TheAgitator.com
Me on Your Screen
Saturday, August 13th, 2011Talking about Rick Perry with Alyona Minkovski.
40 Responses to “Me on Your Screen”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
more of this please. I’m a longtime fan with no cable & seldom watch TV, so I think it’s the first time I’ve seen you as talking head. nice job…will plan to watch all from now on.
best from El Paso, mm
p.s. as a former Nashvillian, love the wall guitar.
Very good interview. I like how Alyona isn’t afraid to share her own sentiments … it’s more of a discussion between two intelligent people.
Pretty amazing how RT actually gives you enough time to make your point rather than urgently trying to interrupt your answers with the next question.
As for Perry, I think the only way a Republican could actually benefit more from a “tough on crime” position is if he actually executed the prisoners himself.
You were in that video Radley? I must have missed it, I’ll go back and watch it again.
I know this is inappropriate and irrelevant, but damn, she is such a fox.
To that point, I lol’ed @ #4.
Not that Radley isn’t a nice lookin fella or anything, it’s just that, well, damn!
I think these two should go out.
Seriously Radley, Alyona and you need to hook up already. You know she’s in to you right?
I enjoy reading your work and watching your videos. Do try to reduce the speech disfluency (the “umm”s and “ahh”s) and the furtive looks while speaking to the camera. All in all, good work, as always, pal.
Radley, this is pretty disgraceful and totally beneath you. For starters, you’re misrepresenting the expert who was hired specifically to attack the official findings as non-biased, but he was paid specifically to reach the conclusions he did. There was absolutely no reason for Perry to insinuate himself into the process. Are there innocent people who get executed? Yes. Are there innocent people who get put into prison? Yes. But the governor should not get involved without good reason, and there was no good reason in Willingham’s case. The argument that Perry should have gotten involved is complete nonsense. He did great work getting actual reforms of the justice system passed by the legislature. You’re being totally unfair, and I think it’s because you decided to oppose him and you’re trying to justify your opposition with flimsy rationalizations. When you choose your position first, as I think you did, you manage to look pretty silly by torturing the facts to justify it. You’re a great investigative journalist. But you do your best work when you try to be fair. This is hurting you as a journalist.
Also, as a fellow bald man, try wearing an undershirt while on camera. There’s a bizarre, subconscious association between being bald and unshirted, and being unserious. I’ve yet to uncover the reason for this, but I’ve detected it, anecdotally.
@JohnJ,
Whatever criminal justice reforms Perry might or might not claim credit for, the reality remains that he was intransigent in the face of clear evidence in support of at least the possibility that Willingham was innocent. Mother Theresa would not be any less guilty of and condemnable for murder, had she committed such, for her abundant acts of generosity and mercy. The one is entirely separable from the other. As the final authority on state executions, Rick Perry executed a man who seems clearly to have been innocent, and he is persisting in allowing the execution of a man in the same situation. Whatever else he might claim, these remain. There is no excuse allowable, no matter what credit you may lay to him.
#11 Peck,
In his logo he is wearing an undershirt and has a full head of hair.
JohnJ: Your post is complete nonsense.
For starters, you’re misrepresenting the expert who was hired specifically to attack the official findings as non-biased, but he was paid specifically to reach the conclusions he did.
I have no idea to which expert you’re referring. Nine separate arson experts have come forward to say the fire evidence presented against Cameron Todd Willingham had no basis in science. Nine. Maybe you’re right. Maybe one or more of them was “hired specifically to attack the official findings as non-biased.” But I know for a fact it wasn’t all nine. I’ve talked to three of them personally.
There was absolutely no reason for Perry to insinuate himself into the process.
Perry has the power to stop executions. He didn’t stop this one. After the state forensics commission voted to investigate what happened at Willingham’s trial, Perry replaced three of the commissioners with three former prosecutors. So he did “insinuate himself into the process.” He intervened to make sure the forensics commission wouldn’t come to the conclusion that Texas executed an innocent man. So you’re wrong about whether he can intervene, and you’re wrong about whether he did.
But the governor should not get involved without good reason, and there was no good reason in Willingham’s case. The argument that Perry should have gotten involved is complete nonsense.
Again, this makes no sense at all. A governor has clemency power for a reason. George W. Bush, for example, held off an execution while he was governor long enough for DNA test results to come back. The tests confirmed the guy’s guilt. So he was executed. In the Hank Skinner case, Perry is opposing Skinner’s access to DNA testing, even though that testing could definitively show Skinner’s guilt or innocence. You say Perry should’t get involved without good reason. So should he be actively opposing a death row inmate’s access to DNA testing?
He did great work getting actual reforms of the justice system passed by the legislature.
He has helped pass some reforms related to sentencing and juvenile justices. Which is great. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s trying to cover up what happened in the Willingham case, or that he’s fighting Skinner’s access to DNA testing.
You’re being totally unfair, and I think it’s because you decided to oppose him and you’re trying to justify your opposition with flimsy rationalizations. When you choose your position first, as I think you did, you manage to look pretty silly by torturing the facts to justify it.
You’re making a lot of assumptions there. And all of them are wrong. I disagree with Perry on quite a few issues, but in my mind this issue alone should disqualify him from becoming president. Even if I agreed with him on nearly everything else. So, no. I didn’t make up my mind on Perry, then use this issue to justify my dislike of him. I’ve been writing about the Willingham case for a couple years now. And it’s the chief (though not the only) reason why I find Perry so objectionable.
This is hurting you as a journalist.
I don’t see any evidence of that.
“This is hurting you as a journalist.
I don’t see any evidence of that.”
It’s going to help not hurt. With Perry now officially a presidenttial candidate this might get you far more exposure than you can even imagine.
Perry betrayed the people of Texas on the TSA issue. If Debra Medina were their governor, you can bet she’d have the rangers and the DPS in the airports ready to arrest any TSA goon who molested an innocent citizen.
-jcr
The expert I was referring to was Hurst, who, if I understand right, was paid by the New Yorker to criticize Vasquez. I don’t know about any other experts, but I’d be willing to bet that there are also some willing to endorse Vasquez’s findings. I highly doubt that all nine experts to which you refer did as much investigating as Vasquez or Hurst.
A governor has clemency power, but that doesn’t mean he should use it without good reason. I don’t see any reason to use it in this case or the Skinner case. The clemency power isn’t to be used just whenever the governor thinks that a jury got it wrong. That’s what appeals are for. If we start justifying the clemency power that way, juries may actually start convicting when they shouldn’t because they think that the governor will sort it out if they got it wrong. I’d hate to see that happen. And citing the imperial executive Bush for precedent doesn’t really help your case.
I apologize for spouting so much nonsense.
I just think that Gene Healy got it right about people putting too much faith in executives. If you think the system got it wrong, then by all means advocate for some reforms that you think will make the system work better. You already do that so well in so many other areas. But giving the executive MORE power isn’t the answer.
And implying that the replacement of three board members had anything to do with the Willingham case is silly and conspiratorial. If you have evidence that’s true, you should produce it. Otherwise, it’s the kind of unsubstantiated assertion that I’m think will result in making you look ridiculous.
“hired specifically to attack the official findings as non-biased.”
This is why we need professional juries so they can be trained to know everything the defense does is a lie and everything the prosecution does is done from the sanctity of the State.
Sarcasm off.
I’m not saying that the state investigator doesn’t have his own agenda. I’m just saying that Hurst had one too. Good lord, I’ve defended innocent people who’ve gone to jail. I know what the system is like. The solution is to reform the system, not to create unrealistic expectations that an enlightened dictator will save us all.
#20 | freebob |
How about instead of professional juries, we stop the stupid practice of eliminating from the jury pool anybody that actually knows anything?
For example: I know too much about how radars and lasers work, so I will NEVER be on a jury that tries a case that has to do with radars and lasers.
They want completely blank minds on the jury.
Jonj:
The founders included the pardon power as a check on injustice. Gene Healy and I are friends. He doesn’t disagree with me on this. And no one is arguing in favor of giving governors more power. I’m arguing that Perry should use the power he already has to stay Skinner’s execution so Skinner’s attorneys can have the DNA tested.
You also need to more about the Willingham case. Craig Beyler, another arson expert, was hired by the state forensics commission in Texas to produce a report on the Willingham case. He was paid by the state, not by the New Yorker, the Innocence Project, or any advocacy group. Beyler produced a report that was sharply critical of Vasquez and that essentially concluded that there was no scientifically reliable evidence pointing to Willingham’s guilt. Two days before the commission was to meet to discuss Beyler’s report, Perry replaced three of the members, including the chair. All three members Perry replaced wanted to investigate the Willingham case. All three were replaced with people who didn’t. If you think that’s pure coincidence, you’re awfully naive.
You should also read more on the Skinner case. He has exhausted his appeals. He’s now in post-conviction. All he wants to do is test the DNA from the crime scene, which could prove his innocence. Perry wants to execute him before he can do that. I’m arguing that Perry should merely stay the execution long enough for the DNA testing.
The argument from the state is that Skinner should have requested the DNA be tested at trial. But he did. His attorney ignored him. His attorney, by the way, was court-appointed. He was a former prosecutor who had to resign after stealing money in a drug forfeiture case. The judge assigned him Skinner’s case, and ordered him paid the amount of money he owed the government for the case that led to his resignation.
Seriously, read up before you start questioning my integrity.
I doubt that the cancelled meeting was the only time the TFSC discussed the Willingham case. That was over five years after the execution had already taken place. Beylor’s report came out in 2009 too, well after the execution. How was Perry supposed to know the future? How could he rely on a report that wasn’t even written yet? Was he supposed to predict that in five years forensic science would change its mind? At the time, there was no reason for him to intervene.
From the little I gleaned about Skinner from Wikipedia, I don’t see how a DNA test is going to make any difference. The real question in that case seems to me to be whether DNA testing is a civil right. The Texas senate has actually passed a bill to require DNA testing of pretty much all evidence in capital cases, I believe. If you think that’s a good idea, then support that. But again, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for Perry to intervene in this case, this time because a DNA test isn’t going to change anything. Wikipedia was unclear about what was to be tested, but the implication was that the most they would be able to ascertain would be that someone else was in the house, but not necessarily at the time of the murders.
Again, we have a judicial system for a reason. While I’m sympathetic to pragmatic arguments that we don’t live in an ideal world where it never makes mistakes, I don’t think the governor should intervene unless the evidence is a little more clear than in these cases. I’m surprised to hear that Mr. Healy agrees.
Next time you see him, if you would, let him know that I love his books. Thanks.
In the video still, Radley has the same expression on his face that I would have if I were in close physical proximity to Alyona Minkovski.
And she has the same expression on her face that she would have if I were in close proximity!
This is totally off-topic and shamelessly self-indulgent but this seems like a good opportunity to ask for some help…
Radley, I’ve been trying – with no success – to contact of someone, anyone, from The Alyona Show about getting permission to create an archive of her show on my Roku channel. I already have an archive of Adam vs The Man, as well as Cop Block, Liberty on Tour, The Foundation for Economic Education, The Atlas Network, The Institute for Justice… and Mises.org is coming soon (all these groups have given me their consent), so she’d be in good company.
I contacted RT, but got a canned response from someone in Russia. If I try any harder to contact her on my own, I’m going to wind up with a restraining order hanging over me. Help an agitatortot out, please!
It would be great if the first debate Perry is involved in, they ask him how much of Texas’s economic record is the result of the policies of the Lt. Governor given that Texas gives more power to the Lt. Governor than other states, thus weakening the Governor position.
Not to dismiss the serious issue of these death penalty cases, but for policies that could lead to deaths on a massive scale – how about his idea to send American troops to Mexico – http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20101119-Perry-backs-sending-U-S-5391.ece
@22 No, they want stupid people who will rubber-stamp a conviction, and it mostly works. This is why if I get called for jury duty, I plan to poison the entire pool. I won’t get chosen to serve, anyway, so I may as well point out the violence inherent in the system.
Radley, those uh’s and um’s really hurt when I listen to you. You need to slow down, your brain is moving faster than your mouth can handle. Take your time, maybe even some public speaking classes would help.
I KNOW you are a smart guy because I have been paying attention to you since 2006. You do a lot better in text mode than video.
You have grown in terms of how many people hear you and it is time for you to work hard on sounding good and not just thinking good.
I agree with Stephen, no offense intended. Toastmasters helped me a lot with that.
Radley,
I think you did well, but this was just to one sided to be useful. The problem we all have is that when you pick a presidential candidate, they come with baggage. Does Perry baggage hinder him? Certainly. It worse than other candidate for office, who knows. Does it hinder worse than Obama? I am not at all convinced since Obama appears even more two faced with regard to civil liberties.
Other defenders of Perry are claiming that Texas law prohibits the governor from granting clemency without a recommendation by the Board. The Texas Board of Pardons website seems to confirm this. You might want to consider addressing this in any further criticism of Perry.
Alternatively, you could just criticize the flaws in the process that led to what you believe to be an unjust outcome. Promoting reforms might work a lot better than trying to tie this to Perry.
JohnJ: Perry could have issued a 30-day stay of execution without the board’s recommendation. Perry is also fighting like hell to keep board’s clemency memo on Willingham under wraps.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7344654.html
Hooray for transparency!
One more thing: Beyler’s report showing that the arson evidence against Willingham was faulty was given to Perry before Willingham’s execution. Perry went out of his way to say in public that he didn’t even bother to read it.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/texas-justice-still-denied
Beyler’s report wasn’t even written until 2009, Radley. The report cited in that article was the Hurst report. And it didn’t “show” that the evidence was faulty. It opined that the evidence was faulty.
A 30-day extension wouldn’t have done anything. There was no reason to do it. Why not be open and honest about how limited the Texas governor’s clemency power is? You’re twisting the facts to attack Perry. This is beneath you.
I mistyped Beyler instead of Hurst in that last comment.
And I’m not twisting facts. Whether Perry should have stopped the Willingham execution isn’t my main problem with him, as I pointed out in the original post. Though the fact that he didn’t even bother to read the Hurst report before signing off on Willingham’s execution is pretty damned awful.
My main problem with him is the effort to cover it up and keep the facts from the public in the years since. And his efforts to prevent DNA testing in the Skinner case.
I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but if you’d like to keep posting here, knock off the “this is beneath you” condescension. If you think my objections to a governor trying to cover up the possible execution of an innocent man–and his efforts to prevent DNA testing in another death penalty case–are motivated by partisanship, you really know nothing about me. I couldn’t care less about either political party. I do happen to think this particular issue is important. And I find Perry’s actions and his flippant attitude about Willingham and Skinner appalling.
If you feel this impugns my integrity as a journalist, or whatever other nonsense it is you’ve been spouting, there are plenty of other sites for you to read.
“It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Let me try JohnJ-speak…
Am I drunk? Yes. Did I fireball-crash my SUV into a packed daycare? Yes. But I shouldn’t be arrested unless I am drunk and fireball-crash my SUV into a packed daycare.
Am I doing it right?
No problem. I think I’ve said about all I could say on this. Thanks for letting me vent. I’m looking forward to more of your great reporting.