Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 54 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 >  Last ›
   5301. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4423961)
But it does take balls (not exactly brains) to defend the rights of criminals and the mentally ill to legally purchase semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, so you've got that going for you.

Just making stuff up doesn't contribute much to the discussion. Neither the NRA nor other gun control opponents have any problem with the prohibitions on criminals possessing firearms. In fact, many gun control opponents favor increased penalties for felons possessing guns, and even more so in the course of a crime. It's folk on the left that are seemingly ambivalent on this score, apparently prefering to criminalize an otherwise law abiding citizen who merely possesses a disfavored weapon or too large a magazine. Similarly, tightening up the prohibitions on the mentally ill owning firearms hasn't been very high on the gun control agenda, and folks on the right have advanced several proposals in this area.
   5302. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 23, 2013 at 09:59 PM (#4424027)
Liberals don't have the stomach to punish people who break our existing gun laws or to lock up mentally deranged people. They prefer to propose more and more new gun laws, which allows them to engage in self-righteous preening without actually getting their hands dirty.

Here's a perfect example:

Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

[...]

It is a felony to deliberately provide false information in an effort to buy a gun, and studies financed by the Justice Department show that people who do so are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase. — source

The Obama administration prosecutes less than one-tenth of 1 percent of people who "lie and try," despite knowing that "people who do so are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase," but Obama whined like a baby because the background-check law wasn't expanded. The whole thing was a shameless performance.
   5303. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:03 PM (#4424035)
And so knowing the above to be true, what's the difference between "God says so," and "Psychology says so,"? Why is one treated with scorn by most of the lefties here and the other is accepted as received wisdom? They're both fundamentally the same thing; unproven assertions based upon observation of human behavior. Why privilege one faith-based narrative over another, aside from personal preference (which often isn't really ours anyway)?


This doesn't answer the question of why you're making specious claims: Do most of the lefties here think of psychology as 'received wisdom'? Do any? I learned long ago a healthy skepticism for anything claimed to have a psychological basis (or anything reported to be 'proven' by a study or survey). I suspect I'm in the majority in these parts, but we'd probably need to take a vote.

#5182 Precisely why is it more moral to warehouse somebody waiting for them to die? (With the reasonably high chance that you'll actually drive them insane in the time between them entering the prison system and their eventual death?)


Well, the argument isn't to warehouse them; the argument is that killing someone whom you've rendered harmless is wrong and, on the assumption that they would prove a danger to others if free, warehousing (imprisoning) them is the only alternative to killing them.

I think you mean sympathize, but does this mean Good Face is now Robot #1 on this board? Have I lost the title?

(I supposedly lack emotion, but then I was accused of making a purely emotional argument above. You see how confusing it gets.)

This is at the heart of one of Ray's problems. As we've learned from other threads he doesn't distinguish people who disagree with him as individuals, therefore A saying [x], and B saying [opposite of x] is very confusing to him: Why would this person [AB] say these contradictory thing about him?

   5304. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:03 PM (#4424037)
In fact, many gun control opponents favor increased penalties for felons possessing guns, and even more so in the course of a crime.

Damn right.

If you want to stop criminals from using guns, tightening gun laws won't help, they already use illegal guns. Instead, why not say any violent crime (rape, robbery, assault, burglary) committed while in possession of a gun is a 20-year minimum sentence, no parole, no probation.
   5305. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4424042)
the argument is that killing someone whom you've rendered harmless is wrong

And that is an entirely "faith"-based argument. There is no logic that says that executing someone is wrong, that is completely your own moral construct, which most people don't share.

Not to mention, countless imprisoned murderers kill and rape other prisoners, kill guards, and even order crimes to be committed outside of prison. No evil person or sociopath is "rendered harmless" until they stop breathing.
   5306. Lassus Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4424054)
Liberals don't have the stomach

BINGO!


BTW, provided he's not lying - and I certainly understand the "if" involved there - my supposition of internet terrorists is backed up by... at least one guy who did the bombing.
   5307. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM (#4424056)
BM--you have this odd talent for thinking one denigrating post I write per long thread is aimed at you when it's nothing of the sort. No offense, but I just wasn't thinking of you, and definitely not to fire off random, insulating salvos just 'cause, when we're not otherwise engaged.


Wait, what? Of course it was not aimed at me, but it was a cheap shot and not worthwhile (IMO). You can do better than make up a scenario and then denigrate how the person acts in your made up scenario - no matter who it is aimed at.

BTW, do people think Ted Bundy deserved the death penalty?


No.

If a parent punishes Child A not primarily because of Child A's actions but because he wants to send a message to Child B, he's a bad parent.


This is really sad. Child A is punished because of what they did. The point isn't to punish, it is deterrence (hopefully both children will be deterred), and safety and rehabilitation (sort of, generally not the point when raising kids).

You don't punish the kids just to punish them. If a penalty for some action will do zero to deter or otherwise influence the child a responsible parent seeks some other action.

So you aren't a parent are you Joe?
   5308. Publius Publicola Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:26 PM (#4424065)
Neither the NRA nor other gun control opponents have any problem with the prohibitions on criminals possessing firearms.


That's what they say. But their actions belie what they say. For instance, they are blocking legislation that requires background checks at secondary sales events. This is a gaping hole in the screening process and the NRA knows it, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it this way because it allows more gun sales, which is the only thing they really care about.

They also block legislation that requires the tagging of gunpowder and the limitation of fragmentation ammo ("copkiller bullets"), which has no useful purpose except to make gunshot wounds more ghastly. The NRA is in effect in favor of making murder attempts more successful and to hinder the ability to investigate them.

   5309. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4424066)
Wait, what? Of course it was not aimed at me, but it was a cheap shot and not worthwhile (IMO). You can do better than make up a scenario and then denigrate how the person acts in your made up scenario - no matter who it is aimed at.


So you're now policing the thread? Ugh. Pretty sure you don't want that job. In any case, I'll be happy to bet serious coin that the poster in question (or any given poster with a similar preference) would be unwilling to, say, take a wire and strangle to death an offender he believes deserves the death penalty.

Calling out someone who favors the death penalty because of what they're really doing: Requiring someone else to do their killing for them isn't anything resembling a cheap shot. It's digging into the belief enough to expose it for what it is.

Btw, I haven't seen that expressed yet, but specifics are important: As a society we're employing an executioner--a killer, really--to do our revenge killings for us. We also require a doctor to participate in the revenge killing, in what is surely a violation of the Hippocratic oath. Acknowledging these adds weight to the argument that there is a moral cost to societally sanctioned revenge killing.

So you aren't a parent are you Joe?


Speaking of cheap shots...
   5310. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4424067)
This is really sad. Child A is punished because of what they did. The point isn't to punish, it is deterrence

Deterrence only works b/c the point of the punishment is to punish. Action X is bad, if you do X, Y (which is also bad, and of commensurate severity) will happen to you. Consistent punishment causes deterrence.

If the point of punishment was to deter, it would lead to excessive punishments, like the death penalty for drug possession that some Asian countries have.
   5311. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM (#4424077)
I believe the far greater deterrence nowadays is the realization that it's harder and harder to get away with stuff. I think would be criminals think more about the possibility of getting caught than of the potential punishment should they get caught. I mean, WRT the marathon bomber, kill him, life, 30 years...the biggest deterrent to a repeat of this behavior is "Holy crap! 4 days after walking anonymously into a large crowd and dropping a couple of backpacks, one is dead and the other in custody. You can't get away with #### around here."
   5312. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM (#4424080)
This is really sad. Child A is punished because of what they did. The point isn't to punish, it is deterrence (hopefully both children will be deterred), and safety and rehabilitation (sort of, generally not the point when raising kids).

You don't punish the kids just to punish them. If a penalty for some action will do zero to deter or otherwise influence the child a responsible parent seeks some other action.

Why is it "sad"? You seemed to agree with me that Child A should be punished primarily because of Child A's behavior and not to send a message to Child B.

In any event, you're still all over the map on this issue. Taking your prior comments at face value, the primary if not only reason Sara Jane Olson a.k.a. Kathleen Ann Soliah was imprisoned despite already being rehabilitated (as per your claim) wasn't to punish Olson/Soliah but to deter other people from committing similar crimes. This seems much more unjust than simply punishing Olson/Soliah for her own crimes.
   5313. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4424084)
Amazing!

Sarah Palin Calls for Invasion of Czech Republic

April 22, 2013
   5314. Lassus Posted: April 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM (#4424085)
   5315. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:04 PM (#4424093)
Why is it "sad"? You seemed to agree with me that Child A should be punished primarily because of Child A's behavior and not to send a message to Child B.


I never stated punishment was not a result of behavior, merely that punishment is not the end in and of itself. You don't punish just to punish, you punish to deter, for public safety, and rehabilitation.

Joe K translation: Deter = Good. Rehabilitation = Good. Public Safety = Good. Punishment which does not aid first three = not good.

In any event, you're still all over the map on this issue. Taking your prior comments at face value, the primary if not only reason Sara Jane Olson a.k.a. Kathleen Ann Soliah was imprisoned despite already being rehabilitated (as per your claim) wasn't to punish Olson/Soliah but to deter other people from committing similar crimes. This seems much more unjust than simply punishing Olson/Soliah for her own crimes.


The integrity of the justice system is critical for deterrence to work. So she was punished, because of what she did in aid of deterrence. Because she was rehabilitated and public safety was not an issue. Had the other two been in play she would have deserved a longer sentence.

Joe K translation: Deter only work when guilty punished. Letting guilty go without any punishment give people wrong idea and hurt deterrence. So need to punish for deterrence, not public safety, not rehabilitation. Punish just to punish no good, punish for deterrence OK.

   5316. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4424096)
Doesn't New Hampshire have about 500 legislators? For a state that only has a few people (4 electoral votes)? But, if we want to shine the spotlight on weird views, why not the city council in Berkley or Cambridge?
   5317. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:09 PM (#4424097)
The integrity of the justice system is critical for deterrence to work. So she was punished, because of what she did in aid of deterrence. Because she was rehabilitated and public safety was not an issue. Had the other two been in play she would have deserved a longer sentence.

Joe K translation: Deter only work when guilty punished. Letting guilty go without any punishment give people wrong idea and hurt deterrence. So need to punish for deterrence, not public safety, not rehabilitation. Punish just to punish no good, punish for deterrence OK.

Less than 20 percent of all crimes in the U.S. are solved. Locking up an old woman, 30 years after she committed her crimes and after she was already rehabilitated (at least per your claim), does nothing to deter other people from committing crimes.
   5318. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:13 PM (#4424102)
So you're now policing the thread? Ugh.


Just expressing opinions. Like everyone else. And while my parenting question was a cheap shot, it was also an honest question. Joe seems very naive about child rearing in his statement and I was wondering if he had any practical experience.

And I think the difference between the two is I was reacting to what he said and responding (asking). Your post was just making stuff up. Sure Ray and Joe (and others, including some on "my" side of the ledger) put words in peoples mouths and interpret what they really think or mean, your comment went beyond it (in my opinion).

Besides you should feel honored (a little) it means I expect better of you. You have things to say. You have actual opinions and can express them. I don't always agree with you, but that is half the fun. I did not mean to truly make you upset though, and am sorry if I did.
   5319. flournoy Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4424103)
Joe K translation: Deter only work when guilty punished. Letting guilty go without any punishment give people wrong idea and hurt deterrence. So need to punish for deterrence, not public safety, not rehabilitation. Punish just to punish no good, punish for deterrence OK.


I notice that Joe conveyed his opinion in plain English, but you found it necessary to translate it to Caveman sentence fragments. Do those work better for you?
   5320. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4424106)
And while my parenting question was a cheap shot, it was also an honest question. Joe seems very naive about child rearing in his statement and I was wondering if he had any practical experience.

I seem "very naive about child-rearing"? You essentially agreed with my comment that a parent should never do something to Child A simply to send a message to Child B.

In any event, at the individual level (e.g., a child within a home), deterrence is inherent in punishment.
   5321. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4424107)
Your post was just making stuff up. Sure Ray and Joe (and others, including some on "my" side of the ledger) put words in peoples mouths and interpret what they really think or mean, your comment went beyond it (in my opinion).


Not upset, just puzzled. It seems more than fair to point out a gap in someone's assertion or belief, that they're asking someone else to do their killing ("executing" being the euphemism) for them. It's not just that they want the death penalty. Implicit in that is they want someone murdering on their behalf because, let's face it, they're not going to be doing it themselves or volunteering to do it. Seems plenty reasonable to point that out but, obviously, your mileage can and will vary.

I also think there's some very useful, practical shock value in calling people who favor the death penalty "wimps". The issue is so often framed the other way, but in truth having obvious bad guys murdered in quiet rooms in which someone you don't know and don't have to feel for is literally pushing the button and doing your (ones) killing for you is the ultimately in wimpiness. I'd go so far as to call it cowardice. Forgoing the satisfactions of lip smacking, palm whacking vengeance seems like a much tougher task for a soul to undertake.
   5322. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4424112)
Less than 20 percent of all crimes in the U.S. are solved. Locking up an old woman, 30 years after she committed her crimes and after she was already rehabilitated (at least per your claim), does nothing to deter other people from committing crimes.


Have I mentioned how awesome it is that you are soft on crime? In 2001, she pled guilty to two counts of possessing explosives with intent to murder stemming from her SLA activities in the 1970s. But you want to let her walk with no consequences. Because hey, even though it was a case that made national news no one would notice that this wanted fugitive, twice profiled on America's Most Wanted, and then captured should be let go because Joe K doesn't think putting her in prison will deter anyone.

So at what point did she pass this barrier where suddenly other criminals don't care? Does deterrence ever work, or is it only if the criminal is caught within a certain number of years? Or maybe it is an age issue - "Locking up an old woman" - and once you hit a certain age it is like a magical get out of jail free card, and if you are not caught by that time you are free and clear? (by the way she was 52 when captured - not exactly doddering)

So Joe K. thinks that criminals should just run free, because hey only 20% (I am guessing this is another "not a real statistic" from Joe) get caught anyway, so let's let some we catch out, no one will notice since it is not like this is a major media story or anything.

Joe K translation: Letting guilty criminals go free is a bad idea. Bitter Mouse is amused and surprised Joe is soft on crime. Joe would not know deterrence if SLA member hand delivered it to him.
   5323. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4424114)
I notice that Joe conveyed his opinion in plain English, but you found it necessary to translate it to Caveman sentence fragments. Do those work better for you?


Have you not been paying attention? Joe prefers things kept simple, he even specifically asked me to do so. He actually has been responding in a much more coherent way since I started my Joe translation project. I am frankly dumbfounded, but he really does seem to read and understand it better.

Sure it started as a short time bit, but if it raises the quality of his understanding I guess it is worth it. Well not really, it is getting old fast (it is hard to boil subtle ideas down to short words and short sentences with a caveman flavor for personal humor value), so I will probably move on with my life. And hey look it is bed time.
   5324. flournoy Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:35 PM (#4424116)
Have you not been paying attention?


No. I've read perhaps a dozen or so posts in this interminable thread.
   5325. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:50 PM (#4424123)
I also think there's some very useful, practical shock value in calling people who favor the death penalty "wimps". The issue is so often framed the other way, but in truth having obvious bad guys murdered in quiet rooms in which someone you don't know and don't have to feel for is literally pushing the button and doing your (ones) killing for you is the ultimately in wimpiness. I'd go so far as to call it cowardice. Forgoing the satisfactions of lip smacking, palm whacking vengeance seems like a much tougher task for a soul to undertake.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If states asked for volunteers to flip the switch, I bet they'd get millions of applicants.

***
Have I mentioned how awesome it is that you are soft on crime? In 2001, she pled guilty to two counts of possessing explosives with intent to murder stemming from her SLA activities in the 1970s. But you want to let her walk with no consequences.

No, not at all. I'm simply applying your various statements to her case. You've previously claimed that she was rehabilitated, that she wasn't a danger to society, and that it's bad to punish people just to punish people.

Because hey, even though it was a case that made national news no one would notice that this wanted fugitive, twice profiled on America's Most Wanted, and then captured should be let go because Joe K doesn't think putting her in prison will deter anyone.

No, I don't believe her imprisonment from 2001 to 2009 deterred anyone in society from committing crimes.

So at what point did she pass this barrier where suddenly other criminals don't care? Does deterrence ever work, or is it only if the criminal is caught within a certain number of years?

As I said above, less than 20 percent of all crimes are solved, and most crimes have a statute of limitations. It seems highly doubtful that locking up a rehabilitated, non-dangerous Olson/Soliah some 30 years after she committed her crimes would have any deterrent effect on the rest of society. (Note: I don't necessarily buy into the idea that Olson was already rehabilitated by the time she was arrested; I'm just conceding that point for the sake of discussion.)

So Joe K. thinks that criminals should just run free, because hey only 20% (I am guessing this is another "not a real statistic" from Joe) get caught anyway, so let's let some we catch out, no one will notice since it is not like this is a major media story or anything.

No, I'm very firmly in the more-prisons camp, as I've made clear here on many occasions. I just have this crazy idea that Criminal A should be punished because of Criminal A's crimes and not to deter Hypothetical Criminal B from committing crimes in the future.
   5326. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2013 at 11:52 PM (#4424124)
The Tsarnaev brothers, as well as their parents, got Massachusetts welfare benefits.
   5327. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:01 AM (#4424125)
The Tsarnaev brothers, as well as their parents, got Massachusetts welfare benefits.

Ted Bundy was a Republican.
   5328. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:05 AM (#4424127)
And in other news:
Rand Paul says: "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."
   5329. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:12 AM (#4424130)

Ted Bundy was a Republican.


Is this supposed to be responsive to the point that the T brothers probably used welfare to fund their attacks?
   5330. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:12 AM (#4424132)
That's because there is a demonstrated need to remove that person from society, so that he can't harm anyone else, and to set a deterrent against such behaviour from other people. Once those goals are achieved, killing the person accomplishes nothing extra.

It is unfortunate, but necessary. In the same way that a policeman may shoot a person he deems to be an immediate danger to other people, but can't just decide to shoot him in the back of the head, after he has been caught.


Well said, and it's an example I'd extend in argument: the death penalty is as though the cop had caught the suspect immediately after the crime. The suspect has his back turned to the cop, is unarmed, on his knees, handcuffed, and is entirely incapable of harming anyone else. We then make him and the cop wait a few years while we deliberate the necessaries, then say, "Okay, go ahead", at which point the cop puts a bullet in the back of the suspects head.

Seems sort of... spineless.

Show of hands: has there ever been a discussion that has changed anyone's set views on a subject he holds close to his heart? That's what I thought.

From this site? I've changed my mind on some minor stuff, been nudged further one way or another in bigger issues. If there were no chance of my changing my mind or further examining why I believe what I do / believing that others might do the same, I'd avoid these threads...


Sounds about right. It's often worth sorting through the chaff. Besides, where else you gonna go? Has anyone looked at politics on other websites?

I had also thought that allegations of lefty smearing were largely righty paranoia, but having been the victim of it here and seen others get a lot worse for some very minor deviations from the canon, then having thereby been prompted to look for examples of same in the larger, non-BTF world, it really is the case that lefties are as bad as righties wrt group hates, ignoring evidence, and simply assaulting those they disagree with. Very eye opening, and very unfortunate.

Wrt other matters resulting from debate here I find the issue of defining (and prohibiting) corporate 'speech' much more difficult than I'd thought. Nieporent was good on that particular issue. We've seen the death penalty bring out the frothing from otherwise sensible-seeming posters. I used to favor the limited use of drones. Now I'm against drones as they are used in practice, by the U.S. I think drones especially create a slippery slope and given the wholesale way we're abandoning civil rights in this country their increasingly common use will only advance the surveillance state and unwanted police power without making us safer, certainly not safer commensurate with the loss of privacy. Btw, not having a military draft means forgoing a citizen army as a bulwark against extreme abuses of political power.


That's what they say. But their actions belie what they say.


Imagine if we had a group of crazed zealots, a couple of million of them, who were as angry and adamant about protecting the Fourth Amendment.

The Tsarnaev brothers, as well as their parents, got Massachusetts welfare benefits.
By gum, that proves something!

edit: "And in other news:

Rand Paul says: "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." "

Well, it's Rand Paul, so we shouldn't expect much, but the difference is enormous. First off, it's a weirdly bloodthirsty thing to say. Second, assuming somehow he 'deserved' to be killed, killing him by drone implies a regular and ongoing practice of surveillance by little helicopters operated by bored guys in back rooms who have moment to moment authority to open fire in a street they've probably never visited, and won't be able to assess except visually, and less completely than someone on-site.
   5331. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:16 AM (#4424134)
The Tsarnaev brothers, as well as their parents, got Massachusetts welfare benefits.

We've been told that welfare provides only a bare-minimum safety net and that there's little or no fraud in welfare programs. There's no way that two guys who wore designer clothes and took months-long vacations to Eastern Europe could have been drawing welfare benefits.
   5332. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4424135)
Is this supposed to be responsive to the point that the T brothers probably used welfare to fund their attacks?

It's responsive in the sense that WTF does them being on welfare have to do with anything? Is the point that welfare turns people into terrorists? Or that terrorists are more likely to be on welfare? Or that the Tsarnaevs were hypocrites for taking welfare and attacking Americans (which I will certainly grant they were, but I would put hypocrite far down their list of flaws)?

Incidentally, based on the linked article the older brother hadn't gotten any welfare benefits since sometime in 2012 and the younger had never gotten them (other than through his parents), so, while possible, it seems unlikely that it funded their attacks.
   5333. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:32 AM (#4424136)
It's responsive in the sense that WTF does them being on welfare have to do with anything?


"TF" is that numerous red flags went up on the older brother (the Russians warned us; there were domestic violence issues; there were vacations to Eastern Europe; there were youtube lists; etc.), and instead of continuing to investigate him or just deporting him, we... gave him welfare. It speaks to the larger point of the snafu that exists with government.

And it speaks to the smaller point that apparently there's very little impediment to receiving welfare. He wasn't even a citizen. If he couldn't make it here on his own, if he was causing trouble, if he was raising suspicion, he should have been sent back. Why TF did we keep him here? What TF does one need to do to be deported?
   5334. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:40 AM (#4424140)
And it speaks to the smaller point that apparently there's very little impediment to receiving welfare. He wasn't even a citizen. If he couldn't make it here on his own, if he was causing trouble, if he was raising suspicion, he should have been sent back. Why TF did we keep him here? What TF does one need to do to be deported?

According to the article he received welfare along with his American-born wife and daughter until 2012, when they no longer qualified due to their income. I agree with the questions about why he wasn't deported -- that is certainly a question worth further investigation -- but once he wasn't, I don't find it that strange that an American-born woman with a foreign husband and their American-born daughter received welfare benefits.
   5335. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM (#4424143)
What TF does one need to do to be deported?

Commit a crime? Have the FBI actually find something when they investigate you?

Obviously, in retrospect we would all have been better off had he been deported, but you don't just get to deport someone because they're on welfare. Or because the Russians are suspicious of them. Or because they were accused of domestic violence and the charges were dropped. Due process and all that. We have laws that actually define when you can be deported, it's not a "I have a bad feeling about this guy" kind of thing.

The two things that could have legitimately got him deported were a domestic violence conviction (pretty sure that qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude) and the FBI investigation. Unfortunately the DV charge was dropped (I'm assuming that's what happened, lots of reports say he was arrested, but none I can find say he was convicted of anything). Maybe the FBI investigation of him was flawed, and if it was then I'm certain will hear all about it in the coming weeks.

And I still don't have any clue why you guys think welfare is relevant to this.
   5336. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM (#4424144)
Obviously, in retrospect we would all have been better off had he been deported, but you don't just get to deport someone because they're on welfare.

Actually, you do, under the "public charge" laws related to immigration (although, as asylum seekers, the Tsarnaev clan was exempt).

Regardless, if the government wanted to deport these two, it could have found a reason to do so, especially the older brother.

And I still don't have any clue why you guys think welfare is relevant to this.

The older brother was apparently on welfare at the same time he was taking months-long trips to Russia.
   5337. CrosbyBird Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM (#4424145)
I'm a death-penalty absolutist; totally against it in all cases. And on theoretical grounds: I've been strongly impressed by Albert Camus's idea that the existence of a death penalty sets a price on human life: if you're willing to pay it, you can take someone else's life and then settle the score.

This is one of several reasons I am similarly opposed to the death penalty in all cases. (You can add that to "doesn't do anything more valuable than other penalties," "dangerous degree of power to cede to the state," "costs more than life imprisonment," "unaddressable in any way if incorrectly imposed," and "is a morally repulsive and socially harmful exercise of vengeance.")

We have already paid the price for this criminal's terrible actions. Executing him won't do anything to undo the harm he caused; it will, however, add further evil to our society.
   5338. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 24, 2013 at 12:57 AM (#4424146)
Is this supposed to be responsive to the point that the T brothers probably used welfare to fund their attacks?


Holy ####. I don't know what's worse: That someone was dumb enough to post that, or that someone was... unwise enough to bother replying to it.

Welfare leads to terrorism! Yippee!!

But wait!

The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.


Well, it's clearly the case that cutting him off welfare pushed him over the edge. The GOP is clearly to blame for Boston.
   5339. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 24, 2013 at 01:03 AM (#4424147)
Actually, you can, under the "public charge" laws related to immigration.

I think this can affect admission or an attempt to apply for a change in status (ie citizenship, LPR, etc) but I've never heard of it being a grounds for deportation. My immigration law experience is limited to asylum law, though, so I could very well be wrong.

Edit: Also, I should add that it's harder to deport someone who's here as a refugee (hadn't realized that the Tsarnaevs were) because presumably they had reason to flee wherever they were coming from and sending them back isn't done lightly.
   5340. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 24, 2013 at 01:11 AM (#4424150)
I think this can affect admission or an attempt to apply for a change in status (ie citizenship, LPR, etc) but I've never heard of it being a grounds for deportation.

If a person is denied LPR on the grounds that he's liable to become a public charge, that would likely leave him out of status at some point, which would mean he'd have to leave the country or be subject to deportation.

Of course, with something like half of all immigrant households using at least one welfare program, it's obvious this part of the law is rarely enforced.
   5341. CrosbyBird Posted: April 24, 2013 at 01:12 AM (#4424151)
Who said anyone would "take joy" from it? It's something we would do in order to rid ourselves of him once and for all. Like flushing the toilet after using it.

I think if you compare ending a human life to flushing a toilet, you are demonstrating precisely the sort of diminished regard for humanity that some of us are claiming comes from accepting state-sanctioned killing as legitimate.

It is my position that deliberately causing violence to another human being outside of the realm of self-defense or defense of others is bad for the person inflicting the violence and bad for the society that endorses it. I can't definitively prove it, because the word "bad" itself is subjective, but I certainly believe it.
   5342. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 04:07 AM (#4424159)

Of course, with something like half of all immigrant households using at least one welfare program, it's obvious this part of the law is rarely enforced.

Stats like this are misleading (and I know you and I have had this conversation before). I don't remember the numbers but a large portion of the "immigrant households" on welfare are actually households of immigrant (and American) adults plus American children, and they qualify for welfare because of the latter.
   5343. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 24, 2013 at 06:37 AM (#4424168)
Stats like this are misleading (and I know you and I have had this conversation before). I don't remember the numbers but a large portion of the "immigrant households" on welfare are actually households of immigrant (and American) adults plus American children, and they qualify for welfare because of the latter.

Any story that combines the twin Boogeymen of "immigration" and "welfare" doesn't really need any more justification for Joe and Ray to get a woody over it. The actual details of the story are irrelevant, and arguing about the details with them is like picking a fight with a tar baby.
   5344. Lassus Posted: April 24, 2013 at 06:47 AM (#4424169)
The lack of gibbering outrage on the board over New York City raising the smoking age to 21 is a disappointment.
   5345. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 07:28 AM (#4424175)
The lack of gibbering outrage on the board over New York City raising the smoking age to 21 is a disappointment.


That's awesome. Hope it passes.
   5346. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 07:54 AM (#4424186)
I think if you compare ending a human life to flushing a toilet, you are demonstrating precisely the sort of diminished regard for humanity


The fact that you think this lunatic is part of "humanity" is sad.
   5347. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:18 AM (#4424204)
Joe K making sense again:
As I said above, less than 20 percent of all crimes are solved, and most crimes have a statute of limitations. It seems highly doubtful that locking up a rehabilitated, non-dangerous Olson/Soliah some 30 years after she committed her crimes would have any deterrent effect on the rest of society.


In your world a justice system that despite many years of searching and appearances on America's Most Wanted. Despite being clearly guilty of crimes that I am pretty sure have no statue of limitations, those criminals should just be let go because locking them up will have no deterence.

You are trying to claim with a straight face that justice systems that semi-randomly decide to let criminals walk are just as effective a deterrent as those that are consistent. In one system there is a 50% of being imprisoned if coinvicted in another there is a 100% chance. And according to you no one will notice, there is no deterrent in imprisoning the other 50%.

Really? How does deterrence work in the Joe K justice system when you randomly decide to let captured criminals go without punishment, because hey they are old woman and it has been a long time? Since you are letting criminals go, Joe, then I guess your justice system will need more prisons, because criminals will notice and commit more crimes.

What a clever plan you have to support more prisons, incent crime.

Joe Translation: Joe still not understand deterrence.
   5348. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:20 AM (#4424205)
The fact that you think this lunatic is part of "humanity" is sad.


The fact that you don't is sad, partly because you don't seem to understand the word "humanity" and what it means.
   5349. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:23 AM (#4424207)
Rand Paul says: "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."


Has anyone called Paul on his supposed support for the death penalty for petty theft?
   5350. Greg K Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:26 AM (#4424208)

Has anyone called Paul on his supposed support for the death penalty for petty theft?

Maybe we was referring to this guy.
   5351. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:28 AM (#4424209)
Maybe we was referring to this guy.


Well, given what I've heard about the price of liquor in Canada, it was probably just a bottle of Dewars White Label.
   5352. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4424212)
So I have been thinking about the point made earlier that it is important to (essentially) have a justice system harsh enough that keeps people happy, otherwise they will invent their own shadow justice system (I think that was the basics, if not please correct me).

There are a couple things here. First of all while there is a possible theoretical link between a "too lenient" justice system and vigilanteism I think it far more applicable to a corrupt or unfair justice system (Like Joe's where the guilty are never imprisoned, because heck on 20% of criminals are caught anyway) than it does in a fair and consistent system, even if everyone does not think the penalty is harsh enough.

Secondly I would need to see some support that the punishment required by deterrence + rehabilitation + public safety is < the "vigilante theshhold", because I see no reason why this should be so. And more to the point of the discussion does removing the death penalty cause people to resort to vigilanteism?

One could do an emiracle study and look at the featyures of a justice system and rates of vigilanteism. I strongly suspect that the correlation would run counter to the theory. In fact I suggest that in general society and the justice system will tend to move together. What I mean is as a justice system matures, becomes more consistent and in line with the deter + rehab + safety formula and moderates the top end harsh penalties, in those societies I suspect there will be less vigilanteism.

I am not suggesting there is direct causation fromk one to the other however, rather I suspect a society and its attitude towards vigilantes and its justice system sophistication tend to move together based on underlying facotrs in the society. You here about vigilante "justice" in times and places where the justice system is inconsistent or ineffective at its job (as society sees it).

In other words lyunchings in the south and "wild" west (and other places) were not because the justice system was too lenient, but rather the same things in society that contributed to lynchings also contributed to a poor justice system. As the underlying society matured (racism and such receded, justice became more color blind) both issues got better.

I don't claim to be an expert on vigilante justice though, and I would love to hear others thoughts on this.
   5353. bobm Posted: April 24, 2013 at 08:59 AM (#4424226)
Obviously, in retrospect we would all have been better off had he been deported, but you don't just get to deport someone because they're on welfare. Or because the Russians are suspicious of them. Or because they were accused of domestic violence and the charges were dropped. Due process and all that. We have laws that actually define when you can be deported, it's not a "I have a bad feeling about this guy" kind of thing.

Or because they were suspected in a multiple homicide.
   5354. Publius Publicola Posted: April 24, 2013 at 09:08 AM (#4424231)
Sarah Palin Calls for Invasion of Czech Republic


This is a ripoff of a joke in the Sopranos famous "Pine Barrens" episode.

The horrific thing is though, that is something Palin could have said. I mean, she did mock fruitfly research and thinks god chose her to run for vice-president.
   5355. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4424232)
Commit a crime? Have the FBI actually find something when they investigate you?

Beating up his girlfriend doesn't count?

BTW, what was with that nonsense of her "not being ready" to talk to the FBI? Since when do you get to pick when you talk to the cops?
   5356. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 24, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4424240)
Here's an interesting snippet from today's much longer front page NYT story about what investigators are learned about the the Tsarnaev brothers:

When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev spoke to investigators on Sunday, officials said, he indicated that he and his brother had learned to make the pressure-cooker bombs that they used at the marathon from Inspire, the online Al Qaeda magazine.

The magazine’s first issue came out in mid-2010, and contained bomb-making instructions in articles with titles like “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.” Intelligence officials identifiedSamir Khan, a 24-year-old American, as the editor of the publication.

Mr. Khan, who grew up in Queens and North Carolina, proclaimed in the magazine in 2010 that he was “proud to be a traitor to America.” He was killed in the drone strike in Yemen in September 2011 that killedAnwar al-Awlaki, the radical Yemeni-American cleric who officials said was one of the Qaeda group’s top leaders and propagandists.

The brothers may have been planning the marathon attacks for several months. On Feb. 6, Tamerlan Tsarnaev bought fireworks at a Phantom Fireworks store in Seabrook, N.H., about an hour’s drive north of Boston, said William Weimer, the vice president of Phantom Fireworks, which is based in Youngstown, Ohio, and has 68 stores in 15 states.

“He came in and he asked the question that 90 percent of males ask when they walk into a fireworks store: ‘What’s the most powerful thing you’ve got?' ” Mr. Weimer said in a telephone interview, adding that the store’s clerk had described the sale as “uneventful.”

Mr. Tsarnaev settled on a reloadable mortar kit called a Lock and Load, which comes with a launch tube and shells, Mr. Weimer said. But Mr. Weimer said that even if the brothers had harvested all the powder from the shells Mr. Tsarnaev bought that day, he did not believe it would have yielded enough explosives to make the two pressure cooker bombs that exploded on Boylston Street and the other devices that the suspects had with them when they were chased by the police early Friday morning.

Mr. Weimer said that his company, which sold fireworks in 2010 to Faisal Shahzad, who unsuccessfully tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, had checked its records for Mr. Tsarnaev’s name as soon as it was made public, and had given the information to the F.B.I.


Boston Suspects Are Seen as Self-Taught and Fueled by Web
   5357. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 24, 2013 at 09:58 AM (#4424273)
Should the US sell citizenship to the highest bidder? Richard Posner argues as much. That would be an obvious step in migrating the US more fully from "sort of pretend nation state" to "actually a market state."
   5358. spike Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4424281)
Meanwhile, back in Texas.....


Likewise, the fertilizer plant did not have sprinklers, shut-off valves, fire alarms or legally required blast walls, all of which could have prevented the catastrophic damage done. And there was little chance that regulators would learn about the problems without the company reporting them: Not only had the Occupational Safety and Health Administration not inspected the plant since 1985 but also, because of underfunding, OSHA can inspect plants like the one in West on average only once every 129 years.

Story
   5359. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4424285)
Not only had the Occupational Safety and Health Administration not inspected the plant since 1985 but also, because of underfunding, OSHA can inspect plants like the one in West on average only once every 129 years.

Yes, b/c when the gov't effs up it's always b/c of underfunding, not b/c they mis-allocated their resources.
   5360. spike Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4424289)
Only you would see this as a " gov't eff up". Personal responsibility only attaches to po' folk.

Oh, and Texas has 10% of the nations plants, but is responsible for 50% of the industrial accidents. Seems like some folks prefer people killing negligence to job killing regulations.
   5361. Ron J2 Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4424292)
#5313 I recall an old Doonesbury where a general proposed an invasion of Luxembourg as a response to some outrage (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?)

The logic of it being that it's be easy and that it wasn't fair that the Soviets got to invade their allies and the US military couldn't.
   5362. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4424300)
Yes, b/c when the gov't effs up it's always b/c of underfunding, not b/c they mis-allocated their resources.


To worship the government as if it's a God is to be blinded by the mistakes it makes.

Regardless, if there was criminal negligence here, people should be charged if warranted and put on trial to face long prison sentences.
   5363. Ron J2 Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4424302)
#5335 What I've read is that the charge was dropped because the former girlfriend refused to testify.

And #5355 tough to deport based on a lack of cooperation from the alleged victim. Possible to be sure. I know of jurisdictions that will proceed. No idea how well that works in practice though.

The point made about a general reluctance to deport to Chechnya is a good one too.
   5364. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4424303)
Only you would see this as a " gov't eff up". Personal responsibility only attaches to po' folk.

I've said before the owners likely committed criminally negligent homicide, and should be prosecuted. It can be both a private eff-up and a gov't eff up.

I'd like to know how many office building OHSA has inspected since 1985, while not checking a plant that manufactures an explosive substance.

If gov't regulators can't ensure that the most dangerous facilities adhere to safety standards, there's no point in having them.
   5365. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4424304)
If gov't regulators can't ensure that the most dangerous facilities adhere to safety standards, there's no point in having them.

Is it reasonable, given OSHA's budget, for them to know that this was potentially a dangerous facility? If so, how?
   5366. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4424305)
Only you would see this as a " gov't eff up". Personal responsibility only attaches to po' folk.


Putting regulators in place serves a purpose and is one reasonable way to partially deal with safety, but it also changes the mindset of the operators from safety to "hey, as long as we're not zinged by the regulators." They almost forget the reason for the regulators. Which is no excuse and they should be strung up if warranted.

Workplace regulations help set minimum standards and provide prima facie evidence of negligence, but it's not the only way to address the issue, and when the regulators fall down on the job it should provide reason to think of a better solution.
   5367. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4424306)
#5335 What I've read is that the charge was dropped because the former girlfriend refused to testify.

Can't they still deport him? The guy had no job, was suspected of terrorist connections, and was violent. With tens of millions of decent, hardworking people wanting to move here, that should be enough to boot your ass out. There's no need for the immigration law to hold to the same standards of evidence as the criminal law.
   5368. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4424309)
Is it reasonable, given OSHA's budget, for them to know that this was potentially a dangerous facility? If so, how?


Just taking a wild stab in the dark, but: because this was a big-ass fertilizer plant?
   5369. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4424310)
Is it reasonable, given OSHA's budget, for them to know that this was potentially a dangerous facility? If so, how?

Their budget is $565M in 2012; it's not small.

They manufactured fertilizer. That's enough to know it's dangerous.

Edit: coke to Ray
   5370. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4424315)
Can't they still deport him? The guy had no job, was suspected of terrorist connections, and was violent. With tens of millions of decent, hardworking people wanting to move here, that should be enough to boot your ass out. There's no need for the immigration law to hold to the same standards of evidence as the criminal law.


And we have Bingo.

If he couldn't be deported, the system makes no sense and needs to be changed so that this crisis doesn't go to waste, immediately if not sooner.

I love the "Oh, it was only the Russian government who threw up the caution flag on him." How many people living in the US has the Russian government done this with? Is the rate one per hour? One per day? One per month? One per year? Unless they are flagging people as dangerous in a frivolous manner, he should have been watched more closely at minimum if not just plain deported. And we know their flagging certainly wasn't frivolous here.
   5371. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4424319)
If he couldn't be deported, the system makes no sense and needs to be changed so that this crisis doesn't go to waste, immediately if not sooner.

Correct. There's no reason the immigration/permanent residency/citizenship funnel shouldn't be exceptionally harsh. "Supply" of immigrants far exceeds our "demand". We should grant citizenship to only the best. Likewise, non-US born child immigrants should have to prove themselves responsible adults before being naturalized.
   5372. Greg K Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4424321)
I don't claim to be an expert on vigilante justice though, and I would love to hear others thoughts on this.

It's not quite vigilante justice, but there's a lot of interesting literature on central governments trying to do away with duels in the early modern period by providing an alternate system for resolving personal disputes. In England this took the form of the Court of Chivalry which James I sporadically championed, and Charles I finally set up in the 1630s. Of course, it doesn't speak much to the "too lenient" issue, just a contest between the individual as arbiter of honour through exercise of martial skill, and the central government as arbiter of honour through agreed upon criteria. Even so, duels, though officially condemned by the Crown, still happened relatively frequently. Though not nearly to the same degree they did in France, where the central authority was much less successful in setting itself up as a legitimate arbiter in matters of personal justice.

In my experience (research experience that is, not personal experience) vigilante justice appears to happen not so much when the justice system in general is not trusted, but when it is felt that the individuals running the justice system aren't doing their job. Which (again, in my relatively limited field) includes large groups of people thinking Catholic sympathizers in positions of power aren't properly persecuting Catholics so they take matters into their own hands, or large groups of people think local authorities aren't properly implementing food laws (no doubt for their own profit) and so engage in bread riots.
   5373. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4424324)
What I don't understand is that people act as if by deporting someone for a really good reason we're convicting him without a trial and executing both him and his first born. But no. We're just deporting him.
   5374. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4424329)
Can't they still deport him? The guy had no job, was suspected of terrorist connections, and was violent.


He wasn't convicted.

He had a job. Only a hard core medieval catholic would consider a male staying home to raise a child as not "hard working". I doubt you would apply that same standard to a woman.

He was a Chechen. The Russian government probably suspects all Chechens of terrorism.

By your standards, we would be deporting hundreds of people a day. In retrospect, yes he was a bad guy. But how many families do you want to break up just because a guy was once arrested only to have the charges dropped?
   5375. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4424330)
Correct. There's no reason the immigration/permanent residency/citizenship funnel shouldn't be exceptionally harsh. "Supply" of immigrants far exceeds our "demand". We should grant citizenship to only the best. Likewise, non-US born child immigrants should have to prove themselves responsible adults before being naturalized.


Again, how many families per day are you willing to break up in the name of safety? 10, 50, 100?
   5376. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4424331)
Correct. There's no reason the immigration/permanent residency/citizenship funnel shouldn't be exceptionally harsh. "Supply" of immigrants far exceeds our "demand". We should grant citizenship to only the best. Likewise, non-US born child immigrants should have to prove themselves responsible adults before being naturalized.


But America needs unemployed, welfare-collecting, wife-beating Islamic terrorists because diversity is our strength!
   5377. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4424343)
It looks like the Elvis impersonator (Paul Kevin Curtis) wasn't responsible for the recent Ricin letters. The FBI investigation seems to be focusing on a man named J. Everett Dutschke, who had previously run for state office in Mississippi as a Republican, and who was involved in some kind of internet dispute with Curtis. Link.

Dutschke sounds like a real winner - earlier this year, he was arrested for allegedly molesting a 7-year-old girl at his taekwondo studio, and he's currently out on bond. He also has a previous conviction for indecent exposure, for which he served six months.
   5378. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4424345)
But America needs unemployed, welfare-collecting, wife-beating Islamic terrorists because diversity is our strength!


Stay at home dad

Welfare was for the child, an American born citizen born to a natural born citizen mother

Charges dropped

FBI investigated, found no evidence.

If you want to blame someone, blame the FBI. If they had found merit to Russia's suspicion, I have no doubt he would have been gone.

   5379. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM (#4424352)
To worship the government as if it's a God is to be blinded by the mistakes it makes.

Says the person who wants the government to execute people, and deport foreigners with no tangible evidence of them doing anything wrong.
   5380. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4424353)
Oh, lord. Remember when Alex Jones said on Twitter right after the bombings that they looked like a "false flag" operation?

It turns out that the older of the two bombers was a big fan of Jones's Infowars website.
   5381. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4424354)
Can't they still deport him? The guy had no job, was suspected of terrorist connections, and was violent.


He wasn't convicted.


Who cares? We're not locking him up, just - based on this and the other factors - getting him the hell away from us.

   5382. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4424355)
But America needs unemployed, welfare-collecting, wife-beating Islamic terrorists because diversity is our strength!


You can't make it up.
   5383. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4424358)
FBI investigated, found no evidence.


Due either to incompetence or to not continuing to follow him after they had already investigated him.

If you want to blame someone, blame the FBI.


Uh, we want to, by changing the policy they are operating under. That's the whole point of this sidebar discussion.
   5384. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4424359)
We're not locking him up, just - based on this and the other factors - getting him the hell away from us.


What other factors? The fact that the FBI investigated him and found nothing? Is that really how you want our government to operate? Maybe we should deport that Saudi student who was the first bombing suspect. You can never bee too safe.
   5385. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4424360)
Stay at home dad


Fancy talk for "unemployed".

Welfare was for the child, an American born citizen born to a natural born citizen mother


But we learned in the child support thread that men HAVE to work their fingers to the bone to support their children so the kids are taken care of and don't wind up on the welfare. Why doesn't that apply here? Why are you being such a men's rights misogynist?!?

Charges dropped


Woman wouldn't testify because she was terrified he'd do worse.

FBI investigated, found no evidence.


Great job guys!

   5386. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4424364)
Presumably $565M is not OSHA fertilizer plant inspection budget.
To be clear, I'm not sure to what extent this is or isn't a regulatory blunder. Seems hard to answer based on the little info I've seen so far.

Same for a Tamerlan deportation. I don't know how many tips the FBI gets, I don't know what they found. Would people argue for his deportation based on what was known or easily knowable before all this went down? If, instead of his particular religions extremism - this was in sport of traditional left or right wing causes, would that change who says what?

These should be apolitical questions - turning tragic events or questions of policy into talking points and petty scores is less than distasteful (and obviously not specific to any one ideological bent).
   5387. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4424365)
Uh, we want to, by changing the policy they are operating under. That's the whole point of this sidebar discussion.


Sooooooooo....

FBI fails to take proper preventative actions to avoid Boston bombing; policy at fault; need new policy.

OSHA fails to take proper preventative actions to avoid West plant explosion; OSHA at fault; need to dismantle organization.

I got that right, fellas?
   5388. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4424366)
Again, how many families per day are you willing to break up in the name of safety? 10, 50, 100?


I don't know. How many unemployed wife-beating terrorists have you got?

I don't care how many of those "families" are broken up. Looks to me we'd have been doing the wife and kid a huge favor by getting this guy away from them. How does it look to you?

And if the wife didn't think so, she was free to go with him.

EDIT: Was the wife even living with him? As far as I can tell she was not.

---

This reminds me of when religious people argue that a point of marriage is to procreate, when arguing against same-sex marriage, and then liberals respond "Hey, some couples can't have children, or don't want them, so that reason sucks." Well, your "breaking up families" reason sucks in the same way, because the wife has the choice to go with him.
   5389. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4424367)
If you want to blame someone, blame the FBI.



Uh, we want to, by changing the policy they are operating under


Which is what? Not making up evidence? I really don't understand. Should we deport every foreigner that the FBI investigates regardless of what they find? If so, what's the point of investigating them?
   5390. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4424368)
We're not locking him up, just - based on this and the other factors - getting him the hell away from us.

What other factors? The fact that the FBI investigated him and found nothing? Is that really how you want our government to operate?


To worship the government as if it's a God is to be blinded by the mistakes it makes.

Or something. It's amazing that people who spend pages upon pages about arguing against government overreach can be so blasé about it. I guess they are fine with the government doing whatever, as long as it doesn't affect them directly.
   5391. Ron J2 Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4424372)
#5378 One of the more interesting charges I've seen WRT to the current FBI anti-terrorism efforts is that they're seemingly spending more time acting as agents provocateur (one example includes funding a stone broke aspirational terrorist) than doing the boring investigative work that looking into Russia's charges would have required.

Found an interesting article on the elder brother a while back (link to on Slate iirc). He was trying to qualify for the national boxing team (in the hopes of moving up the queue for citizenship. Article was titled something like "fighting for citizenship). He is quoted to the effect that fighting for America was only his second choice -- that he'd prefer to fight for an independent Chechnya but since that wasn't in the cards ...

Apparently he wasn't real popular back then. Called "arrogant and aloof" by the coach.
   5392. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4424373)
FBI fails to take proper preventative actions to avoid Boston bombing; policy at fault; need new policy.

OSHA fails to take proper preventative actions to avoid West plant explosion; OSHA at fault; need to dismantle organization.

I got that right, fellas?


As usual, no, you don't. I specifically called OSHA a reasonable way to address the problem, that could be improved upon.
   5393. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4424374)
Well, your "breaking up families" reason sucks in the same way, because the wife has the choice to go with him.


Are you sure about that? Can an American citizen freely emmigrate to Russia?
   5394. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM (#4424375)
OSHA is responsible for workplace safety; inspecting fertilizer plants is not its baliwick.
   5395. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4424376)
Woman wouldn't testify because she was terrified he'd do worse


Is there evidence for that, or are you making it up?
   5396. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4424379)
Should we deport every foreigner that the FBI investigates regardless of what they find?


Pretty much, yes. If you want to become a citizen/permanent resident, you should be above suspicion. If not, back to the #### hole from whence you came.

If so, what's the point of investigating them?


So we can figure out who to deport silly. If they're being investigated, start with the presumption that they should be deported and work from there. They aren't criminal defendents in a court of law.
   5397. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4424381)
Woman wouldn't testify because she was terrified he'd do worse

Is there evidence for that, or are you making it up?


Seems plausible. And it's a standard talking point, that domestic violence victims are often afraid to testify against their abuser; it's widely accepted, so I don't know why you'd be running from it now.
   5398. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4424387)
Seems plausible. And it's a standard talking point, that domestic violence victims are often afraid to testify against their abuser; it's widely accepted, so I don't know why you'd be running from it now.


It's also a standard talking point that women never, ever lie about rape and domestic violence, so it's beyond dispute that he was guilty of beating her.
   5399. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4424388)
Should we deport every foreigner that the FBI investigates regardless of what they find?



Pretty much, yes. If you want to become a citizen/permanent residence, you should be above suspicion. If not, back to the #### hole from whence you came.

f so, what's the point of investigating them?



So we can figure out who to deport silly. If they're being investigated, start with the presumption that they should be deported and work from there.


This sounds remarkably like the old Ugga Bugga joke. If we have to investigate you, we deport your ass. If we find nothing, well, we still have to deport your ass.
   5400. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: April 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4424390)
It's also a standard talking point that women never, ever lie about rape and domestic violence,


Only in your head.

edit: Oh, and if that wasn't a conservative high five, I don't know what is.
Page 54 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(23 - 8:29pm, Aug 01)
Last: GordonShumway

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(190 - 8:27pm, Aug 01)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(18 - 8:25pm, Aug 01)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(12 - 8:17pm, Aug 01)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(29 - 8:10pm, Aug 01)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(11 - 7:49pm, Aug 01)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogBill James Mailbag - 7/13/14 - 7/22/14 (Subscription Required)
(9 - 7:41pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(9 - 7:36pm, Aug 01)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(5 - 7:29pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGraphic designer creates Star Wars/MLB mash-up logos for all 30 teams
(3 - 7:27pm, Aug 01)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(29 - 7:27pm, Aug 01)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(46 - 7:11pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(1 - 6:47pm, Aug 01)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogNeyer: The Jim Johnson Gambit fails
(8 - 6:24pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(38 - 6:18pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 1.1105 seconds
52 querie(s) executed