TheAgitator.com
Sunday Links
Sunday, June 27th, 2010- The pizza cone.
- Great post from Scott Greenfield on how evidence rules become malleable when the defendant is unsympathetic.
- Tony Woodlief on parenting and the case against happiness. The subsequent discussion in the comments thread is also interesting.
- Good Washington Examiner editorial on recording the police. And not just because it mentions me.
- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer not only thinks illegal immigrants are beheading people, she also says most of them are smuggling drugs. Maybe we should put illegal immigrants and sex offenders on an island and have them fight to the death. Sell pay per view. Proceeds would go to the RNC, of course.
What is most troubling about the changing laws of evidence is that “unsympathetic” often means “black” or “Muslim” or “poor” or “politically unconnected” etc, etc, etc.
Radley, are the allegations noted here:
http://inthesetimes.com/article/6085/ties_that_bind_arizona_politicians_and_the_private_prison_industry
- and elsewhere -
describing links between the private-prison industry and the Arizona laws cracking down on illegal immigrants worth looking into? I’m not normally a conspiracy buff but I wouldn’t be too surprised if this turns out to be correct.
Wouldn’t be surprised. Just because it’s an industry doesn’t mean they can’t fund a run on the brown people the same way the Mormon church sponsors a crackdown on the homos in California.
Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination that the coyotes — who are in long-term business relationships with the cartels — decide to make some additional profit by telling people, “if I bring you across the border, you also have to carry this” and giving them a pack full of drugs to bring?
You know that I’m no fan of the drug war or prohibition, but the coyotes would have to be stupider than the evidence suggests to not pick up this additional revenue.
How long before New York City makes the Pizzacone illegal?
Balko Hat Trick! Sex & Drugs & Open Borders!
A friend and I were just talking about the Texas Republican Party platform, particularly their hatred of teh gheyz, and we decided that sodomy has more definitions than a Senator from Idaho can tap his foot at.
“Balko Hat Trick! Sex & Drugs & Open Borders!”
Ya know, dude… if you are so unhappy with Radleys work, why do you keep coming here? Im sure there are plenty of places online that you might find more to your liking.
Am I the only one who looked at the pizzacone and thought that pizza in cup from “The Jerk” was about 30 years ahead of its time.
Re: the Drew Peterson blog post. An interesting mirror image case is found in the Johannes Mehserle trial, where they are letting in the fact that the victim, Oscar Grant, tried to run from police in 2006. There is no way that is relevant to the shooting of Grant, but it is coming in as a favor to the sympathetic defendant Officer Mehserle.
Other favors in this case include the no blacks jury and the half-hearted cross of Mehserle.
At least they put in him on the stand. I was amazed that they were going to let him use an I-didn’t-mean-to-use-my-gun defense without Mehserle ever saying that.
Anyway, bad trial. Fix is in.
@claude #8
I’m just an agitator, dude!
I love most of what Radley does, but don’t you ever wonder why “libertarians” can’t make any headway with average citizens.
@Roark,
Maybe it is because a big proportion of our citizens are not intelligent enough to keep their checkbook straight! Financial idiocy seems to be the new way of life! And, it seems to reflect the “general intelligence” of our nation. You won’t catch them commenting on sites like this!
Roark: As someone who believes in property rights, I recognize that sex, drugs, and open borders should all be decriminalized. Whether the majority of Americans reject the principle of private property in such matters, as you do, has no bearing on whether that principle is correct.
While hyperbole is used on both sides of the immigration debate, one thing is absolutely, 100%, factual: illegal aliens have committed a federal crime by entering the country in a manner contrary to our laws.
You can argue about whether the law needs changing, but should anyone argue that the law should not be enforced? Laws are enacted at the behest of our citizens. What other federal laws should we fail to enforce? The ADA? The Clean Air Act? The Freedom of Information Act?
Real damage is being done to citizens as a result of illegal aliens and their activities. Saying that “most” illegal aliens are law abiding (apparently, other than that insignificant – to you – federal crime they committed to get here) is an argument for changing the law, not ignoring it.
So yes, Agitate for increasing legal immigration. Advocate for a guest worker program. But until the law is changed, the feds should enforce it.
…illegal aliens have committed a federal crime by entering the country in a manner contrary to our laws.
To whom does “our” refer? They are not my laws, no matter how much you try to force them upon me.
You can argue about whether the law needs changing, but should anyone argue that the law should not be enforced?
Yes. If a law is immoral, it is immoral to enforce it. Writing something down on some special paper does not change its nature. To think otherwise is superstition.
Laws are enacted at the behest of our citizens.
No, even in a pure democracy, laws would be enacted at the behest of only some of your citizens.
What other federal laws should we fail to enforce?
“We”? Are you a policeman of some sort?
The ADA? The Clean Air Act?
No, these shouldn’t be enforced. As I said before, I believe in private property (unlike you, as evidenced by your comment).
Real damage is being done to citizens as a result of illegal aliens and their activities.
So punish them for their actual crimes (you know, the ones with legitimate victims.)
I have the question the economics of the Maryland going after Graber, et al. At a time when state and local jurisdictions are hurting financially, what freaking sense does it make to send Graber to prison for 5 year (potentially) for recording a traffic stop and putting it on YouTube. It’s sheer insanity.
“At a time when state and local jurisdictions are hurting financially, what freaking sense does it make to send Graber to prison for 5 year (potentially) for recording a traffic stop and putting it on YouTube.”
You’re assuming that “reason” somehow figures into this prosecution.
You know, I believe pretty darn strongly in property rights myself… but I can’t see how that has any bearing on one’s feeling about border security.
I can certainly get behind allowing more immigration, and the current system is really, really messed up, but having a true open border is completely insane.
You live in a house/apartment/structure of some kind… and it has walls and a door. You are certainly free to let anyone in – it’s your place. And you are certainly free to demand that people leave – it’s your place.
But if your place has no walls, and you can’t actually control who comes and goes in the slightest… um, well, I think you can see how that would turn out.
In other words, my strong belief in property rights makes me MORE inclined to support proper border security, not less.
Also, RWW, your positions come across as complete anarchist – they are indeed “our” laws (despite the corruption of the system), at least if you are a citizen of this country. Some of them are indeed immoral and should not be followed or enforced, but that does not make them not OUR laws, and “we” (as a society) do generally enforce laws. Again, if you are a citizen of this country, all of that verbiage is quite reasonable.
That you can’t simply converse with people about normal, everyday things like the laws of our country (wait, is it ok to refer to it as “our” country?!?), you’re just contributing to the general “libertarians are crazy” notion that far too many people already have (with ongoing help from the media and both major political parties, of course).
You are certainly free to let anyone in – it’s your place. And you are certainly free to demand that people leave – it’s your place. But if your place has no walls, and you can’t actually control who comes and goes in the slightest… um, well, I think you can see how that would turn out.
Right… So, what does this have to do with the Mexican border? Do you claim ownership of all the land along the border? Do you claim that your government does? I would think not, if you “believe pretty darn strongly in property rights.”
In other words, my strong belief in property rights makes me MORE inclined to support proper border security, not less.
I can only laugh. Is my land my property, or yours? Which is it? Can I dictate who enters my property, or not? You seem to be on the “not” side, which makes me wonder in what sense you believe in property rights.
Also, RWW, your positions come across as complete anarchist – they are indeed “our” laws…
My positions may be labeled as you wish without changing their correctness.
I will not let you pawn off your own actions onto me with weaselly language. Stand up and claim your own beliefs; do not try to assuage your guilt by including me in your group. I do not support your laws; they are only “mine” in the sense that they are occasionally inflicted upon me and people I care about by the thugs you apparently condone.
… at least if you are a citizen of this country.
That your state calls me a citizen has no bearing on whether I am your accomplice.
…and “we” (as a society) do generally enforce laws. Again, if you are a citizen of this country, all of that verbiage is quite reasonable.
I don’t see how. I am arbitrarily included in a certain group with no justification other than my place of birth, and somehow you have the right to say that I generally enforce laws? Again, keep your beliefs and actions to yourself, and have the courage to claim them.
That you can’t simply converse with people about normal, everyday things like the laws of our country (wait, is it ok to refer to it as “our” country?!?)…
I can converse with people about the laws of the United States, but I must take offense when someone accuses me of wrongdoing, as you have. Yes, it is “our country,” in the sense that we live here — and in no other sense. If you believe it’s “our country” with some connotation of ownership, then you manifestly do not believe in private property. You do not own my land, or my place of business, or the border, and voting does not establish any right over it that you didn’t already have (which, I presume, is none). So stop pretending.