier when you have someone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground.
It’s the same reason they didn’t want blacks on the jury in a black majority area. The population there already knows how the government treats the minorities (ethnic and political) and they don’t want those people talking to the other eleven. It makes it much easier to convict when the jury is already prejudiced against the defendant.
@#1 Claude:
Small-government conservatives want government out of your life. Unless you’re a stripper, doing drugs, drinking alcohol, working on a Sunday, sleeping with a same-sex partner, and whatever other “perverse” thing they can think of. Their justification is that they don’t like it so that means our society would be much better off if these things didn’t exist.
This hypocrisy makes me sick to my stomach.
I absolutely think the taxpayers should pay for the mistakes of their officials. Might make them less apathetic about the people they elect. Granted, an individual officer is not an elected official, but elected officials can have a lot of influence on the culture of the agencies they run.
Maybe if taxpayers had to pay out lots more than $20k they’d look beyond a one-dimensional “tough on crime” candidate.
About immigration.
I had a thought the other day. My thought came on the heels of reading an article about workers in a Chinese factory making iPhones committing suicide.
The conditions in that factory were excellent compared to other Chinese factories. That said, it was still closer to slave labor than a good paying job when compared to the US. The description reminded me of the textile mills in Lowell in the 1800s. Sure you got paid, but what was expected of you was not even close to worth your salary.
What makes the time of an American worth more than that of a Chinese worker? Nothing except physical location. If we allow anyone who wants to come into this country, our labor will be worth less. And that’s not acceptable.
Kind of a smarmy piece on immigration, there. Pat self on back for being far more rational than your opponents, then conflate stats on immigrants and illegal immigrants and hope we don’t notice. The attempt to use ‘undocumented’ instead of ‘illegal’ also seems simply incorrect to me: it really *is* illegal to be here in the US under certain circumstances, even if your presence is extremely well-documented.
Finally, as regards the Harvard student, it’s nice to see that the media is doing its best to provide us with atypical examples to try and sway public opinion. In the major media outlets (though not the internet) there is indeed a one-sided agenda, and it’s in favor of illegal immigrants.
The link for the Tennessee deputy takes you to a site with LOTS of stuff to get agitated about. Poke around a bit when you get there.
Why there will never be change:
“APD was named in the suit, and a spokesman for the department said Friday that an internal investigation found officer Brandy Dolson “acted within the parameters of department policies and procedures,” which complied with national standards.”
“Atlanta woman wrongly arrested for asking “why?” to get $20,000. From taxpayers, of course. Not from the offending police officers.”
For 30 pieces of silver, society continues to writhe on its cross. Thanks for not bringing the case to trial, ma’am. And sorry for the Biblical reference. It’s poetry, not belief.
Once again this defense of immigration fails to consider the subsequent generations. While illegals are debatably less inclined to commit crime, as has been noted at REASON and elsewhere, the crime statistics for subsequent legal generations are much higher. So no, Judith, this isn’t a self-serving perception. As it turns out, what I’ve seen with my own two eyes really is true: more hispanics = more crime. I wish it weren’t true.
Wow. Atlanta just loves your civil liberties. Half a million to settle another suit as well?
“If the other proposed settlement is approved, taxpayers will give 22 cab drivers $425,000 to settle a federal lawsuit. The suit says officers confiscated permits and insurance stickers and then immediately cited or arrested the drivers for not having those stickers on their cars. ”
…WTF is wrong with Atlanta anyway?
@ #10 Kristen
Yeah, because it’s worked so well all these years.
Things are the way they are because the taxpayer has infinite capacity to take it in the ass, and that’s just the way the State likes it.
I preferred this one for cynicism. Just goes to show the Review boards, where they do exist, are meaningless.
“Before bring the suit, Carey had filed a complaint with the Citizen Review Board, a panel charged with investigating reports of police misconduct. The board found in favor of Carey last February but interim police Chief George Turner rejected that decision.”
Thanks for playing, but I don’t care. LOL
Sure you got paid, but what was expected of you was not even close to worth your salary.
By whose measure? Who determines what work is worth what salary?
The people who worked at those mills obviously considered the mills their best option, or they’d have worked elsewhere (likely on farms, where they’d work for less money, and under more dangerous conditions). Same with the factories in China today.
If we allow anyone who wants to come into this country, our labor will be worth less. And that’s not acceptable.
You realize that this will result in a net loss of jobs for the U.S. economy, right? Artificially inflating the cost of goods (as restrictions on cheaper labor do) is always a net loss for the economy as a whole. So we’ll all pay more the same goods, there will be fewer total jobs, and we’ll be limiting freedom of contract. And for what? In order to favor native factory workers over Chinese factory workers?
That Atlanta settlement is missing a zero or two, in my opinion.
Stephen: We regulars here are well familier with Carlos Millers site. Yes, he does good work.
Radley, I think you misunderstood what I said. Today it’s not acceptable to the American public for our labor to be more equitable with the rest of the world.
Thinking back to the other ‘terrible’ immigrations, they were mostly hated. But they got jobs and supported themselves. I’m thinking specifically of the Irish (because that’s the history I know most about) but the same can be said for other waves of immigrants. The first generation spoke their native language, and the second generation was really the one that assimilated.
I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the history of this country when a) current citizens wanted more immigrants from different ethnic backgrounds to come here and b) the net result of said immigrants haven’t been positive. (With the possible exception of Europeans coming to this continent.)
Immigration has always been a positive force. If a Mexican wants to come here and do a drywall job for $100 where a Real American drywaller would charge $500, I have no problem with that. The best part is the same can be said of any two drywallers. There will always be a market for cheap products and services. There will also always be a market for expensive products and services. It’s a balancing act.
I am 100% for making legal immigration much easier. It would be nothing but good for this country.
Damn it.
Immigration has always been a positive force. If a Mexican wants to come here and do a drywall job for $100 where a Real American drywaller would charge $500, I have no problem with that. The $500 job will probably be higher quality than the $100, but that’s a choice you have to make. The best part is the same can be said of any two drywallers; American, Mexican or Mooninite.
Miller’s blog story about the deputy threatening the videographer contains a useful note. The officer tried to grab the camera away from the videographer but she was unable to because it was strapped on. This is important because having the camera strapped on means that the officer has a hard time getting the camera away without being able to claim that the videographer was fighting, resisting, or assaulting. He can just stand there as the officer makes it clear that the real issue is the camera and not whether he is a safe distance from whatever incident is being filmed.
Of course, a mere persistent thug could eventually steal the camera and erase it (or break it) and still lie the videographer was “resisting” and arrest him, but it makes it harder to do. And, I suspect that the more elaborate camera setup would introduce some worry that the recorded video and audio was being sent out as a real-time feed…
As a commenter on the jury story noted, minorities tend to be dismissed from jury pools because it’s assumed that they’ve had negative past experiences with the police. And as commenters here have noted, people with college or post-graduate degrees tend to be excluded from jury duty. In fact, some professions, like dentists in Indiana, are automatically excluded from serving on a jury.
For most attorneys, the ideal juror is a white female housewife with no more than a year or two of college. Unemployed middle-aged blue-collar males are also deemed acceptable. The odds of anyone else being selected are pretty slim.
In Indiana, your average jury pool might be 80 or 90 people, and each attorney can dismiss 30. That makes it easy for the attorneys to pare the pool down to only the ideal jurors.
“Artificially inflating the cost of goods (as restrictions on cheaper labor do) is always a net loss for the economy as a whole. So we’ll all pay more the same goods, there will be fewer total jobs,”
Evidence?
When the “artificial inflation” is money going into the pockets of lower wage earners, it almost immeadiatly flows back into the economy as a whole. There isn’t any evidence that it is a net loss, and it might be a net gain. In fact there does appear to be a significant correlation between lower income inequality and GDP growth, so if the “artificial inflation” results in improved income inequality then it could significantly improve the GDP.
Now when the inflation is due to say higher prices for oil, and money that flows to saudi arabia, then it is a net loss to the US economy as a whole.
You further err in the assumption that higher wages will result in higher prices. This is only true if the basic market forces will support higher prices- but since the market is efficient this is usually not the case. I.e. if sellers could raise prices they already would have to improve profits. In most cases higher costs reduce profits rather than increasing prices. You can’t have it both ways, you either believe in market efficiency or you don’t.
- the interview with Penn Jillette that you linked to above has helped me to get through another day! Every now and then I need factual (or at least factual-looking) proof that I do not live on the planet of the apes.
thanks!
bobzbob,
The evidence abounds. Just use the power of google, it won’t take very long. Wage is function of supply and demand. Supply of labor goes up, down goes wages. Vice Versa. It is a net loss when producers ship their companies overseas for better labor markets or when foreign goods and services that are made more cheaply undercut our goods and services in the global market. That is a net loss.
You’re right that in some scenarios certain good and services will not rise above a certain price since it will make them unaffordable. Marginal rate of return decreases, etc. But that scenario is not every case and more often than not, prices go up or staff is reduced.
@#12 bbartlog,
So, you’re saying it’s not true that “the undocumented population is decreasing, crime in Arizona is down, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and the federal government is deporting undocumented immigrants in record numbers.”?
[...] have the power in the first place to control private behaviors between consenting adults. (h/t The Agitator) This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Kind of Country [...]
Yes, while it would be ideal to extract the pound of flesh from the offending officers, I see no problem with taking it from government coffers, because that money isn’t taxpayer money anymore. It’s the collective property of those individuals in the government who direct it’s use.
I don’t get a check back at the end of the year with my unused taxes enclosed, nor do I get any say in how my money gets spent. Given that they’re going to blow it all (and then some) anyways, handing out random amounts of it to some individuals that were both wronged and got lucky enough for anybody to care seems a lot less destructive than most of their uses of it.
For most attorneys, the ideal juror is a white female housewife with no more than a year or two of college.
I’m gonna guess you’re not a lawyer because the notion of one “ideal juror” is ridiculous. Generally speaking, there are two ideal jurors, one if you’re a prosecutor or plaintiff and one if you’re a defendant. The “ideal juror” you identify is not ideal at all but is rather the least offensive to both sides. I’m a civil defense attorney and the last trial we had we would have LOVED to have PhD’s, doctors, or other lawyers on the jury. The plaintiff, on the other hand, not so much. On the flipside, we were generally skeptical of minorities because they tend to be more suspicious of corporations and more sympathetic to plaintiffs. Of course, we didn’t rely on such speculation… the voir dire process either confirmed or refuted our initial suspicions based on race, sex, profession, address, etc.
Obviously my experiences are distinct from criminal practice in the Deep South, where there does indeed appear to be underlying racism. But for civil practice I would argue that anything that makes one stand out makes them much more likely to be excluded, and that includes race.
anyone familiar with the world class sex attractions just outside of st. louis in illinois knows missouri has always had bullshit laws when it comes to strip clubs. these clubs are in a rough area and they do tons of business because there’s no decent competition in missouri.
It’ll be fun watching Gov Nixon squirm over this…
That’s a pretty nice setup, isn’t it? The law harasses minorities then excludes them as peers in jury trials due to their having experienced harassment.
If a Mexican wants to come here and do a drywall job for $100 where a Real American drywaller would charge $500, I have no problem with that. The $500 job will probably be higher quality than the $100
Racist.
“I’m gonna guess you’re not a lawyer because the notion of one “ideal juror” is ridiculous. Generally speaking, there are two ideal jurors, one if you’re a prosecutor or plaintiff and one if you’re a defendant. The “ideal juror” you identify is not ideal at all but is rather the least offensive to both sides. ”
You’re right. That’s probably a better descriptor. And I’m talking about criminal cases. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys want jurors who are going to understand basic concepts as they are presented by police, expert witnesses, etc. They do not want jurors that have the knowledge or critical thinking skills to be able to question testimony. Attorneys are generally confident in their abilities of persuasion (those that aren’t confident don’t last very long). They don’t like jurors thinking independently about the case.
For the record, I’m not an attorney, but a reformed political scientist.
“#20 | Robert | June 21st, 2010 at 3:52 pm
That Atlanta settlement is missing a zero or two, in my opinion.
Stephen: We regulars here are well familier with Carlos Millers site. Yes, he does good work.”
Not sure if I count as a “regular”. I have only been posting since the little episode a while back when Radley turned off the comments. Been a few years at least.
I wouldn’t say Blacks being excluded is always racism. We’ve had a case here in my state where the Problem was finding someone who was black but wasn’t related to the defendant.
@22: ‘Immigration has always been a positive force.’
For whom? Is the ongoing immigration of Chinese into Tibet a positive force for the Tibetans? I’m sure it boosts Tibet’s GDP (and likely even its per capita GDP), so it can be said to be good for the economy. And we can assume that the Chinese that move there in general are better off (else they wouldn’t do it). Does that mean there is no objection that can be raised? I hardly think so.
bbartlog if you read post #21 I’m talking about immigration in the US over the past two hundred years.
EH Racist.
What?
Tibetans have bigger issues than immigration… If the theocrats, communists, and CIA would leave them alone, things would be different.
http://luisgranados.com/blog/?p=556#more-556
re the US, I feel that Ben’s right about ‘Immigration has always been a positive force.’
For the record, I’m not an attorney, but a reformed political scientist.
For the record, I’m not sure why I took such a defensive tone in my original comment. I should have suspected that we were on the same page but I got caught up in semantics… something I’ll blame on my law school profs. ;-)
One thing I didn’t like from the Atlanta story: Ms. Carey’s lawsuit alleges that she and her friends were targeted because of their race.
All parties involved (police and citizens) were of the same race. I’m not sure what evidence they were proffering, but I really hate how people toss out the race card any time they get a raw deal. Sometimes, probably most times, an asshole is just an asshole.
#15 Kidseven:
As it turns out, what I’ve seen with my own two eyes really is true: more hispanics = more crime. I wish it weren’t true.
It seems your wish is true. The US has more Hispanics than ever before. And crime rates are falling. Or do your eyes have information the rest of the world is not privy to?
@shecky: as you probably know, the fact that crime rates are falling (or actually even more to the point, *have* fallen dramatically in the last twenty years… with a small increase from a very low point in recent years) doesn’t preclude the possibility that hispanics might commit more crimes. In fact given the correlation between poverty and crime it would be somewhat surprising if poor/unskilled immigrants did not commit somewhat more crimes than the average citizen. It’s actually difficult to find official statistics on this, however, as hispanics are generally classified simply as ‘white’ in the federal prison system.
@ben: the point is that saying that ‘immigration is a positive force’ is a feel-good platitude. Specific situations do need to be considered. If you don’t like Tibet as an example, then consider the reductio ad absurdum of completely open borders for the US. Would sure be interesting, but it would be extremely disruptive to put it mildly.
@Johnny: as to the truth of the claims,
a) how do we know that the ‘undocumented’ population is decreasing? Good guessing? But just based on economic logic I would accept it as true.
b) crime may well be down. See above. For all we know it’s down because the native-born are committing fewer crimes.
c) I’m sure it’s true. Immigrants are not the same as illegal immigrants. I don’t doubt that your average H1B holder is very law-abiding. Of course this claim is the let’s-change-the-topic-and-see-if-anyone-notices dodge I mentioned earlier.
d) is false. Current levels of deportation don’t approach those reached in 1954 during Operation Wetback.
“It is a net loss when producers ship their companies overseas for better labor markets or when foreign goods and services that are made more cheaply undercut our goods and services in the global market. That is a net loss. ”
Wow! I’ve been listening to the libertarians blather on about how free trade is good for everybody – now your telling me its not true! Thanks for being honest!
“But that scenario is not every case and more often than not, prices go up or staff is reduced.”
Not true – businesses maximize PROFITS, which means they usually are already charging what the market will bear. Increases costs MORE Often than NOT end up being taken out of profits. Just curious: how many product lines have you managed?
Loved the interview with Penn Jillette. As great as every single one of his answers was, it was even more fun to experience Spitznagel’s dawning comprehension of their CONSISTENCY. Either you believe people are free to do whatever they want as long as they respect everyone else’s right to engage in same, or you don’t. Despite what liberals and conservatives would have you believe, it really is that simple.
@bbartlog
re: C, whoever put together the statistics linked here:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Crime%20Fact%20Check%2012-12-07.pdf
makes it clear that undocumented and documented immigrants are grouped together and then tries to separate the two out. The deception just isn’t there.
“Immigrants from Nations that Account for Most of the Undocumented Have Lower Incarceration Rates than the Native-Born
The incarceration rate also is lower for the immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala who account for the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States and who tend to have low levels of education. In 2000, 0.7% of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5% of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison.
• Similarly, 0.7% of foreign-born Mexican men without a high-school diploma and 0.6% of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men without a high-school diploma were behind bars in 2000.”
So, no worries, the Asian, South-Asian and European immigrants were not conflated with the Mexicans and Central Americans who are highly unlikely to be H1B holders.
re: D, point is, deportations are up and increasing.
Bottom line is, the facts don’t support the existence of any kind of crime wave. So, it doesn’t make sense to use a non-existent crime wave as an argument against illegal immigration. In fact, crime has been going down for some time, regardless of changes in levels of illegal immigration and deportation. Thus, it’s hard to connect illegal immigration with crime rates one way or the other. Though, the evidence suggests that illegals are no more prone to crime than anyone else, otherwise these changing levels of illegal immigration and deportation would have some kind of noticeable, positive or negative, impact on crime rates.
Anyways, if you don’t like illegal immigrants, then cite a more honest and factual reason instead of making things up and unnecessarily scaring the gullible. That’s all I ask.
#25 | bobzbob
Please read “free to choose” by Milton and Rose Friedman, Chapter 1 “the power of the market”. Your discussion on this topic seems confused.
#34–I think jury selection is more of an art than a science. I just don’t think there is such a thing as a perfect juror, even if you narrow it down to defense v. prosecution, or criminal v. civil. It depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your case, and the type of evidence that is involved in the case. I do criminal defense and I can tell you that a juror I’d want on a case where, say, there is a DNA match that I need to discredit would be a lot different that a juror I’d want on a case where I’m defending a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse. If I’m disputing DNA or fingerprint evidence you can bet I’d want someone who was intelligent and could think critically.
#41–you are completely correct–Atlanta police are pretty egregious when it comes to civil liberties abuse and general thuggery. Not quite as bad as Sheriff Joe or the Philly narcotics squad but close. Most of their victims (95+%) are black. So are the mayor, the police chief, the sheriff, most judges, most city council members, the district attorney and solicitor general, and most cops themselves. No its not racism.
When I read this…
I knew this was coming…
Yeah, that’s why they handed out a $20K check, moron.
We MUST start responding AS RIDICULOUSLY to police abuse as the perverts in the Police Union.
Best Jillette comment:
Well, that and his comment about how Obama can make up for Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
In Penn I Trust.
Re: Atlanta
‘an internal investigation found officer Brandy Dolson “acted within the parameters of department policies and procedures,” ‘
What a crock of shit. What about common sense or common decency towards citizens doing nothing wrong. It was an arrest for “contempt of cop.” And this fucker must still has have his job. There was nothing about him being terminated. When are cities going to put a stop to this crap. They are all going broke, (Harrisburg, PA is VERY broke), yet they all stand behind these arrogant cocksucker cops.