Merry Christmas comments auto-closed while we were still discussing new events like
- The Convington Boys vs Washington Post, Hewbrew Nation, Native American drummer and so on.
- Smollett’s antics and probable fate
- Racism in America
- So on…
WordPress updated and, and as so often occurs they did something to the post editing interface for posts. It is not an improvement. . . (I’m hunting for buttons to get the assistance features. I have a feeling I’m going to need to resort to Google to find articles that tell me how to use this new “improved” interface. All previous ones were self-revealing.)
Mike M. (Comment #173264)
No, they did not mock anyone. They behaved admirably in the face of great provocation.
_____
After getting my audio fixed and watching and listening to the linked videos, I believe Covington students did mock the elderly Phillips and other Native Americans who were with him. Even the investigators commissioned by the Diocese of Covington say the teens performed a “tomahawk chop.â€
If a person walks toward me on a public walkway as I am standing still I believe it polite for me to move aside so he can pass without having to go around me, particularly if he's elderly. The Covington teen, Nick Sandmann, chose instead to "remain motionless" in front of the elderly Philips and smirk because it was "his right" and also he believed he was "helping diffuse the situation," I guess meaning he feared that large group of Covington classmates were a threat to Phillips. The problem here is it looked like he was confronting Phillips, and confrontations tend to escalate rather than diffuse situations.
As far as I can tell from the videos, the five Black Israelites remained in one spot, preached to anyone who would listen, and hurled insults at the Covington students when they were within shouting distance, but never interfered with the students otherwise. I'm not sure whether Philips was trying to go between the Black Israelites and the students when he ran into Sandmann, and if he was, why.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/23/indigenous_elder_nathan_phillips_i_was_absolutely_afraid_of_maga_hat-wearing_students.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oza37DTXwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-pFMZaw5f0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGFF4zOxWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ZhDGaQMS4
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Diocese-
If you take 7% of Muslims in New Jersey, you get to the thousands of Muslims that Trump said were celebrating after 9/11.
OK_Max (#173268)
Without a clear definition of what it means to be an "anti-black racist", let alone an objective one, it is difficult to evaluate your suspicion not only that over 23% of the white voters were such, but that your estimate may be "outrageously low". With a broad enough definition you could likely claim close to 100% of the total electorate is "racist".
.
But when it comes to electoral *impact*, what matters is what people respond to. What would your estimate be of Trump voters who *believe themselves to be* anti-black racists, and why? You've advanced the idea that "appealing to hate can be politically powerful", but in the case of white anti-black racism that makes no sense. Embracing it would attract open racists and repel literally everybody else in the electorate — that's not just abhorrent it's ludicrously moronic. Do you seriously think that the constant claims of the *left* that Trump is racist, if believed by the entire electorate, would *help* Trump politically?
Dale S,
Progressives accept on faith that racism causes:
Low rate of marriage or stable long term relationships among poor blacks, very few farthers present in the household among poor blacks, high levels of black-on-black crime/violence, poor school attendence among poor black children, poorer educational outcomes among blacks, very high levels of criminal activity and incarceration among young black men, etc (the list is long).
.
Conservatives don’t accept that racism causes these things.
There is little more to the political disagreement than this.
Max,
.
I don't know what point you are trying to make regarding the Convington teens, honestly. I'd like to engage it, but I can't because I don't understand what you
(sorry)
are trying to get at. Are you simply refuting
>>Mike M. (Comment #173264)
No, they did not mock anyone. They behaved admirably in the face of great provocation.
I mean, it's not clear that it matters to me whether or not the teens *behaved admirably*, I'm not sure why I'd care to debate that. Not sure I think it's true, not sure why it'd matter.
Teens don't always behave admirably, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with why the incident got national attention.
OK_Max #173269,
Here's the link to the report commissioned by the diocese:
https://www.covdio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CCHFinalInvestigativeReport.pdf
.
As you say, the commissioned report does state "We found no evidence of offensive or racist statements by students to Mr. Phillips or members of his group. Some students performed a "tomahawk chop" to the beat of Mr. Phillips drumming and some joined in Mr. Phillips chant." The reports also states (based on interviews with the students) that most of the students felt that Philips approached the group to join in the cheers. Now maybe my perspective is a bit skewed from living in Atlanta, but when a group of kids are doing cheers they commonly perform at *games*, and when a group of kids think a native drummer is joining their group to *participate* in cheers, I don't think it's a given that chopping was intended to *mock* the new participant. Do you have any other evidence for mocking, or does it rest solely on the arm motions?
.
Do you accept the rest of the investigator's report as accurate? It certainly gives a different impression of the incident than the text in your first link under the video:
"In the [original viral] video, Omaha elder Nathan Phillips is seen peacefully playing his drum and singing while being encircled by the students—some of whom were wearing red “Make America Great Again†hats. The video appears to show the students taunting and mocking Phillips. Some of the students are seen making a tomahawk-chop motion with their arms. One student wearing a red MAGA hat is seen standing directly in front of Phillips while grinning and smirking. The videos sparked widespread outrage, but some commentators walked back their critique of the students after more videos were posted online."
.
*Why* it wasn't walked back isn't mentioned in the text — like the information that Phillips was "being encircled" by students because he went into their midst, and that the student was only "standing directly in front of Phillips" because Phillips came to *him*.
.
You write "If a person walks toward me on a public walkway as I am standing still I believe it polite for me to move aside so he can pass without having to go around me, particularly if he's elderly." Sure, that *would* be polite. What's the relevance to this situation? Phillips has never claimed he was just trying to pass through the group.
I don't necessarily disagree with Mike or Dale. Perhaps the kids acted with perfect propriety. I just don't understand exactly what we're trying to get at.
If it could be shown that the kids didn't act with perfect propriety, … what, exactly?
mark,
I was disputing the claim that the kids mocked or confronted Phillips. They not only did not behave badly, they behaved much better than one might expect, given the provocation.
Thanks Mike.
I'm just trying to keep straight what's actually under contention and why.
.
My impression is that the Washington Post published a hit piece on these kids containing falsehoods that may have amounted to libel, and that's what started all the hoopla (The piling on after the initial story was significant). Not whether or not the kids were perfectly behaved, even though it appears they did in fact behave surprisingly well.
.
In my view, the story isn't really about the kids. It's about the vicious and overblown media and social media response.
Sorry to comment excessively, I'll quiet myself after this – Is Max suggesting that the original Washington Post piece and all the piling on was justified? I don't know. Is he making some point about racism in America? I don't know. He doesn't seem to have taken a position beyond disputing whether or not the kids behaved admirably. If he's just ..spitballing, I guess is the term, well, fine, whatever. But if he has some larger point I'd like him to lay it out for us.
Endless nitpicking about whether some teenagers behaved impeccably or not. On the matter of the adults who were absolutely shouting racist taunts. Silence. There's the current state of equality in the US, written plain for anyone to see.
mark bofill (Comment #173279): "My impression is that the Washington Post published a hit piece on these kids containing falsehoods that may have amounted to libel, and that's what started all the hoopla (The piling on after the initial story was significant). Not whether or not the kids were perfectly behaved, even though it appears they did in fact behave surprisingly well."
I agree completely. I only brought up how well behaved the kids were in order to make the point that the original depiction was not even close to the truth. I guess I failed to make that clear because I thought it was "obvious". I should know better by now.
Mike,
I understood why you brought up the point. You *did* make it clear. My comments arise from my discontent that Max appears to be pursuing the discussion via innuendo. I'd prefer that he state whatever he's trying to state plainly, that's all.
Racism without racists. It's mighty convenient to make grand statistical generalizations without having to point out what definition you are using, identifying any actual racists, and then painting the entire racial population with that brush. Even Vox doesn't go as far as OK_Max does, they pseudo intellectualize it with terms like "racial resentment". Overt racism is almost nonexistent so the claims of racism have entered a silly phase where indirect evidence is used and microaggressions are the same as burning crosses.
.
The entire edifice of this argument is built upon the time honored guilt by association fallacy. You are hereby endowed with all the negative characteristics of individuals in a group you barely have anything to do with, say a group of voters. It's just cultural anthrax using a weak association.
.
Some idiot fakes a hate crime because he has been incentivized to do it by our current cultural rules. Those who routinely practice painting with broad brushes on race issues using anecdotal incidents go into a moral panic because it weakens their bludgeon.
Tom Scharf,
"Overt racism is almost nonexistent so the claims of racism have entered a silly phase where indirect evidence is used and microaggressions are the same as burning crosses."
.
It has mostly to do with the belief among progressives that life outcomes (averaged by race) *MUST* be equal. If not, then the only acceptable explanation is racial prejudice… and if explicit racial prejudice can't be found, then next come crazy ideas like 'micro-aggressions' and 'unconscious racism'. Suggesting that there are different average outcomes (in education, income, wealth, etc) because of different average behaviors, attitudes, interests, and aptitudes is verboten.
.
East Asians have long been subject to racial prejudice, yet second generation East Asians do much better than any other identifiable racial group in education and average earnings. If one believes racial prejudice the cause of differing outcomes, then where is a rational explanation for this contrary case? There isn't one. If prejudice is the cause for different outcomes, then you have to conclude there is terrible prejudice against white players in professional basketball and football.
.
IMO, the progressive take on the subject of race is irrational.
The following quotes from Nick Sandmann, the Covington student at the center of the Washington Mall controversy, are from his public statement (see link).
I am quoting what he said about his confrontation with the Native American drummer, Mr. Phillips, and I will comment on his statements.
“The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.â€
“I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.â€
 “I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation.â€
“I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.â€
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html
I’m not sure what Nick Sandmann means by “invading personal space.†He and his fellow Covington students do not own space around the Lincoln Memorial. All the students except him were aware of not owning this space, and as he said “parted†when the elderly NativeAmerican drummer, Mr. Phillips, walked toward their group. Only Sandman knows why he chose to stand in front of Philips and smirk rather than move aside. He said “by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation,†but as I said in a previous post, that makes no sense to me.
The linked video (starting at about 1:13) shows Phillips walking toward the student group and putting himself between the group and the five Hebrew Israelites who were shouting at them. Unfortunately, a crowd forms behind Philips and keeps the video from showing when he and Sandmann meet. The video does show a lot of what went on between the Covington students and the Hebrew Israelites. The students seem to be an audience for the insults directed at them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-pFMZaw5f0.
The meaning of personal space is readily available on the net:
per·son·al space Dictionary result for personal space
noun
the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which any encroachment feels threatening to or uncomfortable for them.
"he was invading her personal space"
Max,
>>Unfortunately, a crowd forms behind Philips and keeps the video from showing when he and Sandmann meet.
.
If you are interested in footage showing the moment Philips and Sandmann meet, you can find it here around 5:26-5:40ish. Although I recommend the entire video. I found it illuminating.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s
mark bofill (Comment #173287)
February 22nd, 2019 at 4:52 pm
The meaning of personal space is readily available on the net:
"the physical space immediately surrounding someone, into which any encroachment feels threatening to or uncomfortable for them."
_____
Yes, that's what it means, although not everyone would agree on the size of that space or how it might differ depending on the situation (e.g., a bus or train with standing room only).
In the case under discussion a group occupied a space making it difficult for anyone to get past or join the group without encroaching on the personal spaces of existing group members, all of whom, except one, recognized the problem and stood aside to give Mr. Phillips some room.
I recently encountered a similar problem when a group of teens were standing in a shopping center isle, and I probably violated one's personal space as I brushed against him when walking by. More frequently the problem is getting around people walking four or more abreast in front of me.
BTW, I haven't read the WaPo articles about Sandman because I haven't found them. If I ever do, I'll give my opinion.
Max_OK #173286,
It amazes me that you are perceptive enough to determine that Sandmann *chose* to "smirk" (not just smile, but choosing to do so in a smug or annoying way), yet are unfamiliar with the very concept of personal space and how it affects people's mindset and behavior.
.
Philips didn't just walk towards the group, he walked *into* the group. That was on the way to nowhere, because although the students were on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the path to inside the memorial was not obstructed. Further, according to Phillips himself to the NYT, his intention was to get *between* the teens and the crazies (my word, not his). Per a Jan 20th article:
—
But on Sunday, Mr. Phillips clarified that it was he who had approached the crowd and that he had intervened because racial tensions — primarily between the white students and the black men — were “coming to a boiling point.†“I stepped in between to pray,†Mr. Phillips said.
—
So if Phillips is trying to get between the two, what possible reason would he have to get past (or through) Sandmann?
.
Not that Phillips testimony on this account can be relied on. Contrast the account he supposedly gave to the Washington Post on Saturday:
—
In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.
.
Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.
.
Phillips said a few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant, “Build that wall, build that wall,†though such chants are not audible on video.
.
“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ †Phillips recalled. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.â€
—
This description not only completely contradicts what he was to tell the Times the following day, it also is completely contradicted by the longer videos completely. No taunts, no Build the Wall, no teens surrounding him before he *voluntarily* marched into their midst, no need to go through the teens to get to the Lincoln Memorial, no path to anywhere that needed to go through Sandmann. It's a story that you could hang on a short viral video that didn't show the "before" (except for the nonsensical part about how the teen blocked his way *and* wouldn't allow him to retreat — how is that possible?) . But it wasn't a true story.
.
But most of all I have to ask — what is your point? Do you think your inability to see any benefit from making no movements, saying nothing, and smiling in a situation that could possibly escalate somehow translates into proof that Sandmann was lying about his motives and his *real* motive was to harrass the guy who just walked up to him and was banging a drum in his face? And what has any of this to do with your unbelievable claim that appeals to racism are politically powerful instead of toxic? The reaction to the Covington kids (from all sides, not just liberals) based on the original, false narrative shows very clearly that your argument is flawed.
mark bofill (Comment #173290)
Are you trying to make some point larger than disputing whether or not the Covington teens behaved impeccably?
____
No, and I've been concentrating on the actions of one teen, Nick Sandmann, who is at the center of the controversy. As for the Covington students in general,
they behaved about the way I would expect from a large group of teenage boys. As for the behavior of individuals other than Sandmann, I don't know.
Thank you for the link to the video. That's a good find.
From about 5:24 to 5:34 was the part of the video most interesting to me. I see Sandman and other students a laughing at Philips who is hemmed in at his sides and back, while Sandmann has plenty of room in those directions. I don't see him backing up or moving to the side, nor do I see Philips moving forward, although there is a point where the camera moves away from them briefly, making it hard to be sure.
I suspect Sandmann intended to face up to (confront) Phillips to impress his friends, rather than diffuse the situation as he claims. I don't think he defused anything. Instead, he created an ugly picture, and that image is what caused all the fuss.
Dale S (Comment #173291)
"The reaction to the Covington kids (from all sides, not just liberals) based on the original, false narrative shows very clearly that your argument is flawed."
______
Dale, there's nothing flawed about my eyesight, and I just finished watching the video from the link mark provided:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s
After watching the video (particularly 5:24 – 5:34), I know Nick Sandman and classmates were laughing at the the elderly Phillips, Nick had a lot more personal space than Phillips, and I suspect Nick confronted him to impress the classmates.
Please look at the video if you haven't already.
I do encourage everyone to look at the video. I think Max is nuts. I'm done with this silliness of his though I think.
If Bezos has a lick of sense, he won’t let the lawsuit against the Washington Post go to a Kentucky court room. Unfortunately for the Post, Bezos may not have a lick of sense.
I know the whole smollett thing was discussed. But I'd like to bring peoples attention to *the letter*. You know…. the one threatening one that was mailed to FOX threatening him? With MAGA written on it? Containing crushed Tylenol?
Smollet has been charged by Illinois and Chicago. People have mentioned the FBI.
But there may be shoes left to drop. People have forgotten that *the postal service* is has its OWN inspectors. They have the reputation of being dogged. If Jussi mailed the letter (likely) and if he lied to postal inspectors, he could end up in jail for that. Seriously: You don't want the freakin' *post office* after you. That's bad.
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/02/smollett-threat-letter-called-enormous.html
Lucia,
You may well be right about his risk of jail time stemming from the phony letter. However, I will be very suprised if he gets anything more than 0 to 1 month in jail, probation, and a hefty fine, at least so long as he confesses. If he fights the charges, they will go after him for serious jail time. But even that doesn’t mean he will be convicted in Chicago…. remember OJ and his aquital for double knife murder…. overwhelming evidence may not be enough.
SteveF,
It appears he intends to fight the charges. But perhaps he'll change his mind. The thing is, the mail service violation and filing a false police report are separate crimes. So he could get off on one and nailed for the other.
I know OJ got off. But Smollett's crime doesn't have much in it to make a jury sympathetic even if the entire jury is black. He roped two other blacks (the nigerian Osundairo brothers) into his scheme. There are no whites involved at all. Lots of the Chicago police officers who will be reporting evidence will be black. So I'm not sure how the defense can sway the jury this is some sort of anti-black thing. But I guess we'll see.
The thing is: it may turn out Smollett did't send the letter. The two Osundairo brothers may have done it.
The whole thing really is amazing. The reported attack was so *ridiculously* implausible from the get go. I mean…. supposedly Smollett gets attacked by two men who are out *carrying* a noose and bleach. That would suggest the two men are *looking for trouble*. But then Smollett's injuries consist of ONE teesie-beensie scratch on the cheek and (supposedly) a rope burn on his neck. Presumably, the clothes are ruined. So these two big guys who are out prowling the street at 2 am i 8F *looking for trouble* who supposedly shouted vile epithets and so on DID NOT beat the crap out of their "victim"?
If it had happened, this would have set some sort of record for being the gentlest hate crime ever.
Mark Bofill (Comment #173294) 
February 22nd, 2019 at 7:30 pm
I think Max is nuts.Â
_________
Sure, but that’s not relevant. Nuts can be right. The video you gave me clearly reveals Covington students except Nick Sandmann allowed elderly Nathan Phillips walking space, showing him at least a modicum of respect even while laughing at him. But just laughing was not enough for Nick Sandmann. He chose to stand in the elderly man’s path, go eye to eye with him, and smirk. He wanted the kind of confrontation that the other students easily avoided. Had Sandmann behaved like his classmates he wouldn’t have become a media target.
lucia (Comment #173299)
"I know OJ got off. But Smollett's crime doesn't have much in it to make a jury sympathetic even if the entire jury is black."
_____
Lot's of Blacks are angry with Smollett for good reason.
There may be some concern, however, about his security in prison.
His may be the most poorly planned and executed way to help a career that has ever been attempted.
OK_Max #173293, #173300,
Yes, I watched the video. Your mind-reading abilities are in full force. Students are smiling and laughing and bobbing to the beat of the drum–the same students who were already participating in sports cheers. According to their interviews with the investigator, they felt that Phillips was *joining* them, but you know better. The smiles, the laughter, joining in chanting — that can *only* be mockery. You know what's inside the minds of these young people, and it was pure disrespect. Never mind that Phillips himself, heard speaking of the incident in the voice over, makes no such interpretation. Instead he's talking about the "mob" and their "hate and anger" being transferred to him when he "went in front of them" and how they looked like "scorn and scowls" from pictures of "folks that were doing the lynchings". He's doing some mind-reading of his own here, but it's *totally* inconsistent with the video. The fact that Phillips description is impeached doesn't matter to you — you'll simply translate their smiles and laughter into something sinister and hateful. Don't you wonder why Phillips didn't pick up on that, when he's obviously quite as proficient as you as picking up perceived disrespect and he was actually *right there*?
.
No, you're ignoring Philips behavior at the time and subsequently, as you *must* to make the case that Sandmann behaved improperly. "He chose to stand in the elderly man's path". No, he didn't. Phillips wasn't on a "path" to anywhere, he *chose* to approach Sandmann — and when Sandmann finally *did* move with the other students, Phillips immediately *turned around* and went the other way while one of the native marchers can be heard celebrating their victory over the students. "[He chose to] go eye-to-eye with him." Again, that was Phillips choice, he approached Sandmann, not the other way around — and they were only eye-to-eye because Sandmann was on a step! "And smirk" — pure mind-reading on your part to think that's an arrogant smile, not a nervous smile. "He wanted the kind of confrontation that the other students easily avoided." Again more mind-reading, but exceedingly difficult to justify in the light of what happened later. At 6:40, one of the other natives, going into the empty space *right next to Sandmann* that Phillips could have easily moved into (remember, Phillips moved in front of Sandmann by moving to his *right*, not by moving directly towards the monument), is speaking confrontationally to one of the kids, telling him "this is not your land" and to go back to Europe. What does Sandmann do? You can see him in the video when a *real* confrontation may be starting. The smile (smirk if you prefer) disappears from his face, and he reaches out to his classmate and appears to be urging him not to argue. If Sandmann's *goal* was confrontation, why try to prevent one?
.
And you still haven't answered the question repeatedly put to you–what's your point? As impressive as it may be that you cling to a Sandmann-was-wrong narrative when the rest of the world abandoned it when the details of the original narrative were shown to be lies, I don't see how it supports your claim that appealing to racism is politically powerful one iota. As far as I can see, the only thing your idiosyncratic attack on Sandmann is accomplishing is to call into question whether your personal experience with "shocking expressions of racial hatred" is based on your own amazing mind-reading skills (and ability to ignore anything that goes against your pre-determined narrative) rather than anything objectively offensive.
On a different topic: Apparently there's to be a climate "red team", led by William Happer. Should make for an interesting report, but with merely predictable political responses.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/retired-physicist-leading-new-trump-effort-question-climate-threat-security
Lucia,
>>The whole thing really is amazing. The reported attack was so *ridiculously* implausible from the get go. I mean…. supposedly Smollett gets attacked by two men who are out *carrying* a noose and bleach. That would suggest the two men are *looking for trouble*. But then Smollett's injuries consist of ONE teesie-beensie scratch on the cheek and (supposedly) a rope burn on his neck. Presumably, the clothes are ruined. So these two big guys who are out prowling the street at 2 am i 8F *looking for trouble* who supposedly shouted vile epithets and so on DID NOT beat the crap out of their "victim"?
.
Yeah. Smollett didn't even lose hold of his sandwich.
https://pluralist.com/jussie-smollett-subway-sandwich/
I've been too busy for karate for this past rotation. On my next rotation for my belt test, I get to spar with two opponents at once. I wonder how well that'd go for me holding a sandwich with one hand. From the tests I've seen, I suspect I'd pay pretty dearly during the fight…
Mark,
Yep. Didn't lose his sandwich.
I think that was a script writing *oversight* on Jussi's part though. In contrast "the story" he wrote was that two really angry hating guys who were clearly looking for trouble jumped him and attacked him, yet, *somehow* (possibly through his fierce ninja skillzzzzzz) he escaped with a very, very minor scratch (no stitches required) and a slight rope burn (no bruises etc.)
I enjoyed the sandwich tweets in this thread:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/02/02/from-his-cold-dead-hands-police-say-jussie-smollett-held-onto-his-sandwich-despite-attack/
🙂 Thanks Dale. Some of those were awesome.
My guess is that Smollett never expected the "crime" to be seriously investigated, the Chicago PD being a bunch of incompetent, homophobic racists and all. And living in his bubble, he expected the public reaction to be exactly what he got from most of the media and Democrats. So he figured that he did not need to sweat the details.
A term from one of my favorite politicians, Covington is the biggest nothing burger of all time. In a country of 300M full of smartphones, even if (random) teenager did (random) dumb thing which isn't even close to a crime then it just isn't a story. Suppose the original hot take on this was totally true? So what? The only story here is that the media thinks it is a story at all.
As far as I know the brothers say they didn't send the letter to Smollett, but knew about it and possibly knew it was a fake. They did take stamps and some magazines in a search. The CPD would have said so if they think it was done by the brothers and the brothers would have probably fessed up on this too.
.
Smollett likely sent it to himself, easy enough. It might even be real.
.
Smollett could have just claimed he was beat up without anything ever happening which would have been really hard to debunk. It is his hubris of wanting to get it all on video with him as the star that took him down.
.
One could turn the tables and say this was so incompetently performed that it is hard to believe it is true he faked it, and the whole thing is someone framing him, you know, all the white supremacists in the CPD.
.
He has a choice, try to fix his legal jeopardy (lawyer up), or try to fix his public image (mea culpa). He can't really do both at the same time. He has chosen to go silent.
Tom Scharf,
Yes. The way things stand, it *looks* like the brothers didn't mail it. But we haven't heard from the FBI or the postal inspectors. The Chi-town cops weren't specifically investigating *that* crime. (I know the head of the Chi-town police think smollet mailed it. But we don't actually know yet.)
I've been reading articles on the Postal Inspectors tracking these down. One said criminals often remember to wear gloves. But then they carry their smart phones with them to the mail box or post office. . .
MikeM.
If Smollett thought it wouldn't be investigated…. well… sheesh.
I mean, it would be *one thing* if he was an unknown person who would be ignored by twitter, politicians and so on. In that case, the fact that he was barely harmed and it was hard to find witnesses might have resulted in the police putting 1 busy detective on the case. Things would have crept along, and the case would never be solved.
But he's a (admittedly not super major) celebrity. The "script" he wrote contained a crime that was political catnip for some. It was bound to get a reaction on twitter– I'm pretty sure that's precisely what he wanted. He ended up having Senators, celebrities and so on commenting. The Chicago PD *had* to devote resources to this. They'd have gotten so much s**t if they didn't.
You can't blame Police Superintendent Johnson for being super pissed off about this.
MikeM,
The interesting thing is some of the timeline really does work out sort of like a fictional script.
I suspect around Feb 12 when the Good Morning American interview was taped Smollett thought he'd gotten away with it and that the cops has bupkiss. He evidently requested the interview and requested the Robin Roberts who he knew because she'd made a guest appearance on Empire.
(See https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2019/02/19/jussie-smollett-investigation-good-morning-america-staffers-had-doubts-during-interview-with-robin-roberts/23673031/ for date of taping.)
At that time of taping, he didn't know the police had identified the two men on the tape and were merely waiting for them to return to the US from Nigerian. (Roberts clearly knew even less than that.)
On Feb 13th the police were waiting for the two brothers who were deplaning. By the morning of the 14th, the taped interview aired. People watching it were already hearing about the 'persons of interest' being questioned. However, Robin Roberts didn't know any of that on the 12th. I suspect at that point, Jussie thought (based on time) that the police weren't going to locate the two brothers.
Oh… well…
The other thing is, I actually think when writing his "script" Jussie didn't intend to report the crime. See
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-alleged-jussie-smollett-attack/story?id=61124090
"The report states that a 60-year-old friend of Smollett called the police on his behalf and said the actor "did not want to report offense however he believed it to be in the best interest to."
I suspect Jussie's plan was for this to *never be officially reported*. He wanted stuff on tape and for it to be a "twitter" phenomena. He didn't want the police actually investigating. His friend (who must have believed smollett was attacked) reported it.
That interview with Robin Roberts does not age well if viewed at this point. Some people are criticizing her, but I don't see anything bad here, you don't give apparent victims the 3rd degree in a media interview. It was taped on a Tue before the bigger leaks came out. The most amusing part is the end where he tearfully states he wishes justice will be done on his case, well … guess what? Sometimes wishes do come true.
.
Smollett has gone from victim to perpetrator and now laughing stock. When you have lost Charles Barkley, you have lost America.
I just watched the Good Morning American interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLx5OY21Bk
I'd say Robin Roberts was doing her darndest to look professionally sympathetic. I was also say, she looks like someone who is trying very hard to hide her inner thoughts which were "What BS." "Wow! Oh Wow. BS meter is going bing, bing, bing!"
They couldn't really frame it that way. I know retrospect colors my interpretation. But it's actually a sort of fun watch at this point.
Smollett *definitely* had a script he'd planned on with all this. Seriously. Just wow!
What is his defense going to be? The brothers are lying. He only paid them for personal training. He never recognized them as the attackers. Investigators will attack the integrity of the brothers, probably with some success. They hate him because he rebuffed a love interest and are jealous of his fame.
The CPD will be attacked for their leaks and rushing to judgment. They never investigated any other suspects. He was really attacked by the now missing MAGA supporters who the brothers hired, and he is launching an investigation with his own money to find them. The lawyers must discredit the brothers.
.
The problem is, he isn't OJ, and he doesn't have OJ money which will run out pretty quick.
Oh… you got to watch this guy. He made a video of his reaction on Feb 14 the day of the Good MOnring America airing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iuHyopk4Jc
The 2 AM Subway thing is because his flight from CA was delayed 4 hours and he didn't into town until 12:30 AM. He apparently had to delay the planned attack.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-jussie-smollett-bond-proffer-20190221-htmlstory.html
Smollett's plan was to get the camera footage for the media, without police involvement?
MikeN,
Perhaps. If the camera belonged to a private party, the private party might have released it. Or he may not quite know how it works.
Charles Barkley made a prudent observation for future hate-crime falsifiers: don’t pay for all the malfesance using your checkbook!
.
Which reminds me of a funny morning radio show in Philadelphia 30+ years ago called “Harvey in the Morningâ€. One of his regular segments was called ‘Stupid Criminals’, where stupid choices by criminals, usually leading to their own arrest, were listed each Friday morning. The stupidity of Smollett in arranging this crime seems absolutely normal for criminals of all stripes. Smollett apparently missed his calling as a stupid career crimilal.
Re Dale S (Comment #173302)
Dale, even though our interpretations of the happenings at the Washington Mall are different, I appreciate the time and effort you have spent studying the videos and preparing responses to my posts. It's interesting that we can watch the same videos and disagree on what has happened.
I would agree with you that I don't know what was on the minds of the Covington students. But I do know what behavior I have observed and I try to imagine reasons for the behavior. For example, whether the Covington students thought Phillips was joining them or not, it appears to me they are laughing at him, and my mind-reading reason is they thought he was funny or comical.
Nick Sandmann, however, didn't seem to believe Phillips was joining them. In his written statement, Sandmann said “We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.â€
For the full statement, see https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html
Dale, I would be interested in your thoughts about my take on statements made by Nick Sandmann in an interview by NBC’s Savannah Guthrie.
In reference to his smirking at Phillips she asked “ What do you think that looks like? Sandmann: “I see it as a smile saying that this is the best you are going to get out of me. You won’t get any further action of aggression and I’m willing to stand here as long as long as you want to hit this drum in my face.
In Sandmann saying “any further action of aggression†the ‘further†implies he thinks facing Phillips and smirking was an act of aggression on his part in the first place, or it could be a Freudian slip, meaning subconsciously he feels it was an act of aggression.
Regarding his face off with Philips, Guthrie had previously asked “Why didn’t you just walk away?†Sandmann: “Now I wish I would have walked away. I didn’t want to be disrespectful to Mr. Phillips and walkaway if he was trying to talk to me, but I was surrounded by a lot of people I didn’t know that had their phones out and had cameras, and I didn’t want to bump into anyone or seem like I was trying to do something.â€
I think it strange that Sandmann believes walking away would have been disrespectful, yet wishes he had walked away. I also don’t understand his fear of bumping into people. From the video there appears to be plenty of room around him.
In an an answer to another question by Guthrie, Sandmann wishes he and his classmates had waited for their buses in another location. I agree with him, and may have more to say on the subject in another post.
For a video of the interview, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGUCD9rH6HY
*don’t pay for all the malfesance using your checkbook!*
Jerry Springer also paid by check. He went from (I think) mayor of Cinncinatti to not mayor, to sort of "talk show" host. (If you can call the Springer show "talk".
I don't think Jussi is going to make that transition…. But who knows.
OK_Max,
I also *totally* disagree with you on what happened.
Lucia,
I never watched Jerry Springer, and I never watched Jussi either. I won't watch if Jussi makes the transition from stupid criminal to stupid TV show host. I do hope he admits guilt to avoid prison time, and then disappears into obscurity (maybe gets a full time retail job at Wallmart?). But I fear that won't happen.
The Smollett incident to me is more about the reaction to it than Smollett. I think Smollett has a major problem and might well use it in his final court pleading.
OK_Max provides a case study on how differently people can see or at least want to see an incident. In some cases and these days maybe in many cases there is no amount of reasoning that will change these peoples' minds.
Lucia, when I heard about Smollett paying with a check, I remembered a line from a roast, towards Jerry Springer
'Paying a prostitute with a personal check is so stupid…, it's like — paying a prostitute with a personal check."
lucia (Comment #173324)
OK_Max,
I also *totally* disagree with you on what happened.
_________
lucia, I was beginning to think you had no opinion on the subject. I’m glad you have one.
Thanks for putting asterisks around a word. I had to look up what it meant, now I know.
I *totally* believe Nick Sandman and other Covington students were disrespectful to an elderly person, Mr. Phillips, and him being a Native American makes it even worse. I was raised to show my elders respect, not stare them down and laugh or smirk at them. That said, the Covington students probably are no worse than other teens in their behavior toward the elderly.
Following up on my previous post, I would like to quote Nick Sandmann on the Hebrew Israelite protestors from his interview with Savannah Guthrie.
Guthrie: “Do you think it was a good idea to start chanting back at the protestors?â€
Sandmann: In hindsight I wish we had found another spot to wait for our buses, but at the time being positive seemed better than letting them slander us with all those thing. I wish we could have walked away. “
AMEN, I totally agree the students should have been waiting on their buses at another spot rather than where the Hebrew Israelites were protesting. Finding a safe place for students to assemble should be the job of the chaperones. Even worse than the choice of locations was the chaperones’ decision to allow the students to chant back at the Hebrew Israelites, which could have escalated a tense situation. The primary duty of chaperones is the safety of the students. Fortunately, there were no altercations and no one was hurt.
MikeN (Comment #173327)
'Paying a prostitute with a personal check is so stupid…, it's like — paying a prostitute with a personal check."
_________
Robert Kraft wasn't that stupid, but he was charged anyway. If he's going to visit brothels, he should have his winter home in Nevada rather than Florida. I'm not prejudging his guilt, and I hope he beats the charge.
I feel sorry for him.
OKMax,
They have him on video at least twice, which in FL makes it a felony, so I suspect it will go rather badly for Kraft. Much of this happened just a few miles from my house. One of the establishments, that is now closed, was less than a mile (as the crow flies). What got the local authorities worked up about the case is that the young women are claimed to be victims of human trafficking, and working as prostitutes against their will. Published reports say about 100 ‘customers’ have already been arrested, and warrants issued for ‘over 100 more’. The only funny part of the story is that the many ‘day spas’ involved had about 20% women customers, who just thought they were legitimate ‘spas’.
Sigh.
I wish you'd step up your game, Max.
I like engaging different viewpoints. It's boring though when you turtle up and focus mono-maniacally on one point that even you admit has no larger significance (That said, the Covington students probably are no worse than other teens in their behavior toward the elderly.)
I don't agree that respect is owed to somebody who walks up looking for a confrontation and starts banging a drum in my face, regardless of their age. I don't agree with your foolishness about getting out of Philips way – he was plainly confronting those kids, not trying to get to the memorial. It's not an issue of respect, nobody has to back down and shy away when somebody comes up to them specifically for the purpose of confronting them and making them back down. Particularly when one notes how offensively Philips misrepresented the encounter with the media. I don't know if Philips is a liar or a fool (I suspect both), but those kids weren't some mob preparing to pounce on the black hebrew israelites. Far from it. Philips didn't deserve what respect he was shown, and good for the kid who realized it.
But why are we even talking about this, if these kids exhibited behavior no worse than any other teens. It's almost as if you'd prefer to focus exclusively on what you freely admit is an irrelevant aside, because after all the covington teens probably are no worse than any other teens in this regard.
If you want to talk to me (and maybe you don't, and fair enough; good for you if this is the case), you need have a little skin in the game. Let's talk about something of some significance beyond whether or not we think some random kid picks his nose at night.
OK_Max,
I would have used html bold for emphasis, but it's not available. By the way, I'm 59, Jim is 60. I don't think that's "elderly". If I acted like Phillips toward Sandman, I'd consider that *shameful* on my part. I don't think the kid was disrespectful at all.
OK_Max,
One of the big strikes against Kraft is that massage parlor is alleged (and I suspect was) holding at least some of those women against their will. That means they were, effectively, sex slaves.
I think prostitution should be legalized, but I most certainly don't think *slavery* should be legal. Perhaps one might think customers aren't expected to know the women are basically enslaved. But… really… I think in THIS case, the John's who kept that place in business by paying for service should have the book thrown at them.
If they didn't happen to know they were involved with sex slaves, tough luck.
SteveF (Comment #173330): "The only funny part of the story is that the many ‘day spas’ involved had about 20% women customers, who just thought they were legitimate ‘spas’."
Which raises the possibility that some of the male customers were similarly confused.
Mike M,
No doubt that is the case. Of course, it seems many of the charges (all?) are based on video…. ahem…. evidence… so that argument would be more difficult to make. What apparently got the investigation started was a health inspector noting that the employees were cooking their food on hotplates at the back door and sleeping in the same rooms where they worked.
MikeM,
Only those who had sexual services should be charged. I'm pretty dang sure that's the law.
I think the penalty should be escallated if it turns out the "provider" was a sex slave. As it's an escallation, that would only apply to those who had sexual services.
The police appear to have video. I bet everyone arrested is on video soliciting and getting sexual services. Just a guess. . .
I am starting to think that the Democrats don't have a chance of winning the Presidency in 2020.
Amy Klobuchar is a supposed moderate; after all, her support for the Green New Deal is only lukewarm. There have already been hit pieces on her in the left wing press, including the New York Times. It seems she is a jerk in private.
Now Bernie Sanders is in trouble for defending the fact that he is a white, straight, cis-gendered male and saying: “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society, which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.â€
The man is obviously blinded by his privilege.
.
I think the Democratic primaries are likely to turn into a groveling crawl as the candidates compete to be the wokest of them all. The result will be a candidate who is even less electable than Hillary.
SteveF
*health inspector noting that the employees were cooking their food on hotplates at the back door and sleeping in the same rooms where they worked.*
I'm calling out for a big cheer for the health inspectors! Human trafficking and slavery is such a horrible thing. It's often hard to catch. Nice to see someone noticing something is wrong and having it investigated.
Mike M,
I think that too. My working theory is that the dem who can run the gauntlet to win the primary will have to take positions so far to the left that they will be unable to defeat Trump. They will end up making him look moderate and reasonable. Which he will be, relatively speaking.
Warren is talking about reparation payments for blacks and native american indians. It boggles my mind.
MIkeM,
The accuracy of my predictive powers on presidential races is approximately 0%. I'm not going to even try to guess whether the Dems have a chance to beat Trump.
I'm interesting in the topics of human trafficking and prostitution, but I know so little about it I hesitate to remark (..not that that usually stops me..).
I don't doubt that people are held in slavery sometimes. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is how it's managed. It seems to me that an ingredient might be that the slaver needs to keep the slave ignorant of the fact that they could run screaming out the door, or light the building on fire, or even pass a note to a client asking for help, is that the way of it? Or is there some other mechanism I'm overlooking that keeps the slaves compliant; a threat to a family member, perhaps.
I ought to read up on it.
mark,
I think mostly they method is to persuade women that they can immigrate to a country with promises of good jobs and so on. Once they are here, the seize their paperwork and threaten them with dire consequences from the government if they leave. Often due to lack of education and lack of english language ability, the women don't have any idea what would happen if they left.
Lighting the building on fire is rather drastic. But yes, the "slaves" are deliberately chosen to be ignorant of rights in our country, and for lack of language skillzzzzz and so on. So that's basically it.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what does happen if an illegal alien who happens to be enslaved does leave and contact the authorities. On the one hand, the slavery is bad so that won't work out for the slavers. But on the other hand, the enslaved person is an illegal alien. They probably don't have money for an attorney. Honestly, being sent back to whichever country after having been a prostitute is a very scary alternative for them too.
The shame associated with the job, the lack of family connections in the new country and so on make theses illegal alien victims vulnerable.
A note passed to the customer might work if the enslaved person spoke or wrote English. But also, they may tend to suspect the customers are in cahoots with the slaver- business operators, so they are afraid to do that. (In some cases, the customers ARE in cahoots with the slaver – business operators.)
Nathan Phillips was very obviously attempting to provoke the young man, Nick Sandman, in the MAGA hat and no doubt to obtain the emotional reaction that ensued from the media before the scene was put into context. The development of the incident was not unlike the Smollett one and where the story was in the reaction to it and not so much the people involved. Sandman showed great restraint for a young person and appeared to be mature beyond his years in his interviews after the incident. I am much older than Phillips and Sandman and my reaction would have been much less passive than that of Sandman. I would have asked a person doing what Phillips did to back off in no uncertain terms and it would not matter what that person's origin, color, sex, sexual orientation or age was – as I do not discriminate when it comes to respect for me or another person. The classmates of Sandman appeared to be having fun with the situation and not taking the demonstrations seriously and that would have been this old man's same reaction to it.
lucia (#173333): " I think in THIS case, the John's who kept that place in business by paying for service should have the book thrown at them. If they didn't happen to know they were involved with sex slaves, tough luck."
I don't understand why you take that position. In some cases, the legal threshold for culpability is that a person knew, or reasonably should have known that some activity was going on. It's certainly true that the "johns" knew, or should have known, that paying for sex is illegal [although perhaps not in NV as OK_Max implies]. But I don't see why they should have known or even suspected about the slavery aspect, which you consider an aggravating factor. Unless it's the case that a great many of such workers are enslaved.
The Kraft incidence for me raises some questions based on my incomplete knowledge of it. I am of the same opinion as Lucia on slave trafficking and I would reserve a special place in hell and the justice system for those involved in it. I was wondering though how long law enforcement involved in this matter knew about the operation and whether they waited to shut it down before getting evidence on many and some prominent johns and if so would not that be questionable priorities.
Kraft's participation in this matter as a billionaire seems out of character for someone with his money to pay a minimal amount for a "massage" when he could afford any number of expensive call girls who would voluntarily service him.
Thanks for saying this Kenneth,
>>I am much older than Phillips and Sandman and my reaction would have been much less passive than that of Sandman. I would have asked a person doing what Phillips did to back off in no uncertain terms and it would not matter what that person's origin, color, sex, sexual orientation or age was…
I agree wholeheartedly and feel the same way. I hesitated to say this, wondering if maybe this merely meant I was more disagreeable or aggressive than normal. Maybe I'm not more disagreeable or aggressive than normal.
Lucia,
>>Lighting the building on fire is rather drastic. But yes, the "slaves" are deliberately chosen to be ignorant of rights in our country, and for lack of language skillzzzzz and so on. So that's basically it.
Honestly, I'm not even sure what does happen if an illegal alien who happens to be enslaved does leave and contact the authorities. On the one hand, the slavery is bad so that won't work out for the slavers. But on the other hand, the enslaved person is an illegal alien. They probably don't have money for an attorney. Honestly, being sent back to whichever country after having been a prostitute is a very scary alternative for them too.
The shame associated with the job, the lack of family connections in the new country and so on make theses illegal alien victims vulnerable.
…
Thanks for this, all makes sense to me.
mark bofill (Comment #173347): "Honestly, I'm not even sure what does happen if an illegal alien who happens to be enslaved does leave and contact the authorities."
According to Wikipedia: "The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 … allows many trafficking victims to remain in the U.S. and apply for permanent residency under a T-1 Visa."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_States#Victims_of_Trafficking_and_Violence_Protection_Act
Oddly, I did know that there was some such provision, but I suspect that the victims don't.
Wikipedia also says that: "Victims of trafficking are protected under federal law, but may still be charged under state law." But I would guess that the latter is unlikely.
.
It seems that the number of estimated trafficking victims is about two orders of magnitude larger than the confirmed number of victims. Some claim that the problem is hyped up far beyond its actual extent.
.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #173345): "I was wondering though how long law enforcement involved in this matter knew about the operation and whether they waited to shut it down before getting evidence on many and some prominent johns and if so would not that be questionable priorities."
Sadly, that is a real possibility. It is also possible that the claim of trafficking is without foundation and was made to bring down calumny on the Johns. I will withhold judgement until the whole thing plays out.
HaroldW
*I don't understand why you take that position. In some cases, the legal threshold for culpability is that a person knew, or reasonably should have known that some activity was going on.*
That's not the threshold for *escalation* of punishment in the event one was knowingly guilty of a crime. In this case, the Johns know perfectly well they are paying for sex. So they knowingly paid for sex. That's a crime in the first place.
That the crime might be more severe because of who was involved is a pretty common escalation factor– in fact routine.
If you mug someone (a crime) and they turn out to be an undercover cop, you've committed a more severe crime than you intended. But you still get the escalation factor even if you didn't know they were a cop or didn't have any reason to believe they were a cop. These sorts of escalations happen all the time in crime.
If you swindle someone– doing something knowingly, that's a crime in Illinois. If it turns out the victim is above a certain age, the crime is treated more severely. That's true even if the victim seemed younger than their age, you didn't know and (perhaps doing it over the internet) had now way of knowing their age but just randomly swindled people without knowing a thing about them.
lucia,
Thanks for that explanation. Makes sense.
Max_OK, #173322 #173328
My take on your reaction to Sandmann's interview is that you're reprising some lines from "The Boxer" [Simon & Garfunkel]
.
"A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
.
You seem to think that Sandmann wishing he'd done something else in hindsight is an admission that what he did was wrong. But let's look at the sequence of events:
1) Sandmann smiles and did nothing else — whether you think that was sensible or not, that's what he *did*.
2) Sandmann becomes widely publicized as the face of intolerance and hatred supposedly associated with Trump supporters. A classmate gets doxxed just for looking like him. His school is closed because of threats. The bishop of his own diocese condemns based on limited/false information. The guy who banged a drum in *his* face lies about him and his classmates on national television. A SNL writer offers a blow job to anyone who punches him in the face.
.
And here you are, thinking the only reason he could wish things went down differently is that he thinks did something wrong? Frankly, Sandmann's refusal to heap any *well-deserved* scorn on Phillips' lies shows more maturity than I have now, let alone back when I was an arrogant teenager decades ago. He is the *victim* in this story, not the perpetrator.
.
Now I also wish that things had gone differently, and it could've done so differently if *Phillips* had made different choices. Imagine this scenario, although it would never ever make a viral video to support the "MAGA hat is the new Klan hood" smear". After Phillips marches into the group, with many of the group swinging to his group and thinking he was there to join his group, he keeps the chant up a little while and then does the wrap-up beat that he (in the historical timeline) saved for the backs of the departing students. Then he tells the students who he is, what the chant means, teach them a new simple chant that they can participate in, and start drumming for the new chant while his new friends participate. Before the buses actually arrive he'd have plenty of time to do some education, and then those high school kids from Covington would come home saying "man, that Omaha Elder was so cool" and predisposed to treat native issues with more respect. That's how I wish it would have gone down. And it's not *Sandmann's* fault it didn't turn out that way.
.
Criticizing the chaperones is also an enormous stretch. The location as a location was a fine place for a group of kids in a strange city to meet — plenty of room, easily visible location, can put a large group together without blocking anyone's access to anything — it's ideal and it was using on past trips without incidents. What made *this* time different was the actions of other people, but that could not be reasonably predicted in advance. As a large group, neither the few Hebrew Israelites nor Phillips presented any sort of *physical* danger to the kids (at least before they were used as unwitting villains in a made-for-social-media morality play). And since it's a public place, there's no guarantee that moving to another spot in the same public place will necessarily deter those who are harassing them (they can easily follow), or that they won't run into similar harassment wherever they go instead.
.
The idea that school cheers to drown out the nutcase ranting constitutes "chanting back" and is somehow a provocation is a stretch. Though come to think of it, maybe I've just been closing my eyes to the evil lurking in sports cheers all these years. "We got spirit, yes we do. We got spirit, how about you?" Pure provocation. "Push them back, Push them back, way back!" Appeal to violence. And there's even worse out there. In my undergrad years, I personally witnessed crowds chanting "Over the top" when a school mascot was body surfing up the stadium–if carried out, that would obviously be fatal. And to make things worse, this was a largely white crowd speaking of a Mascot of Color (sort of a yellow-orange color). Truly a modern day lynching. How could I have been so blind to the evil lurking in the hearts of smiling, laughing young people? If I could read their minds as well as you, I'd *know* that their laughter is based on contempt and mockery, not actual enjoyment.
.
But after all your posts, you still haven't got around to the larger point that you're trying to illustrate by trying to retain some element of the false narrative attached to the Covington kids. Let me help you help out with that — *real* instances of intolerance by MAGA-wearing goons are so hard to find that *completely fake* instances must be invented to fill the void. The Covington kids are just collateral damage in a cultural war seeking to stigmatize any support of Trump. Truth is also collateral damage. And it's winning, despite the spectacular misfires. If I had enough guts and integrity I'd buy a MAGA hat and wear it publicly, just to stand up to the lying bullies who are demonizing its wearers. But I don't. I fear it, even in a state that voted for Trump in 2012. I don't want what happened to Sandmann to happen to me, or my family. And to those on the left who might be happy at this outcome I would say this — if you want to see hate, look in the mirror.
I think sex work should be legalized, and I think that doing so would starve a lot of oxygen from the sex slave trade. By forcing the entire trade into the shadows, those who are forced into that life don't appear as different as they otherwise would.
DaleS,
Legalizing the sex trade might reduce sex slavery. However, I'm not entirely sure it would.
One problem is the demand side tends to want quite young women. It's plausible that there aren't enough young native women who want these jobs and businesses would see an advantage to finding someway to compel women into prostitution. They might still have an incentive to import women illegally and then figure out ways to pressure them sufficiently to call it slavery.
OTOH: maybe if sex trade was regulated and licensed with regular check ups for venereal diseases required, then the fact of regulation would make it more difficult to hide the sex slavery. I don't really know.
As one of the designated Social Democrat/Progessive Democrat / Pinko Communist / Whatevers who occasionally comment here, my opinion is:
The Covington Kids didn't do bad. The (My!) Liberal Media were too hasty, too condemnatory, didn't sufficiently walk back their earlier coverage and in general did not do a good job.
I hope my tribe learns from this.
mark bofill (Comment #173331)
February 24th, 2019 at 7:07 am
"Philips misrepresented the encounter with the media. I don't know if Philips is a liar or a fool (I suspect both), but those kids weren't some mob preparing to pounce on the black hebrew israelites."
_________
I'm not sure I would call the 150 kids a mob, but they were were a potential threat to the 5 Israelites, and at times they were moving too close to the Israelites, invading personal space you might say. At 1:17.15 In the longer video a chaperone or some other adult tells the kids to "back it up." At 1:19.43 one of the Israelites asks the kids to step back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-pFMZaw5f0
I don't know if Philip's true intent was to diffuse the tension between the kids and the Israelites, as he claimed, but he did divert the kids' attention away from the Israelites.
The reason I focused on Sandmann's face-off with Phillips is that's what caught the media's attention.
If not for the face-off, no big story.
I don't know whether you read my reply to Dale where I quoted Sandmann from his interview with Guthrie. I asked Dale about the following statement, but he hasn't replied:
Sandmann: “I see it as a smile saying that this is the best you are going to get out of me. You won’t get any further action of aggression and I’m willing to stand here as long as long as you want to hit this drum in my face."
mark, what do you think Sandmann meant by "further"?
Max,
what do you think Sandmann meant by "further"?
.
Why would I care what Sandmann meant by "further"?
.
I think he's a teenager who probably hasn't had enough life experience to consciously, fully, and explicitly understand and articulate the intuition that guided him in that moment, if that's what happened.
.
We have spent *more than enough* time looking at the actions of teens under the pressure of verbal harassment from representatives of a black hate group under a microscope. These kids did better than many adults would have done in a similar situation.
.
To continue to spend all of our time focused on the minutiae of Sandmanns behavior is a travesty that implicitly excuses the bad behavior of many other actors in the situation; full grown adults who certainly should have behaved better and who should be held to account. For us to find these other elements unworthy of remark or consideration corrupts what could otherwise be an evenhanded and possibly profitable review of the situation.
.
I love arguing with you, but I don't think it's proper that we continue to discuss only this aspect of the incident. What say we move on to something else, or some other facet at least?
Thanks much, Tom Fuller. I disagree with you on lots of things, but I respect your integrity.
I read more about the massage parlors in Florida and found that the initial price for a massage while minimal the extras could be much more expensive. Still a 77 year old billionaire using a massage parlor for sex seems strange to me, but maybe I cannot appreciate the potential strangeness of a 77 year old billionaire. I agree that prostitution should be legal when it is between consenting adults. It being legal should have nothing to do whether it, as a practical matter, reduces human trafficking – that should well be a different matter. I find prostitution abhorrent but that does not mean I think it should be outlawed. Prostitution is illegal in Florida and yet there is evidence that there are many massage parlors and spas providing that service and over not a short time period. One might think that law enforcement knew about its existence for a time without giving it a high priority in controlling it -which would make outlawing it a bit of a farce and a government CYA.
Fuller is my favorite socialist.
lucia (Comment #173349): "That's not the threshold for *escalation* of punishment in the event one was knowingly guilty of a crime."
I don't think that is true. For example, see this source:
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/sentence-enhancements-mean-harder-punishments.html
All of the "Types of Enhancements" listed are things the criminal would know about. Also, the article says:
"do the same constitutional protections that apply to the elements of a crime also apply to enhancements? Generally, yes"
and
"any fact—apart from the existence of a prior conviction—that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the allowable range specified by statute must be submitted to a jury and found true beyond a reasonable doubt"
That suggests that mens rea is required for an enhancement.
.
I looked specifically for info on enhancements for fraud against seniors, since that seemed the most plausible of lucia's examples. From what I could find, they apply to cases that target seniors and/or provide for an affirmative defense that the accused reasonably believed the victim was not a senior citizen.
.
So I think that the Florida johns could not have sentences enhanced unless the circumstances were such that they should have realized that the prostitutes were unwilling.
I know nothing about it, but I'm guessing human trafficking and sex slaves are just more ominous sounding words for the age old practice of pimp intimidation to extort their prostitutes. There may be extra leverage with the threat of turning people in for immigration violations and that assaulting / killing them may go unnoticed and unpunished.
Covington is a fine example of determining media bias by the anecdotal stories they choose to cover. This video had gone viral on its own supposedly, but that doesn't mean the media should cover it. Cat videos go viral and aren't on CNN. The job of the media would have been to discover the actual facts behind the video and then ignore it as not news.
.
If you wanted to make any identity group look bad, you need only troll through video evidence in criminal trials. On the one hand you have Covington, and on the other hand you have SF BART refusing to release videos of crimes to avoid stereotypes.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholding-surveillance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/
.
"In the last three months, there have been at least three robberies on BART involving groups of teenagers."
“To release these videos would create a high level of racially insensitive commentary toward the district,†she was told. “And in addition it would create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.â€
.
I'm not passing judgment here on what the standard should be, I'm noting that this standard is not equally applied.
MikeM
*That suggests that mens rea is required for an enhancement.*
Nothing in the law mens rea for a crime to be a crime– that's up to the legislature.
There is a tradition for mens rea to be required in many crimes, but there are strict liability crimes. For example: a person can be guilty of statutory rape even if they don't know the person they had sex with was less than 18 yo and so on.
MikeM,
I should add: whether their crimes can be enhanced depends on what the law in Florida says about these things. It likely doesn't have that as an "enhancement". But, it could affect whether the prosecutors are willing to plea things down. That's not technically an "enhancement". It's just not giving people a break.
I definitely don't think these johns should be given a break on charges or sentencing if it turns out the women were sex slaves.
Sorry for tripple post
*that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the allowable range specified by statute*
I'm not suggesting an enhancement "beyond allowable range speficied by statute". I'm suggesting that sometimes the *statute* specifies a higher sentence for particular circumstances.
(Also note: there is no constitutional principle requiring mens rea. So, yeah, the same constitutional principle applies vis. a vis enhanements and crimes in the first place: mens rea is NOT constitutionally guaranteed. )
Max,
Here are some other aspects we could talk about:
1) What do you think of the media rush to condemn these kids and the social media outcry against them?
2) Do you think the media failed to perform due diligence on Philips story?
3) I think it was racist of Philips to look at the situation and conclude that the kids in the red MAGA hats were the aggressors against the four black hebrew israelites. I think this is part of the racist downside inherent to identity politics. What do you think?
4) Do you think these kids are owed any sort of apology for their general treatment?
Max,
Here was Kathy Griffin's tweet regarding all this, we could look at that type of response:
>>>"Ps. The reply from the school was pathetic and impotent. Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these f***ers wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again.â€
.
What do you think of that, or doxxing in general? Personally, I think it's pretty sick. It reminds me of popular stories of Puritans hunting for witches when I run into stuff like this.
Maybe we could agree that Kathy's sort of behavior is reprehensible and unwarranted?
mark,
Even if Phillips thought the kids were the aggressors against the Hewbrew Isrealites, that only gives us Phillips motive for his aggressive moves toward the kids. That was supposedly his *reason* for marching straight toward the kids (an aggressive move) while drumming (increasing the aggression), then standing in someone's face and drumming. Since the standing person (Sandman) had already been in that spot, this behavior is clearly Phillips being the aggressor with Sandman not being an aggressor. Standing where you already were is not aggressive.
That Phillips felt he had a good reason to become an aggressor does not make him "not the aggressor" and it doesn't make the kids the aggressor. Phillips was an aggressor toward the kids *in his own version of the story*. It is merely the case that he somehow felt he was justified in being aggressive toward them.
Lucia, yeee-up.
Lucia,
I think the incident illustrates that we as a society give minorities largely carte blanche in certain ways. We do not hold the Hebrew Israelites to account with our social media outrage, even though they were clearly indulging in hate speech that would have been grounds for censure had it been uttered by the white kids. We do not hold Philips to account. It doesn't even appear to occur to us, by and large, to consider this. Instead, some progressives scrutinize the behavior of the covington teens and look for excuses.
(Some do not. Tom's remark voided my ability to generalize with good conscience.) There is something wrong with this.
OK_Max #173355,
Since you seem disappointed that I didn't comment specifically on Sandmann's statement that Phillips would not get "any further action of aggression". I think it was badly phrased, but the implication is that if Phillips was looking to provoke an aggressive reaction, Sandmann wasn't going to give him anything beyond a smile. And in fact, that *is* all that Phillips got, though it was quite enough to convict Sandmann in the court of public opinion when divorced of its true context and accompanied by the false claim that Sandmann got in Philips face (instead of the other way around). It's not merely a smile, but a hateful, arrogant smirk, turning up his mouth with satisfaction at seeing his prey squirm.
.
Pure mind-reading and IMO not very good mind-reading at that. Sandmann didn't *start* smiling when Phillips got in his face. At 5:24, Phillips is facing the teen to the right of Sandmann, and Sandmann has a big, happy, open mouthed grin like a number of the other boys in the video. At 5:27 Philips turns to his right to face Sandmann and the boy still has a big grin. At 5:30 Philips moves closer to Sandmann and the grin gets *smaller*. His face is obscured as Phillips puts the drum between the camera and his face, but when we see it again at 5:37 it's now a completely closed-face smile, no teeth showing — the famous "smirk" that was spread so widely. At 5:40 he widens it enough to show his teeth, but by 5:43 it's closed again, and that pattern repeats. At 5:50, the last view of Sandmann in that continuity, it barely looks like a smile at all. At *no point* did his smile, when Phillips was in his personal space, look like the big happy smile he had *before* Phillips started banging a drum in his face.
.
I'm not much of a mind-reader, but I've been to multiple boy scout camps and campouts as both a youth and an adult. I've seen boys rude, immature, and cruel. I've also seen boys laughing and joking and have fun. I've even seen then smirk. Sandmann at 5:24-5:27 is a boy having fun. Sandmann at 5:50 is not. I've *been* the elderly (compared to them) guy calling out a scout for misbehavior and seen them smirk in my face. Let me tell you what happens when they turn away, perhaps after a not-very-sincere apology or sometimes in smirking silence — the smirk widens into a real grin, because they don't really respect you and they think they got away with something. They "won" in their tiny little mind. (Full disclosure — I am not Fred McMurray in Follow Me Boys). This doesn't resemble *at all* Sandmann's behavior at the end of the incident.
.
There's a later continuous view of Sandmann's facial expressions starting at 6:41, with the drum in his face and now another native next to him ranting at a classmate. Not smiling anymore he turns to his classmate to try to shush him, while Phillips continues to stare at him and continues to bang the drum in his face. When he returns to face Phillips there's barely a hint of a smile, and when he moves away at 7:14 there's no smile at all. This is not what I've observed from a smirking little monster. However, someone gloating about winning after bad behavior is not lacking — the ranting native is heard saying "I got him man, I got him man" as if he'd accomplished some great thing and a few seconds later (as Phillips raised the drum above his head and sped up the drumbeat) is joyfully shouting "We won grampa. We f——g won grampa." If you're looking for the immature snot in a red hat who needs to learn manners, he's standing right there, not attending Covington Catholic.
.
In truth Max, you actually *haven't* been focussing on the Sandmann-Phillips face-off, you've just been focusing on Sandmann and ignoring Phillips behavior, instead placing Sandmann in some alternate universe where Phillips was just some elderly guy that wanted to walk where Sandmann was already standing. That dog won't hunt — we've already seen that when Sandmann got out of his way, Phillips *turned around*. And you continue to evade the real issue — the reason why the false narrative was embraced so fast and so hard.
Thomas Fuller,
“Social Democrat/Progessive Democrat / Pinko Communist / Whatevers who occasionally comment here, my opinion is:â€
.
Sure, but you have aleady sold your soul. Nobody among the woke is going to agree with you.
Reactions upon feeling threatened can be varied. One reaction is put an idiot fake grin on your face to pretend it's a fine joke in the hope that they'll just leave you alone.
.
Sitting in St Barnabus hospital in the Bronx many years ago, waiting for an eye exam, a huge hispanic guy sat down next to me. He decided that I might possibly be a pedophile and explained in a matter of fact voice what he would do to someone like that. I'm sure I had a fake ass smile plastered on my face at that moment because I sure as hell didn't know how else to respond.
Mark Bofil
I think the main reason the Hewbrew Isrealites did not get pummeled is timing. In this situation, Phillips and his friends clearly were aiming to create a video footage they could clip and present with "their" spin. They did that. Initial public reaction was based on that, along with Phillps account.
No one did that to the Hewbrew Isrealites. So their behavior only became known to the wider public after all the *scads* of other videos came out. (Including one that not only shows Phillips clearly marching directly toward the kids, passing by another path, but being followed by *scads* or his allies who are snapping photos. Had they been show in Phillips video he could never have spun it as one elder indian being surrounded by kids. He had tons of his allies all around his back. )
I think what it shows is that some people (Phillips) stand ready to stage things, record video, edit and release stories that are intentionally constructed to mislead and create a storyline of his choice. And it shows that some other people — including US Senators, celebrities and some news media are ready to swallow the story they are fed hook-line and sinker.
Lucia,
I think you're probably right about that. So maybe I have it wrong about carte blanche for minority offenses. Let me kick it around a bit.
Thanks.
Lucia, #173353
I agree that legalization wouldn't end sex slavery entirely, especially since illegal operators could provide "services" (e.g. underage sex) that legal operators could not. But I do think legalization would be accompanied by enough regulation that it would easier for them to continue hiding among the numerous spas instead of amongst the far fewer, more scrutinized legal brothels. On the demand side, I imagine that a significant chunk of the market would prefer willing prostitutes who are less likely to give them diseases, but this is speculation on my part. There's probably some relevant research out there somewhere that looks at the underground sex trade in places where it is legal, but I don't know it.
.
Even if there were no effect I would still support legalization on libertarian principles. I see reduction of the slave trade as a possible beneficial side effect rather than a justification; the justification is that consenting adults should be able to do what they want without government interference, even if the behavior is harmful to themselves and/or society. In terms of reducing the slave trade, it's quite possible that pumping more money into border security and immigration enforcement would do more good than legalization would (though they aren't mutually exclusive actions).
Dale S,
I have no idea what a significant chunk of Johns would like. But I do know there is a preference for younger and also a preference for physically attractive. I sure hope there is a preference for no-disease, but without certification, I don't know how the customer could distinguish between a prostitute with VD from one without.
I also haven't looked into studies o the sex trade.
I support legalization on libertarian principles. Those same principles say slavery is reallly, really, really bad.
As for border security: if I remember correctly, in this particular incident, evidently, the women were generally Chinese. But yes, better border enforcement might go further in diminishing slave trade than other steps.
Oh– I should add: holding the John's accountable for the *most severe* possible consequences under the law in the event that the sex workers were sex slaves would also help. The demand side matters. I'd bet dollars to donuts most the customers can read, are somewhat aware of what goes on in the world and so on.
Not treating their use of sex workers who turn out to be slaves as a minor offense would spread the news that at least they better be cautious about this.
Lucia,
Good point, though I wonder what form the caution would take. I have no idea how distinguishable (to the customer) unwilling workers are from willing ones. If they aren't easily distinguishable, I don't think the problem can be easily attacked on the demand side.
.
But maybe they are distinguishable. Kraft apparently wasn't the only billionare caught up in the sting, and I wouldn't think sub-$100 charges for girls with "minimal hygiene" would draw someone with that sort of resources and so much to lose — unless the "unwilling" part was part of the attraction.
mark bofill (Comment #173356)
February 24th, 2019 at 12:46 pm
Max,
what do you think Sandmann meant by "further"?
.
Why would I care what Sandmann meant by "further"?
______
mark, while you might not care what Sandman meant by "further" a jury in his defamation suit against the WoPo might care.
I can see a WoPo attorney quoting Sandmann saying his smile was the best Phillips was going to get out of him, and Phillips wouldn't get any further action of aggression from him. The attorney would then point out that a "further action of aggression" would have to mean in addition to a previous action of aggression by Sandmann.
There's no denying Sandmann said the following when Guthrie in reference to his smirking at Phillips she asked him“ What do you think that looks like?
Sandmann: “I see it as a smile saying that this is the best you are going to get out of me. You won’t get any further action of aggression and I’m willing to stand here as long as long as you want to hit this drum in my face."
Sandmann probably shouldn't have agreed to the interview. He may have undermined his lawsuit against the WoPo, part of which says:
"Nicholas stood quietly and respectfully for several minutes after being targeted and bullied by Phillips and Nicholas’body language remained non-aggressive and passive throughout the incident."
The interview could also be damaging to his lawsuit for another reason, something about making himself a temporary public figure.
Max,
Maybe. I don't know a darn thing about defamation law.
Dale S
* If they aren't easily distinguishable, I don't think the problem can be easily attacked on the demand side.*
I do. If people on the demand side know they risk being tossed in jail if they make a mistake, they will tend to be more cautious. That will mean sometimes they will avoid *both* willing and unwilling. But… so? It still solves the problem.
The only way to not see that this attacks the problem from the demand side is to view the "right" to pay someone willing as paramount. It's not. I have no problem if someone does hire someone willing. But I don't see any reason to indemnify those who hire the willing from their errors when they make mistakes. They make a mistake, nail them. We do that for statutory rape; I see no reason why we can't do it for prostitution.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure Johns would pretty quickly be able to figure out that newly 'immigrant' Chinese women who speak no English and work in a facility who are willing to give blow jobs or similar for pay are fairly likely to be sex slaves. After all, the US doesn't exactly hand out green cards for anything and everything. Plus, women really aren't all that likely to travel from China to the US just to have the opportunity to engage in prostitution in the US. It almost takes a willing suspension of disbelief for the Johns to NOT know these women are likely sex slaves.
So the argument that the Johns somehow just don't know…. Yeah… maybe. (Raise my eyebrow….)
*unless the "unwilling" part was part of the attraction.*
Bingo. Woman speaks no English. Came from china. Smart educated man can't guess what up? Sorry, I don't entirely believe it.
Honestly only those who *don't* get sexual favors could possibly not recognize something is wrong here. After all, someone MIGHT travel here for a job that does not involve prostitution. But otherwise… sorry, but huh? Not dang likely.
Re Dale S (Comment #173372)
February 24th, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Dale, that was a very "meaty" post. Lot's for me to look at and consider. There are so many videos out there, I'm not sure which one you were viewing. Will you give me a link?
OK_Max,
I've read several law blogs and the defamation case is weak. That's entirely separate from whether Sandman or the Convington kids or even WAPO is in the wrong. It has to do with our defamation laws and the standards for reporting that are required for a news agency to avoid defamation.
News agencies like WAPO just aren't held to high legal standards for prudence or care. Sometimes sad but true… but in other cases, it's good they aren't. It's our system.
The defense is not going to have much of anything to do with intepreting the smile and so on and so on…. Nothing Sandman did undermined the suit. It probably couldn't fly in the first place, period. This has to do with our laws. In the US (as opposed to UK or other Anglo-sphere nations) has a very high hurdle for something to be defamation.
*The interview could also be damaging to his lawsuit for another reason, something about making himself a temporary public figure.*
Uhmmm.. No. For the "public figure" thing to be relevant, Sandman has to be a public figure BEFORE the event. Sandman was definitely not a public figure BEFORE Phillips walked up, got in his face and drummed away.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #173358)
February 24th, 2019 at 12:53 pm
I read more about the massage parlors in Florida and found that the initial price for a massage while minimal the extras could be much more expensive. Still a 77 year old billionaire using a massage parlor for sex seems strange to me, but maybe I cannot appreciate the potential strangeness of a 77 year old billionaire.
___________
I told my wife I couldn't understand how anyone that wealthy would go to a strip-mall massage parlor when he could easily afford a $1,000 a night call girl. My wife said probably for the same reasons wealthy people go to Seven/Elevens. I suspect there's more to it than that.
DaveJR (Comment #173374)
February 24th, 2019 at 4:44 pm
Reactions upon feeling threatened can be varied. One reaction is put an idiot fake grin on your face to pretend it's a fine joke in the hope that they'll just leave you alone.
_____
Yes, sometimes a smile or nervous laugh can indicate fear or embarrassment.
lucia (Comment #173386)
For the "public figure" thing to be relevant, Sandman has to be a public figure BEFORE the event. Sandman was definitely not a public figure BEFORE Phillips walked up, got in his face and drummed away.
_____
Sounds reasonable.Thanks.
mark bofill (Comment #173366)
February 24th, 2019 at 2:29 pm
Max,
Here are some other aspects we could talk about:
1) What do you think of the media rush to condemn these kids and the social media outcry against them?
2) Do you think the media failed to perform due diligence on Philips story?
3) I think it was racist of Philips to look at the situation and conclude that the kids in the red MAGA hats were the aggressors against the four black hebrew israelites. I think this is part of the racist downside inherent to identity politics. What do you think?
4) Do you think these kids are owed any sort of apology for their general treatment?
_____
mark, sorry for late reply. Got distracted.
1. Premature
2. Due diligence and fresh news not friends
3. Four not threat to 150, but maybe 150 threat to 4
4. No, they had fun, now have memorable experience
Kathy Griffen is over the top
Doxxing is creepy
Eight Mississippi players kneeled during the national anthem in response to a Confederacy rally near the arena before …
mark, about the Eight Mississippi players thing. I was going to ask what you thought about it, but forgot, then didn't do the edit right. Answer or ignore, whatever you like.
Max says "4. No, they had fun, now have memorable experience"
How can you possibly say this? They were vilified in the MSM and actively bullyied on line by people that should know better. Their school was closed and there were threats against them. Sounds like fun to me…
All because you see a kid with a wavering smile as a smirk. I have a unique viewpoint on this. I went to a "privileged catholic school" and interacted with those smug bastards on a daily basis. I wasn't catholic, as a matter of fact I was fundamentalist Christian and it was a scandal when I transferred to that high school. Those "smug bastards" are the same kids that go to any high school. This isn't a fricken east coast prep school.
My best friend in that high school had that same look when he was stressed. As the designated "large guy" in my group I had to deal with the repercussions when Brett did his "stressed face". At a concert at Alpine Valley he supposedly looked at a girl too long,when confronted by the boyfriend he pulled out his "I don't want no trouble face" and it escaleted from there.He was actively trying NOT to start an issue but his facial clues said something else. He wouldn't have fought an eighth grader as a senior.
So, your experience of everyone white (or MAGA hat wearing) is a racist and my experience of stuff happens and sometimes you just deal with it are at opposites. One thing you can't refute is that one side (BI or NA) were adults and the other were kids, teenagers. Who should be more responsible there?
From a prostitution angle we should be able to glean plenty of statistics off the European countries that have legalized it for decades. I can't imagine their Johns are all that different than ours.BTW, The most beautiful woman that has ever spoken to me directly was a prostitute on the Kurdamm in Berlin that realized I was entertaining clients and had a pocket full of cash. And yet she wasn't very attractive.
I don't understand the Johns angle in this so I've never been interested in buying an experience with a woman. I think you all might be misjudging Kraft for wanting an experience with someone unwilling for just slumming hard. When you're a billionaire you can have anything, perhaps you sexually prefer a rougher slum kexperience. We all have things that turn us on that aren't rational.
Oh yeah I forgot this point. Max is saying Sandmann is trying to be the BMOC by standing up to the Indian guy. Everyone, and I mean everyone in that school knows Sandmann isn't a hardass looking to burnish his rep. Did you actually go to high school here?
Jerry,
If I recall correctly, OK_Max is from Australia and did not go to high school here. But I think he'll be able to clarify. (I know Angech is Australia, so maybe I'm mistaken. Possibly OK = Oklahoma and I'm totally off.)
Jerry,
I'm not going to pretend this is a thorough search. Here's a 2014 post about a published article:
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
According to it, legalized prostitution increases human trafficking especially in higher income democratic countries.
OK_Max,
The video I was referencing was the Truth in 15 Minutes. In post #173293 you said you had watched it and paid particular attention to 5:24 to 5:34, so you should have already seen the things I referenced.
Lucia,
Thanks for the reference you found for Jerry. I tracked down a non-paywalled copy of the article here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453
It not only concludes the scale effect outweighs the substitution effect, the two other papers it references on the same subject conclude positive and neutral effects — if there's a paper out there that claims to show a negative effect on trafficking from legalization, there's no hint of it here. The generalized model in the paper steers away from scale rather than direction, on account of low faith in the quality of the underlying data. On a 0-5 scale of traffic flows (5 highest, 0 none reported), the likelihood of being in the category if prostitution is legal changed as follows:
.
5: +1.2%
4: +12.8%
3: +8.6%
2: -8.6%
1: -10%
0: -5.3%
.
While the paper is a world-wide analysis, the effect is only statistically significant when poor countries are excluded (apparently no one needs to human traffic into poor countries), and the effect is strongest in rich countries/democracies.
.
But what's the scale of the effect? The case study used Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Sweden and Denmark essentially switched systems in 1999, with Sweden criminalizing previously legal non-brothel prostitution, and Denmark legalizing previously criminal non-brothel prostitution. In Sweden, from 1999-2003 the estimated number of prostitutes shrunk from 2500 to 1500, while in Denmark in 2004 the number of prostitutes is estimated at about 6000. Sweden has 40% more people, so it's not clear to me why Denmark's legalization would have produced more than *twice* as many prostitutes as Sweden had legally — there's no before numbers to see how much it expanded. The human trafficking estimates for the two countries for 2004 are 2250 in Denmark compared to 500 in Sweden–if accurate, that's 37.5% of Denmark's (legal!) prostitutes and 33% of Sweden's illegal prostitutes. This suggests that Sweden's criminalization of prostitution may have caused over 300 trafficked prostitutes to be freed or moved to another country.
.
In Germany non-brothel prostitution was legal before 2002, but liberalized to make prostitution just another job. The prostitute estimate is 150,000 with a trafficked victim estimate of 32,800 — smaller in percentage terms than either Nordic neighbor, but a *far* larger per-capita victim count than Sweden.
.
I do wonder how the estimates are generated and how accurate they actually are, but unless they're complete garbage it seems clear that legalized prostitution *by itself* does nothing to reduce human trafficking.
Not meaning to distract from the interesting discussion threads, but I happened on this in my browser history:
https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/jussie-smollett-angered-devastated-1203141884/
Statement from Jussie Smollett's lawyers, Feb.16:
“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with. He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.
One of these purported suspects was Jussie’s personal trainer who he hired to ready him physically for a music video. It is impossible to believe that this person could have played a role in the crime against Jussie or would falsely claim Jussie’s complicity…."
A question for those with legal background — are there any repercussions for lawyers who so brazenly lie on behalf of their clients? Or ethical guidelines from the ABA which suggests this is wrong? This seems to be common enough that it is not considered objectionable behavior in the profession, and perhaps even expected and responsible.
Max,
.
I've lived in the South almost my entire life. I've never heard of such a thing as a 'pro confederacy rally' before. I had to google it.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/02/23/pro-confederate-rally-confederate-monuments-closure/2963871002/
It turns out what this really means is about 100 people protested against another group that wants confederate monuments removed.
.
I have no personal investment in confederate monuments, I'm a second generation immigrant. To me the whole issue seems to be a lot of noise on both sides. For instance, I have been to the laser show at Stone Mountain GA many times in the past. Anecdotally I can report seeing at least as many African Americans in attendance there as white Americans on several occasions. I don't think most people give a hoot one way or the other.
.
I think a minority of activist progressives who argue that America is a deeply racist country go looking for evidence to support their views as well as elements in our society to crusade against. I think a minority of Southerners care deeply about their monuments, for whatever reason.
.
I will say this. If the South can't have monuments because of their evil past, I fail to see why anybody can have monuments anywhere at all. Everybody has an evil past, one way or another, if you look hard enough.
.
But I don't think it's the hill I'd choose to die on; I think there are more important issues than this to deal with.
I guess I can these two items which are unrelated to each other:
1. There's a state law in Alabama forbidding the removal of Confederate statues that's been found in violation of free speech. I agree with this – if local communities decide they don't want their monuments, let them get rid of their monuments.
2. I believe getting worked up over monuments might be another example of our victim culture. I pretty much have to go out of my way to find a confederate statue in the first place, it's not like they are on every street corner. I find some modern art forms (plays and such) offensive and as a result I don't go seek them out instead of trying to get them banned. I wish progressive activists would extend the same courtesy back.
Max,
Oh sorry, the last part of the controversy, the kneeling thing. Don't care at all. Not a sports fan. If players want to kneel, that makes no never mind to me. It's not like I'd be watching if they *weren't* kneeling.
HaroldW in my layperson's view I suspect that statements by lawyers pretrial are viewed differently than if stated in a trial. The link below might help:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=ndjlepp
"As Justice White asserted in United States v. Wade, "[W]e countenance or require conduct [by a criminal defense lawyer] which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth."
There are, of course, gag orders which from First Amendment rights can be only be applied according to the Supreme Court "were only constitutional when justified by a compelling interest and when no less speech-restrictive alternatives were available to protect fair trials".
In my opinion I think that the lawyers in this case might be setting up a plea of some kind of impairment for their client whereby he really thinks in his mind that he is innocent and thus has lost touch with reality.
Kenneth,
"I think that the lawyers in this case might be setting up a plea of some kind of impairment for their client whereby he really thinks in his mind that he is innocent and thus has lost touch with reality."
.
So he's not a stupid criminal, just crazy?
.
Nah… mostly crazy stupid and dishonest, not really crazy. He won't get off saying that, unless a Chicago jury can't agree on a verdict. (Which I fear is a very real possibility, no matter the evidence against him.)
The progressive identity activists are victims of their own success, similar to what happened to environmentalists. We can add that to their official victim points I suppose. Once they did the good work of getting rid of most overt racism, then they had an effective movement with no obvious targets.
.
What seems to happen with these movements is that they never just declare success, pack their bags, and go home. They just point their efforts at the next biggest issue as they perceive it. Confederate statues are not Jim Crow. You got affirmative action, then now its reparations. The noise level and umbrage start to become very disproportionate to the events. If you run out of overt racists, then everyone is a secret racist whether they know it or not. The targets of this omnipotent vision unsurprisingly get resentful.
.
The more successful they are, the crazier it gets. That guy with a red hat has a smirk on his face, we all KNOW what that means. He is for racism, and we are not. All good hearted people should condemn him, and if you don't condemn him, then you are a silent racist, the worst kind of all.
.
Once this fantastical logic takes hold of those who are a bit more impressionable than most, you get heroes like this:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/us/conservative-activist-assault-uc-berkeley/index.html
.
At least CNN is now using the term "alleged victim" and "alleged attack", ha ha. He could have paid that guy to punch him. In fact if I was the guy who punched him, that is exactly what I would claim when caught.
.
There is no obvious reason to think political violence for attention is a one way street. The coin of the victimhood realm has value in more than one place. He's no longer a nobody. You have to be brave and stupid to be a conservative activist at ground zero for Antifa. You shouldn't get legally punched, but you are asking for it.
mark bofill (Comment #173401): "I believe getting worked up over monuments might be another example of our victim culture."
Yes, that is part of it, but there is more than that. There is another related factor, which is the competition to be woker-than-thou. But also, there is the intolerant mindset of so many progressives.
The monuments were an important part of reconciliation between North and South. By allowing the South to honor their heroes, the nation admitted that their losses also mattered and southerners were co-citizens with northerners, rather than subjects of an occupation. But progressives don't believe in forgiveness and reconciliation. They think that the evil slaveholders, once vanquished, should have been ground into the dust. As they will do to the likes of you and I if they are victorious.
.
mark bofill: "I find some modern art forms (plays and such) offensive and as a result I don't go seek them out instead of trying to get them banned. I wish progressive activists would extend the same courtesy back."
That is because when you find something offensive, it is due to your deplorable taste; but when progressives find something offensive, it is because it is evil.
HaroldW,
The attorney probably wasn't lying. He repeated what Smollett has told him– omitting anything that he thought would sound bad.
I read what Kenneth posted– that's more or less what I'd assumed about what lawyers are allowed to do outside of court. I pretty much tend to assume the lawyers are mouth-pieces and their statements are to sway the public. There is no reason to think they speak truth, either because sometimes they don't know it and even if they do, they aren't required to not lie.
That said, I suspect the attorneys do avoid knowingly making outright false statements. Many would be uncomfortable doing so. Even those who'd be willing to make outright false statements would ultimately be caught and their utility in the 'pr' aspects of the case would subsequently be near zero. But clients can lie and the attorney can certainly just decide that for the purpose of public statements he will believe the client.
Mike,
>>They think that the evil slaveholders, once vanquished, should have been ground into the dust. As they will do to the likes of you and I if they are victorious.
and
>>That is because when you find something offensive, it is due to your deplorable taste; but when progressives find something offensive, it is because it is evil.
.
I used to argue that we humans are basically like any other primates. (It turned out I tended to get carried away with that idea and take it too far in error, so I quit using it, but:) In this case, I think we are. We're tribal chimps, and by default we are more than happy to rip apart chimps from other groups.
.
The sword cuts both ways. IMO, it's not progressives per se, it's tribalism. At this point in time, perhaps due to several factors, progressives have embraced divisive ideologies to a greater extent than other times in history. Identity politics aggravates the problem. A postmodern / poststructural view of the world seriously doesn't help and makes the problem worse in many different ways. Some stuff can't be laid at the feet of progressives, technology for example and our increased connectedness via the net has made the world a much smaller place.
.
Talking with OK_Max and Tom Fuller and any/every other more or less reasonable lefty is what I use to try to help stave off my primate tendency to try to rip apart others not of my tribe. Notice how poor a job I do; I show irritation, impatience and intolerance to Max all the time. The fact is that the positions he takes irritate the snot out of me sometimes. There seems to me to be irony in there that of all people for the extremist who won't do this to belong to, they belong to the left — who I'd have thought would be the very *last* people to embrace hatred of the alien.
.
Anyways. I agree that as it happens the outbreak of rabies right now is on the extreme left. Just don't go thinking rabies can't break out on the right just as easily, I guess.
Nathan Phillips gave multiple versions of what happened with Sandmann. He also lied about being a Vietnam veteran. I think he's used to telling a narrative and having it believed.
I find it curious that the only two names that have been revealed from the prostitution case in Florida are prominent Trump supporters.
Kenneth Fritsch (#173403),
Many thanks for the article which you linked.
From that article: "Lawyers can either be trusted or they cannot. The regrettable fact is that lawyers, on the whole, can not be trusted. The reason is not merely that some lawyers sometimes do not tell the truth. The problem is far more systematic and pervasive. The reason lawyers cannot be trusted is that, on the questions that ultimately matter, most lawyers do not even purport to present the objective truth."
I accept that lawyers present only one side, and I'm OK with statements such as "We believe our client is innocent of these charges and will be exonerated." But I think they went too far by saying that anyone who claims that Jussie played a role in his own attack is lying.
Trump's comments after Charlottesville have been misrepresented. 'Fine people' was actually referring to the counterprotestors alongside antifa.
https://youtu.be/JmaZR8E12bs?t=111
https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Greenwich-man-charged-in-Florida-prostitution-13639992.php
This says 25 men were charged.
* Kraft, Weiss and 23 other men, ranging in age from 29 to 84, will face charges of soliciting prostitutes at the spa, according to Jupiter Police Chief Daniel Kerr in a news conference Friday, according to the Palm Beach Post.*
I think names are released when charges are filed. It may just be the other 23 aren't news worth names.
Oh..
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190222/robert-kraft-patriots-owner-among-those-charged-with-soliciting-prostitutes-as-part-of-alleged-human-trafficking-ring
*The medium age of those arrested was 62.*
and
*Law-enforcement officers in Martin County are pursuing similar solicitation charges against about 100 more men who allegedly paid women, some of whom were being trafficked, for sex acts at four day spas between Hobe Sound and Stuart. Authorities in Martin County arrested nine more men Thursday, for a three-day total of 35.*
So….perhaps 100 men will be charged.
Oh… at least 24 men have been named
*As of Friday, neither Kraft nor the 24 other men named in the bust*
*
Charged along with Kraft by Jupiter police on Friday were: Jeffrey W. Babin, 64, of Jupiter and Cleveland; Mark C. Bope, 64, of Pittsburgh; Roger E. Buglione, 74, of Jupiter and Hawthorne, N.Y.; Joseph M. Daniels, 36, Ventnor City, N.J.; John N. Deora, 57, Poplar Grove, IL; Guy K. Eagan, 67, Jupiter and Red Bank, N.J.; Craig P. Firing, 64, Jupiter; Timothy R. Goering, 52, Jupiter; John P. Havens, 62, Locust Valley, N.Y.; James A. Jacobsen, 63, Jupiter; John S. Johnson, 59, Stuart; Mingfu Lu, 29, no address available; Justo M. Naranjo, 51, West Palm Beach; Richard J. Palmer, 49, Jupiter; James G. Porter, 63, Roselle, Ill.; Rolf B. Resdal, 69, no hometown available; Rudy Robaina, 38, Jupiter; Martin J. Segal, 37, Chatham, NJ; Frank J. Velie, 79, Jupiter; John A. Verrier, 72, Westfield, NJ; John O. Voirol, 54, Palm Beach Gardens; Alan Weinberger, 58, Jupiter; Jonathan S. Weiss, 33, Greenwich, CT; and Daniel R. Young, 84, Jupiter.
Arrests announced in Martin County on Friday were for Christopher J. Bergeman, 44, Stuart; Daniel F. Cash, 60, Stuart; John A. Del Prete, 29, Palm City; Paul J. Frahm, 49, Stuart; Norman Jean, 56, Palm City; John P. Mahon, 61, Palm Beach Gardens; Henry S. Peters, 75, Stuart; Cory G. Tintorri, 24, Stuart; and Douglas Watler, 58, Stuart.*
quoted from
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190222/robert-kraft-patriots-owner-among-those-charged-with-soliciting-prostitutes-as-part-of-alleged-human-trafficking-ring
MikeN: "I find it curious that the only two names that have been revealed from the prostitution case in Florida are prominent Trump supporters."
Actually, they've released a list containing many johns' names. But so far the only notable ones are the two billionaires. I don't think their political leanings are the source of the focus on them.
mark bofill (Comment #173408): "I agree that as it happens the outbreak of rabies right now is on the extreme left. Just don't go thinking rabies can't break out on the right just as easily, I guess."
I think it is already there in places on the extreme right. Ever read anything by Ann Coulter? I try to avoid it.
But it is much more mainstream on the left than on the right. I think most conservatives have several sources of at least partial immunity. One is that we tend to think of our tribe (or at least one of our tribes) as America; the left has largely rejected that. Another is that we tend to value our political traditions, including tolerance and free speech; the left mostly rejects that. And finally, there is good old christian charity, also largely rejected by the left.
But all that could (will?) change if conservatives and Christians get pushed against the wall and decide that what is at stake is survival.
Thanks for the list. I read elsewhere that there were more than 200 names, including more prominent ones, yet to be charged. We will see.
I don't think the currently running Democrats are the likely candidates. The attacks on so many of them suggests a campaign by an unannounced candidate looking to jump in later. Hillary running again could push that type of coverage by reporters. Not sure if Biden could. Michelle Obama maybe.
lucia (Comment #173413) cited:
https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Greenwich-man-charged-in-Florida-prostitution-13639992.php
From the article: "A six-month investigation led police to issue hundreds of arrest warrants in recent days, according to the Associated Press. Ten spas have been closed and several people have been taken into custody on sex trafficking charges."
That suggests that a major objective of the investigation was tto charge a large number of johns. That might or might not be appropriate with a run of the mill whorehouse. But if trafficking was involved, I think they should have shut it down as quickly as possible. So there seems to be an issue of priorities.
MikeM.
I'm not sure it suggests that. The behavior is equally consistent with major objective being to collect a bullet proof case about trafficking and roping in as many involved in trafficking as possible. Monitoring all the spas, and seeing all the honchos and underlings, and getting strong evidence the women were not allowed to leave would be important evidence for that.
I think it's important to shut down the enterprises which they now have.
But it's also important to nail the perpetrators and to have strong evidence it really was sex slavery and to nail the slavers. In the long run, I actually thing nailing the sex slavers is the *more* important aspect as, if not stopped, they will just move, set up elsewhere and enslave more women. Also, others who are considering the business would know the police will always act in a way that lets them get away.
Since I'm actually *for* nailing jonhs who turn out to have hired sex slaves — even unknowingly– it doesn't really bother me that the efforts to maximize the number of sex-slavers also caused them to nail these particular johns. I think penalizing the johns will tend to make them be more cautious about looking for signs that things might be sex slavery.
Yes, the delay is defensible if it enabled them to uproot the network and not just pluck the mushrooms. Then it is fine if they rounded up the johns as a collateral benefit.
I agree that the top priority needed to be busting the trafficking ring rather than immediate rescue of the known victims. But it's a harsh thing. From the local news, I read that it was an 8 month investigation following a July 2018 tip, and that the [trafficked] victims average eight clients per day. And they uncovered about 100 Johns (all numbers from Sheriff William Snyder. Math isn't Snyder's strong suit (he translated 8 clients per day to 1500 men per year with no days off, about half the true figure). But with 8 clients per day even *one* victim would have close to 2000 encounters; even with repeat customers (twice for Kraft) only identifying 100 *total* Johns from the entire operations strike me as getting only a tiny segment of them, assuming there's more than a tiny handful of trafficked victims. Heck, it seems like a small percentage if there was only one. Hopefully Snyder's well off in more than his math.
Dale S,
It certainly is very harsh thing to allow trafficking to continue for a while in order to really nail the perpetrators and then root it out.
Perhaps they'll ID and charge more John's over time. But yes, that sounds like a small number of John's. My guess is the John's aren't the priority, it's the slavers. Getting slavers and wiping out the operation *should* be the priority.
Maybe quite a few of the Johns were smart enough to pay cash, don't have their photos "out there" to be easily recogizable to the police and so on. If so, it might take a while to ID them– especially if the priority for the force is the bigger fish– the slavers.
From what I heard on the news today the way the cops would identify a John was once they had a sex act on tape they'd track him to his car and then a regular street cop would pull them over for a minor traffic stop to get their ID info.
I imagine that most of the johns arrested are from the video surveillance inside the "spa", taken between January 18-22. Although the investigation was many months long, I think they only focused on those where they have incontrovertible (and apparently rather graphic) evidence.
As of 3 or 4 days ago, before the raids and arrests in my area, and south toward Palm Beach, there had already been some 83 arrests of customers from establishments well north of me: from St Lucie county to Orlando. All the recent arrests and warrants are in addition to those earlier arrests. I do expect the final total of arrests to pass 200. How many will be felony charges (multiple offenses) and how many misdemeanors (single offense) is difficult to guess.
.
But while human trafficking in this area will be greatly reduced (at least for a while), I doubt the world’s oldest profession is going to disappear for long; it just won’t take place in day-spas. So long as prostitution is illegal, it is going to attract organizations run by people willing to break laws for a profit.
Well… expect a big PR offensive next. Kraft has lots of money. He may be willing to spend it on legals mouthpieces. We may hear theories casting shade on cops. And so on.
SteveF,
Nope. Prostitution isn't going to go away. I'll still be glad if they nail anyone who is a slaver.
Dale S (Comment #173397)
OK_Max,
The video I was referencing was the Truth in 15 Minutes. In post #173293 you said you had watched it and paid particular attention to 5:24 to 5:34, so you should have already seen the things I referenced
___________
Dale, yes I did watch that video ( see link ), but didn’t immediately recognize it as the one you meant. I have watched it again with your points in mind, and I would agree that Nick Sandmann , the Covington teen, is not smirking all the time. Sometimes he is laughing, other times neither smirking or laughing. When eye to eye to with the elderly Native American, Nathan Philips, however, the teen is smirking. Perhaps there would be no controversy if at that time his expression had been different, say a surprised or puzzled look, but we will never know.
What happened that day on the Mall was theatre, and It’s possible the Native American demonstrators felt upstaged by the confrontation between the Covington students and the Hebrew Israelites, and wanted to put themselves in the middle to steal the show or at least have an important roll. Nevertheless, Phillips had a right to walk where he wished, and except for Sandmann, the students just got out of his way.
I have walked through crowds before and never once encountered anyone trying to face me off. Had I stood out in some way (looked different) perhaps someone in a crowd would have challenged me. I doubt Sandmann got into a stare-off with any classmates who invaded his “personal space†that day. The teen seems to regard his standing ground and smirking at the drum-beating Phillips as an act of aggression. Again I will quote what he said in his interview with Guthrie when she asked“ What do you think that looks like?â€
Sandmann: “I see it as a smile saying that this is the best you are going to get out of me. You won’t get any further action of aggression and I’m willing to stand here as long as long as you want to hit this drum in my face.â€
Let us be thankful that neither Sandman and his Covington classmates or Phillips and the Native Americans were violent or broke any law. There were good people on both sides. Even the hate-spewing Hebrew Israelites broke no laws.
In the future, however, I hope the Covington chaperones will avoid placing students in situations that have potential for harm. The safety of the kids should come first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s
lucia (Comment #173395)
February 25th, 2019 at 6:46 am
Jerry,
If I recall correctly, OK_Max is from Australia and did not go to high school here. But I think he'll be able to clarify. (I know Angech is Australia, so maybe I'm mistaken. Possibly OK = Oklahoma and I'm totally off.)
_____
Oklahoma public schools
mark bofill (Comment #173408)
"Talking with OK_Max and Tom Fuller and any/every other more or less reasonable lefty is what I use to try to help stave off my primate tendency to try to rip apart others not of my tribe. Notice how poor a job I do; I show irritation, impatience and intolerance to Max all the time. The fact is that the positions he takes irritate the snot out of me sometimes."
_______
mark, here's a couple of things we sort of agree on.
Athletes kneeling during the National Anthem. You don't watch sports and you don't care. I watch sports and I don't care.
Removal of Confederate Monuments. You have no personal investment in confederate monuments, you are a second generation immigrant. While several of my ancestors were Confederate soldiers, I don't feel a personal investment in the monuments, but I am for historical preservation.
If the monuments are in locations where they offend (i.e, a courthouse law), don't destroy them, just move them to a special place for Confederate monuments.
Re lucia (Comment #173414)
I was surprised so many of those arrested for soliciting prostitutes were older men, even though it was in Florida where there are lots of retirees. Of the 34 on the list lucia posted, 20 were above age 50, and 13 of those were above age 60.
Some like Robert Kraft probably were widowers. I don't know what elderly men without wives are supposed to do. Striking up new relationships may not be so easy, and after losing one spouse, some older men may not want to go through the heartbreak of losing another one. This isn't saying single elderly women don't face the same problem. The human trafficking issue, notwithstanding, I'm for giving the elderly a break.
OK Max,
I’m 68. I don’t expect special treatment under the law.
.
There are lots more single women over 65 in FL than men over 65. My impression from talking to men over 65 who do not have wives is that few are interested in investing much time in a new long term relationship. That’s anecdotal, but is based on observation.
OK_Max,
I have no idea what the demongraphics of Johns are. I was neither surprised nor unsurprised by the ages. I did figure "florida". Most charged with prostitution are aged in the "near retired-just retired" bracket.
*I don't know what elderly men without wives are supposed to do. *
Presumably the same thing 18 year olds without wives are supposed to do. Most people don't think that thing is hire a woman to give you a rather impersonal blow job. (One of Kraft's recorded ones clearly took less than 14 minutes from the time he entered the room to leaving. So clearly, this was not anything other than being serviced. It was not some sort of short term personal "relationship".)
By the way: I don't consider 62 elderly. But even if I did, unless they are actually suffering from dementia, I don't think the elderly deserve breaks relative to any other adult. If they really have dementia, they generally need care ad can no longer live alone (as with my father and mother-in-law).
But if I did think we should give the elderly a break, I don't think 62 years old should be considered old enough to be given a break on that basis.
As for difficulty making social contacts: According to press reports, Kraft has a younger girlfriend. Also, I'm under the impression he is constantly surrounded by all sorts of people when at football games. I really don't think this guy has trouble meeting people. So giving *him* a breaks on the grounds that "it's hard for old people to make friends* is utterly absurd.
For what it's worth: My dad had no problems whatsoever making friends when he was 70. He went to minor league ballgames with one or two ladies, socialized at the pool and so on. He wasn't looking to get married, but until he got Alzheimer's he was very social.
HaroldW (Comment #173425): "I imagine that most of the johns arrested are from the video surveillance inside the spa"
Surely, the police are not allowed to do that? I had assumed that any video was taken by the criminals and seized by the police.
lucia (Comment #173423): "It certainly is very harsh thing to allow trafficking to continue for a while in order to really nail the perpetrators and then root it out. … Getting slavers and wiping out the operation *should* be the priority."
That is far from obvious.
There is a serial rapist on the loose. If police warn people, they can protect themselves but it might scare off the rapist. If they don't warn people, there might be a few more rapes, but they are sure to catch the guy. It is not at all obvious to me that they should chose the latter.
Should the police allow known criminals to continue to engage in crimes because the criminals are useful as informants? If so, what severity of crime should be allowed? Fraud? Murder?
How about the government being actively involved in gun running?
Mike M.,
There's a big difference though: A serial rapist is an individual, not an organized entity. The slave traffickers are an organized entity.
*allow known criminals to continue to engage in crimes because the criminals are useful as informants*
The issue isn't the criminals possibly being useful as *informants*. It's collecting enough information to convict. No one is suggesting a person gets to continue being a slaver because they informed.
Police do routinely have undercover work in things like drugs. They do witness drug operations, sales and so on without making immediate arrests. Some people buy the drugs bought in sting operations that did not result in arrests. Some of those people might have overdoses and so on. If the police had halted that *individual* transation, a particular individual wouldn't have been harmed. Drug dealers who are not arrested are often in gangs and, because they are not arrested, might go out and kill someone (possibly a 2 year old in a drive by shooting. Had they bee arrested instantly, that would not have happened.)
We can come up with all sorts of examples. But the fact is: police routinely continue investigations to get sufficient evidence in all sorts of situations. That's *their* priority and it's necessary to be able to arrest and jail people. The arrest and jailing is required to end the operation.
None of this amounts to giving a criminal a license to continue crime to *inform*. That doesn't seem to be what the cops did here and it's not what they generally do. People who testify against higher ups are sometimes given immunity for past crimes — but not ongoing or future ones. But even that has nothing to do with an undercover sting lasting as long as necessary to sting the culprits.
Thanks Max,
>>If the monuments are in locations where they offend (i.e, a courthouse law), don't destroy them, just move them to a special place for Confederate monuments.
.
I'd leave it up to local communities. If the carvings on Stone Mountain offend people out in Portland Oregon, I don't see what business it is of the Portlanders. They can vote with their dollars and not visit, IMO.
Mike M. : "Surely, the police are not allowed to do that? I had assumed that any video was taken by the criminals and seized by the police."
After talking to various men who left the spa and admitted sexual encounters, the police obtained a warrant for video surveillance. [Apparently this is known as "sneak and peek". I'm learning all sorts of lingo.] Under the pretext of a bomb scare, they evacuated the premises and installed cameras.
https://www.cnhinews.com/cnhi/article_555a178c-37ad-11e9-aaf5-b30b3957fe5c.html
A billionaire has to be cognitively challenged to assume he can walk into a shady spa and not be surreptitiously filmed and then blackmailed later. I thought these guys would be smart enough to at least have the "escort" come to them.
I like sports and athletes can feel free to do anything they want, I just don't want their political views shoved in my face during a sports telecast. Go ahead and kneel if you want, but the telecasts should just not cover it, or else I will stop watching. Many people find sports an escape from the poison of politics and everyday life. The NFL knew their customers weren't very happy about this, so they eventually paid off Kaepernick to make the problem go away. TV eventually found another shiny object to go play with.
Tom,
.
I don't think it shows any particular sacrifice on the part of the player and is therefore worthy of any particular respect. I guess I'm saying, I wouldn't be impressed anyway.
.
What I mean by this is- if one feels like there are injustices out there, go do something of substance to address them. The kaepernick types who are worth something like 20 million take a knee and get a personal spotlight, it's just virtue signaling. Go put your free time and your 20 million to work actually doing something hard to fix some of the problems, if you want my respect.
To be fair to kaepernick, apparently he does run a charity (100 Suits for 100 Men) and has donated about a million dollars to causes he cares about, so, good for him.
Maybe I'm wrong and kneeling is a great way to address the problems. I don't know. *shrug*
When sports figures are wearing the uniform of their employer or school, I think they represent that employer/school and any political demonstrations reflect on the organization–let them protest on their own time and in their own clothes. If they're famous, they'll get way more attention than ordinary citizens when doing that.
.
Aside from that, I don't think kneeling during the anthem is a political demonstration that will do anything but tick people off. The flag stands for the country, not the president or any political issue. Why protest your country?
.
But beyond that, why protest the U.S. flag/anthem as a way of protesting people who are supposedly *pro-Confederacy*? Isn't that kind of like kneeling during the Russian anthem to protest against Nazis?
HaroldW (Comment #173439): "Under the pretext of a bomb scare, they evacuated the premises and installed cameras."
I don't think that is legal. If it is, it might be time for a revolution.
The police can video tape areas that are open to public view. They can sneak in an do a search without telling you. Such things are pushed beyond reason, IMO. But they can't put cameras in an area that is not open to public view. If they can, we need more Trump appointed Supreme Court justices.
I should have mentioned that I did a search and failed to find any clear statement that such video was allowed, even though I found a bunch of sites warning about how out of control police surveillance has become.
lucia (Comment #173423): "It certainly is very harsh thing to allow trafficking to continue for a while in order to really nail the perpetrators and then root it out. … Getting slavers and wiping out the operation *should* be the priority."
Is anyone here besides me troubled by this? Shouldn't helping the victims of a crime take priority over catching the criminals?
Dale,
Well, the short answer by Kaepernick is this:
"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."
.
So, for those who view the US as a structurally oppressive place towards minorities I'd guess that rather than tick them off, they'd 'get a tingle down their leg' or whatever.
Maybe that's really the source of my distaste, that I don't subscribe to the basic premise behind the protest. But whatever.
Mike,
>>Is anyone here besides me troubled by this? Shouldn't helping the victims of a crime take priority over catching the criminals?
This sort of reminds me of an argument favoring owning a gun:
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
I don't yet have a good answer to your question. I'm thinking about it.
Mike M.:
"I don't think that is legal…they [police] can't put cameras in an area that is not open to public view."
I would like to think that you're right, from the perspective of civil liberties. In this case, it seems to have been used to combat some nasty characters. But that's a poor (albeit common) justification for legislation which permits intrusive behavior from law enforcement.
Here's what I found from a brief look.
"Sneak and peek" warrant, apparently authorized (or expanded) by the ill-named Patriot Act.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/ten-years-later-look-three-scariest-provisions-usa-patriot-act
A wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Title_II:_Surveillance_procedures) claims that this was ruled unconstitutional in 2007. But the EFF article, written in 2011, does not mention any attempts to rein in abuse of this procedure.
Once again, Lucia champions a neologism for the ages: I give you 'demongraphics.' Intentional? Typo? Preview of a new haiku?
Doesn't matter. I'm stealing it.
MikeM
*Is anyone here besides me troubled by this? Shouldn't helping the victims of a crime take priority over catching the criminals?*
Perhaps. But I don't think that's ever been the standard for police work especially in under cover operations. Among other things, before the police would halt this particular type of sting operation, the police work has to first establish the victims *are* victims.
In this case, if a woman approached someone and said she was a victim and got to the police, I'm sure the police would make her complaint a priority. They wouldn't send her back on the grounds they needed her to continue working at the "spa" until the sting was over..
But these women didn't approach the police.
The other thing to think about in your example of a rapist or murderer: In that case, the police KNOW their is a victim. They have no idea who the criminal. In the current case, they *suspect* there are people guilty of slavery and *suspect* there are victims. But they don't *know*. Without evidence, for all they know there are women making money on the side and the spa owner is clueless. It's not as if that never happens.
NOW they have evidence of what was going on. But you can't blame them for not acting on that evidence *before they even have it*!
Tom Scharf (Comment #173440)
February 26th, 2019 at 9:31 am
A billionaire has to be cognitively challenged to assume he can walk into a shady spa and not be surreptitiously filmed and then blackmailed later. I thought these guys would be smart enough to at least have the "escort" come to them.
_________
Good point, Tom. Best have them come to him, but if going to their place, go in disguise, or put on a mask before receiving service.
Kraft didn't become a billionaire by doing stupid things, but as lucia once said, smart people sometimes do dumb things.
Saint Thomas Aquinas said "Prostitution is like a sewer in a palace. Take away the sewer and you will fill the palace with pollution."
I'm not sure how this applies to the Florida case, but it did make me wonder about possible unintended consequences of stamping out prostitution. One might be the crack down on human trafficking for prostitution will cause an increase in human trafficking for other purposes.
HaroldW,
Much of what is allowed seems to go too far. But there is a big difference between listening to my phone conversations and putting a bug in my home. And a big difference between videotaping the outside of my house and putting a camera in my house. A sneak and peak warrant is bad enough; but leaving a hidden camera behind? If that is allowed, then this is mo longer a free country.
I hope the charges against Kraft get tossed out of court.
OK_Max,
I'm not stupendously concerned that eliminating human trafficking for sex will create human trafficking for other things like .. uhmmm wine making, engineering, teaching high school English or picking cotton. Are there other specific industries you think criminals would bother human traffickig for?( Real question.)
My concern is human trafficking *at all*. I really don't think ignoring human trafficking in sex is the way to reduce human trafficking. We should just be serious about it in any and every form in which it occurs, even if it turns out to be human trafficking in nannies or house keepers. (I think this happens too btw.)
lucia,
I agree that any specific case depends on the details of what the police knew and when they knew it. We don't yet know that for the Florida spa investigation.
Mark,
Yes, Kaepernick's motivation is logically consistent. He disrespects the symbol of the country because he disrespects the whole country. Once he decided to kneel, he kept kneeling.
.
But in the case of the Mississippi players, they're protesting a specific rally on behalf of *Confederate* statues, and choosing to do so by disrespecting the symbol that was waving over the people who fought and defeated the confederacy. If they were kneeling while "Dixie" played I could understand that, though apparently Old Miss has stopped playing that song.
Dale,
Sorry I missed your point before. You're right, makes little sense.
.
>>choosing to do so by disrespecting the symbol that was waving over the people who fought and defeated the confederacy.
.
Ironic when you put it that way, isn't it.
.
College kids. *shrug*
So has has the Florida spa investigation led to anyone being charged with human trafficking? This says no:
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/25/florida-massage-parlor-sex-stings
If an employee starts lecturing and annoying the company's customers on their personal political views then they have a right to discipline them. The NFL chose not to do so (at least not harshly), and that is their right as well. The customers have a right to go elsewhere.
.
A certain part of this conversation was aimed at whether the NFL can even force them to stop, which was a bit strange and ideological. Things change and get complicated if the government is the employer. The government has balancing tests and have some rights to maintain a non-disruptive workplace. I think we beat this to death a while back. The only thing that changed is the payoff by the NFL.
Mike M.
I guess we'll see. Even if it is slavery, I think it will be difficult to nail the slavers if the woman won't say they were compelled. If they weren't compelled it's obviously not slavery. So… I guess wrt to the women we are now here:
1) If the women don't have green cards and were not compelled, they should be deported just like any illegal alien.
2) If the women have green cards and were not compelled, they should be charged, convicted and, after serving sentence of paying fines, deported. That's what we do for other crimes.
3) If the women are US citizens and not compelled, they should be charged– just like the johns.
4) If the women were compelled, they are victims. If they are illegal, they then get to stay under whatever that law is someone mentioned above. (If legally here and victimized, they may be able to file civil suits against the owners, though I don't see how they can get much $$ out of that.)
But really, to get (4) the women sort of need to establish they were compelled. They really can't have it be that they were compelled for the purpose of getting visas but then not testify against the owners. So… we'll see.
With respect to the men: If the women are not compelled, it seems all that they'll get are fines and community service for a misdemeanor crime.
I can't say I object to the police doing a sting if they *had reason to believe* there was illegal activity going on. There was at least that. I definitely can't object to an investigatio if the police had reason to believe there was slavery going on. Sometimes it turns out what they suspected didn't happen– but if so, well… that happens. Or sometimes it happens, but it's very hard to prove. Also happens. After all, OJ got off.
lucia (Comment #173462):
I pretty much agree with all you said. But there is a connection that I think needs to be made. You wrote:
"Even if it is slavery, I think it will be difficult to nail the slavers if the woman won't say they were compelled. … But really, to get (4) the women sort of need to establish they were compelled. They really can't have it be that they were compelled for the purpose of getting visas but then not testify against the owners"
So if they are immigrants, they have a strong motive to claim they were compelled and that is the best chance of nailing the traffickers. But I don't think such a long investigation did anything to change that. In which case it should have been wrapped up earlier for the sake of the victims.
.
I think the sex slave thing is probably bunkum. In that case, sure, go ahead and nail a bunch of johns, as long as the neighbors are not complaining. But then all the trafficking hype was just self-promotion combined with heaping false calumny on the johns. The police should not engage in either.
lucia (Comment #173456)
February 26th, 2019 at 12:58 pm
OK_Max,
"I'm not stupendously concerned that eliminating human trafficking for sex will create human trafficking for other things like .. uhmmm wine making, engineering, teaching high school English or picking cotton. Are there other specific industries you think criminals would bother human traffickig for?( Real question.)"
___________
Webster’s defines human trafficking as “organized criminal activity in which human beings are treated as possessions to be controlled and exploited (as by being forced into prostitution or involuntary labor)â€
“Common types of labor trafficking include people forced to work in homes as domestic servants, farmworkers coerced through violence as they harvest crops, or factory workers held in inhumane conditions with little to no pay.â€
https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/labor-trafficking
lucia, I don’t know whether a crack down on human trafficking for prostitution would be partially or completely offset by an increase in human trafficking for work, but my guess would be partially.
Others may have have raised the subject of coercion vs free will. I would not presume that all the women working as prostitutes in those Florida massage spas were victims of trafficking. Those who were there by free will might have an incentive to claim they were victims of trafficking. Still I suspect many, if not most, were victims.
Mike M. (Comment #173455)
"I hope the charges against Kraft get tossed out of court."
________
Finally, something we agree on.
“It’s impossible to know whether or not the women in south Florida were victimized or consenting without asking them directly, and so far, police haven’t shown the results of those conversations†said sex historian and journalists, Hattie Liberman.
I never knew there were sex historians, but I guess there are historians on just about anything.
Liberman has an interesting article at deadspin.com. She suspects the human trafficking claims about the Florida massage joints are overblown.
https://deadspin.com/what-was-really-going-on-at-orchids-of-asia-1832896112
MikeM,
On the one hand, immigrants might have a strong motive to lie about being enslaved. On the other hand, because of that, people might have a motive to disbelieve them if there is no other evidence of the enslavement. That would mean the other evidence would be useful to their cases.
However, if the insist they were not enslaved… well… hard to give them the benefits afforded to those found to have been enslaved.
I'm sure police are just as prone to self promotion as anyone. So… maybe it will turn out to be that.
OK_Max,
Yeah… but you and Mike agree on wanting the charges thrown out for entirely different reasons.
A number of comments here have endorsed legalizing prostitution. I am inclined to say that what goes on between two consenting adults in private is none of the government's business, even if legal tender changes hand. But it is not that simple. Here are some reasons why:
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/legalizing-prostitution-will-make-inherent-problems-worse/
Mike,
I like thefederalist.com. I'm not a big proponent of prostitution, although I do lean towards legalization. But this:
.
"The overwhelming majority of “sex work,†as its backers call it, is done in Las Vegas and Reno completely illegally, just like in the rest of the country. The reasons for this are fairly obvious: the regulatory regime in place is constricting and expensive, so most of the activity remains in the black market."
.
Seems to be incorrect right out of the starting gate. Las Vegas is in Clark County, and prostitution is illegal there. Las Vegas is *the* big tourist draw. It's not that the regulatory regime is constricting and expensive; that's not the reason the overwhelming majority of sex work done in Las Vegas is illegal. *All* of the sex work in Las Vegas is illegal because it's illegal. [Edit: It's flat out illegal in Reno, too.]
.
This said, I'm sure legalizing prostitution would introduce a set of problems; all policies do.
The federalist article asks "Do we want more people to be prostitutes and to be paying for sex, or fewer?" I want fewer. I would say the same thing about paying for recreational drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. I want fewer people to be having sex outside of marriage even when money *doesn't* change hands. But when it comes to whether something should be *legal* or not, it's the wrong question to ask. The question is whether the government should have the right to prevent consenting adults from doing something simply because the majority considers it bad for society. I think it absolutely, positively should not–I think people have a natural and constitutional right to do things that are bad for them as well as good. And I don't trust either the government *or* the majority to correctly distinguish between bad and good, anyway.
Dale S (Comment #173471): "The question is whether the government should have the right to prevent consenting adults from doing something simply because the majority considers it bad for society. I think it absolutely, positively should not …"
I strongly disagree. Society has a right to protect itself. The well being of individuals living in a society depends on the health of the society. We have largely forgotten that, which is a big part of the reason why our society is in such bad shape and so many people are unhappy.
.
Dale S: "I think people have a natural and constitutional right to do things that are bad for them as well as good."
I agree, as long as they do not harm others. But when people harm society, they harm others, even if they do no direct harm to any specific individual. So the line for "mind your own business" is far fuzzier than assumed by libertarians or puritans (on either the right or the left).
.
Dale S: "And I don't trust either the government *or* the majority to correctly distinguish between bad and good, anyway."
If by "bad and good" you mean "for society", then what is the alternative? That is indeed a difficult problem, which is why we have a Constitution and why democracies depend on a set of shared values if they are to function well.
I get the impression that the point of the Federalist article may have been missed.
Dale S (Comment #173377): "But I do think legalization would be accompanied by enough regulation … the justification is that consenting adults should be able to do what they want without government interference".
That contains a contradiction. No government interference means no regulation. That is the libertarian position. Legalization with regulation is the libertine position.
.
When someone simply says that they support legalization that is evidence that they have not thought it through. Until just now, I was pretty much in that group. Do they support the libertarian version or the libertine version?
The former will do absolutely nothing to benefit sex-trade workers or trafficking victims. In fact, it will do just the opposite since it would remove the main excuse for the authorities to investigate or intervene.
The latter could in principle reduce abuses, but it will also produce a black market, which will undermine the regulations. So concern for sex trade workers is just an excuse, not a good reason.
If you support legalization, go ahead and advocate either the libertarian or libertine position. Just be honest about it. Either way, I will disagree.
MIke M.,
If you allow the government to control any actions deemed to "harm society", even if there is no direct harm to any specific individual, you have granted unlimited license to the government over people's lives. It's the interstate commerce clause on steroids, because not only people's actions, but their words and even their thoughts have the potential to harm society. Don't get me wrong — I'm not claiming these things *can't* hurt society. They can, they have, and they will. "Society" has a right to protect itself by rewarding virtue and punishing vice, but both reward and punishment should be *voluntary* actions by individuals that do not violate any rights of others. Using the force of law to protect society from people who are *not* trespassing on the rights of others is tyranny. For what other cause than harm to society (in the eyes of the tyrants) were people sent to the Gulags, or even the extermination camps?
.
I love the Constitution and our system of government because I think it's a government for people who don't trust government. The premise of the document IMO is that all rights naturally belong to the people, and the government has *only* the specific and enumerated rights specifically granted to the government by the people — if it's not explicitly granted, the government doesn't have the right. Further, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and *cannot* be surrendered by the people to the government. Doing stupid things that harm yourself and "society", but do not violate the rights of another individual, is certainly covered IMO as the pursuit of happiness. It is the pursuit that is the right, not the happiness.
.
I will acknowledge that in the case of the Constitution power not vested in the federal government may be in the people *or* the states, but I believe the founders conception is that even the states derived their authority from the people, rather than the rights of the people being a grant from the state. IIRC a number of states already had that concept spelled out in their own state constitutions.
Mike M. #173473,
You make a good point, in that from a strict libertarian POV, there's no inherent need to regulate the sex industry heavily or even lightly. It can even be argued that anything that the government would do to make the market higher quality (e.g. prostitutes disease-free) could be done more effectively by a free market. However, as a *practical* matter the chance of that happening are zero. In the unlikely event that prostitution is legalized, it will be heavily regulated. Do you disagree?
.
Further, in the specific case of prostitution there is a factor that no libertarian is going to let slide — human trafficking. If ILO estimates are anywhere near correct (and I'll concede they might not be) a significant percentage of sex workers are *coerced* into doing the work. Involuntary slavery is *completely* against libertarian principles, and the presence of trafficked prostitutes *demands* government intervention, no matter the legal status of the work itself nor how heavily/lightly regulated it is. I don't think prostitution should be illegal, but I want the government to make *very* sure that every person working in a brothel is there of their own free will. I would've thought doing that very important job would be easier with legalization — you'd know exactly where the legal brothels were, and you'd know any underground brothels are hiding something serious. However, if the ILO numbers are correct, that may not be the case in practice.
.
Speaking of hiding in plain sight, I get the impression from the coverage that the victims (assuming they are victims) came from China legally on work permits for those specific employers. Now I'm not a Law Enforcer, but I'd think massage parlor owners who sponsor foreign workers would be under *high* scrutiny for this sort of thing from the get-go. Is this the sort of thing that ICE is supposed to be looking for?
I fall much closer to Dale S with the keep the government the eff out of my life mentality, but recognize this should not be absolutist. I think there needs to be a high threshold (clear and convincing) for government intervention.
.
One recent example of overreach is CA trying to pass a law that says pet stores can only sell rescue dogs. The people behind it want to prevent alleged animal abuse at puppy farms. Perhaps we want to say abusing puppies is a bad thing even if you do it in the privacy of your own home, but CA's solution is a typical heavy handed nanny state solution. One can make abusing puppies against the law, then prosecute abusers, without the need to eliminate an entire business. The least intrusive solution needs to be performed by the government.
I don't think people get deported for prostitution as it is generally a misdemeanor. You generally need to be committing a felony to get deported. Some prosecutors were amazingly reducing sentencing of DUI's for illegals because they were going to get deported.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/prosecutors-dilemma-will-conviction-lead-to-life-sentence-of-deportation.html
Mike,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue. I don't think it's a simple matter by any means, and I'm honestly not sure of what is right here.
"No government interference means no regulation. That is the libertarian position. Legalization with regulation is the libertine position….The latter could in principle reduce abuses, but it will also produce a black market, which will undermine the regulations. So concern for sex trade workers is just an excuse, not a good reason."
There may be excellent reasons to keep prostitution illegal, but I can't agree that I think this is one of them. There is *already* a black market. If I bought this, it seems to me I'd have to buy that repealing prohibition had no impact on organized crime in Chicago. This is a question of fact that I actually can't answer, probably worth looking into, but I don't think there was no impact.
Just because I don't think this is a great argument doesn't mean there aren't valid arguments. It's a difficult and complicated issue. When I get my thoughts in better order I hope to elaborate.
Tom Scharf: "I don't think people get deported for prostitution as it is generally a misdemeanor. You generally need to be committing a felony to get deported."
Not right at all. You need to be convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude." For instance, anything involving theft to the smallest degree, including eating a grape at a grocery store can legally get you deported. What is a crime of moral turpitude can be very subtle and confusing. My first Chinese wife got into trouble when she became depressed, and I became very knowledgeable on this subject.
JD
Should have added that I don't know if prostitution is a crime of moral turpitude.
JD
Mike,
Some common ground as a starting point between us – I agree that law should concern itself with what is good for society. *Is* the legalization of prostitution good for society?
Hard to know. There are (I think) reasons to doubt it. Many societies (I need to check this assumption) in the west have outlawed prostitution. Why? They must have had reasons. What negative impacts (or positive impacts) manifest in societies that legalize prostitution? Can we draw parallels, or are cultural differences too significant between these examples and our society?
Even on an individual level. Is there anything positive or good about prostitution here? Should this matter? There seems to be nothing positive or good about smoking cigarettes, for example; should this be illegal?
I don't know. I suspect there are more negative consequences to legalizing prostitution than are readily apparent. Trying to nail them down might involve real time and work and dedication.
[Edit: None of these are intended to be rhetorical questions. These are the questions I think are important to the issue. I don't know the answers, and I'm not asking them to make any point except to draw attention to them, because I think to answer these questions is necessary to resolve the issue.]
JD is right, being a lawyer of course, ha ha. This law covers legal immigrants, those with green cards, etc.
.
"Department of State's guidance notes that the most common elements of a moral turpitude crime will include "fraud, larceny, and intent to harm persons or things."
.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-will-make-immigrant-deportable.html
.
There is the law, and there is what actually happens, which are not the same especially on immigration. Illegal immigrants can legally be ported for just being here. There is a fuzzy definition of criminal behavior which "prioritizes" deportation for illegals. Trump changed this recently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-immigration-deportation.html
.
"He also includes, according to language in the order, anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense,†meaning anyone the authorities believe has broken any type of law — regardless of whether that person has been charged with a crime."
"The Obama administration, which deported nearly 400,000 people per year during its first five years, initially included those convicted of minor offenses such as shoplifting. But it later changed its policy to target primarily those who had been convicted of serious crimes, were considered national security threats or were recent arrivals. By the end of President Barack Obama’s time in office, around 90 percent of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants were not considered a priority for deportation. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, roughly 820,000 undocumented immigrants currently have a criminal record."
.
I think it is chaos, you can be deported but whether you are or not is a judgment call by random people. I found an article that said illegals were not being deported in FL for soliciting a prostitute, but I couldn't find info on actual policy execution.
Prostitution is going to happen regardless of whether it is illegal, the same with drug use. Laws don't eliminate baseline demand. If prostitution was legal then perhaps the threat of STD's (both ways) could be reduced. Allowing the … ummmm …. product to be reviewed might also be useful. I doubt the government would lightly regulate prostitution due to the controversy. Doing it legally would be made as hard as possible by the moral majority types.
.
Prostitutes were openly advertising on Craigs List and Backpage, these were shutdown and I imagine they just pop up somewhere else.
.
I just typed a bunch of searches in on FL prostitution, can't wait until my wife finds those in the search history, ha ha.
JD,
The circus going on with Cohen right now in congress. How does this square with attorney client privilege? I read some of what's being tweeted (example: "Cohen claimed Trump showed him a "$10 million IRS tax refund" and said Trump told him "he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving 'someone like him' that much money back.") What the heck. I didn't think attorneys were allowed to make public every remark they were ever privileged to hear in confidence that might damage one's public image, am I full of beans on this?
I mean, I get the crime-fraud exception to attorney client privilege. But does that mean suddenly *nothing* the client ever said is protected under AC privilege? I'd guess so, based on what I'm reading.
mark bofill (Comment #173481): "I agree that law should concern itself with what is good for society. *Is* the legalization of prostitution good for society?"
The law should only encourage that which is clearly good for society and should only disallow that which is clearly bad for society. When in doubt, butt out. That would go a long way to addressing Dale's concerns. As does the Constitution. I very much agree with Dale's when he said: "I love the Constitution and our system of government because I think it's a government for people who don't trust government."
.
mark bofill: "I suspect there are more negative consequences to legalizing prostitution than are readily apparent. Trying to nail them down might involve real time and work and dedication."
Yes. Advocates of legalization have a responsibility to carefully consider the consequences.
Edmund Burke argued that tradition should be respected since it is very much the distillation of many generations of experience. Of course, times change and traditions may become obsolete. But one should not abandon traditions until one has taken care to understand why those traditions came to be.
Mike,
I strongly agree.
Go, Catholic boys! I attended Pittsburgh Central Catholic in the 1960s… If those two groups of street thugs had come after us they would have been met with superior aggression and overwhelming numbers. If they did not back off, we would have gotten ugly. We would have been received back in The 'Burgh as conquering heroes….and maybe a parade. The Good Old Days!
Take polygamy for example. I don't think it's intuitively obvious to everybody that polygamist societies are more violent societies; I don't think that's an obvious consequence one would be likely to realize just by thinking about it. Should polygamy be legal? It doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
.
Does the question of legalizing prostitution have any implications along this dimension; would it affect violence in our society? How? Is it sex or procreation that drives the polygamy problem [of violence].
.
Were the traditional injunctions against prostitution rooted at all in issues that technology allows us to overcome or mitigate, such as STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
.
Maybe none of these things. Maybe the iceberg lies elsewhere in front of the ship. [Maybe there is no iceberg.]
DaleS
* I get the impression from the coverage that the victims (assuming they are victims) came from China legally on work permits for those specific employers.*
I would think that our country doesn't actually need more massage therapists and likely shouldn't be granting a lot of visas for this job skill at all. I'm sure we can make do with therapists who already live here!
Russell,
I don't even approximately know you by comments, and I hate getting off on the wrong foot with people I don't know.
.
There's this phenomenon called the uncanny valley that shows up in robotics. The gist is that when a robot mimics a human, it better either be not close or dead on accurate in its mimicry, or it appears grotesque and disturbing.
.
I don't know if you're insincerely trying to mimic some position and that I find it disturbing because of something akin to the uncanny valley or if you're being sincere, in which case perhaps my unease comes from my sense that you are saying something mildly grotesque.
.
I can't help but think you posted that to get some reaction. That's my reaction, anyway.
mark bofill,
If polygamy was made legal, they would need to permit polyandry. The would also need laws to explain under what circumstance the husband or wife gets to add a another wife or husband. Does a married person need to get permission from their current spouse (or spouses?)
Suppose a wife adds a second husband to the unit. What's the marital status of the two husbands to each other? Same sex marriage exists now, so obviously they could be married to each other, right?
Also: if you have a husband/wife unit and the wife adds a second husband, can either of the husbands then still marry a second wife of their own? So for example, Jane is married to Tom and Fred. Meanwhile Tom is married to Jane and Sally? ( Would the law permit Fred to be married only to Jane in this situation? Or is he also married to Tom and Sally? The mind reels!)
And if a wife has two husbands but becomes incapacitated, which husband has dibs on making medical decisions (assuming she didn't create some sort of power of attorney?)
All these questions would need to be considered and addressed when legalizing polygamy.
I think quite often, traditionally, in officially polygamous socieities, men had the "power". Often there was a "first wife", who had more standing. Sometimes the other wives were "wives", but sometimes…. not quite.
Middle ages Europe and on sometimes just had the husbands "official" wife and a mistress who had practically no rights to anything– no inheritance and so on. But the man might give her lots of money blah… blah blah…. So the effect was of having the "first wife" and the "lesser wives". But the legal situations was only the "real" (aka first) wife had any legal protection in marriage.
That's pretty much our current situation. A person (man or woman) can be married and — at least with regard to the law– have another family on the side– they just can't get legally married. But the other family doesn't get things like social security, or any say in medical care and so on in the event of incapacitation. (And of course this other family can be grounds for divorce– or at least the sex with the other person can be.)
If were were to formally recognize polygamy, we also need to decide who gets survivor benefits for things like Social Security and so on. With respect to financial and other obligations and benefits, polygamy is actually quite a bit different from monogamy.
Russell's comment struck me as a pretty good description of what might have been expected from a bunch of blue collar boys from the Steel City in the 60's. I am guessing "the good old days" was sarcasm. Maybe.
Mike,
You'd think somebody who shoots himself in the foot with sarcasm (like myself) would be a little more charitable…
If this was the case, apologies Russell.
Lucia,
Yeah, poly-marriage is a good example of opening a messy can of worms.
.
>>So for example, Jane is married to Tom and Fred. Meanwhile Tom is married to Jane and Sally? ( Would the law permit Fred to be married only to Jane in this situation? Or is he also married to Tom and Sally? The mind reels!)
.
LOL! Love it. I betcha our lawyers would be up to creating complicated legal fiction to deal with the mess, but I'm sure some extremely strange situations would ensue..
It's certainly not obvious to me that polygamy causes society to be more violent, and I'm skeptical that it's been demonstrated as fact. I can well believe that countries where it is currently practiced experience a higher level of violence than countries that do not; but since those countries are largely (entirely?) Islamic I think there just might be confounding factors. I don't think comparing Christians to Muslims 1000 years ago, or Romans to Parthians 1000 years before that, would show such an effect.
.
In this country it's perfectly legal to live with and have children by as many other adults as you desire–it's only illegal to actually marry them. I could see a compelling state interest in keeping adults from sexual relationship with minors (whether they think they're married or not), but I'd like to see the government get completely out of the business of authorizing marriages between adults. It's a civil and/or religious contract, not a gift from the state.
.
I would guess, but do not know, that traditional injunctions against prostitution had little to do with STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and instead were related to the traditional injunctions against *any* out-of-wedlock activity, paid or unpaid. In the ancient world you have societies where adultery was a capital crime, and other societies where temple prostitutes were a part of pagan worship. I agree with those traditional injunctions and think our society has paid a terrible price for the large amount of sexual license we collectively practice; but I do not think government can be or should be the solution.
Dale,
.
>>It's certainly not obvious to me that polygamy causes society to be more violent, and I'm skeptical that it's been demonstrated as fact.
.
Fair enough. I'm taking the word of … somebody… second or third hand. I don't actually know of course if this is true.
.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201801/the-pros-and-cons-polygamy
.
[Edit: I really mentioned it as an example of an unexpected consequence. It's something to think about anyway.]
I actually think it's good for government to recognize pair marriages. Pair will link up regardless, and promises will be made regarding property and so on. I think it's better for there to be a somewhat standard and somewhat predictable set of rules for dealing with property and financial obligations rather than have every individual pair nailing down every aspect with their individual attorneys. (Or worse, not, and leaving it to supposed verbal agreements which neither will remember being identical.)
Having the government recognize the claimed commitment of the part of the pair and be involved somewhat in enforcing it is the fairest thing to couples. In particular: the government recognizing marriage grants people the *benefit* of the government interfering in the divorce process.
I think the stability of marriage *with* legal rules governing thing like property divisions and possible maintenance benefits children which is a very big consideration in whether the government should be recognizing these pair associations *officially*.
If a couple wants an informal association, I have no problem with that. If they don't marry, neither can access the benefit of divorce. (One might be happier than a pig in shit about that. But likely the other one… not so much.)
But I think the government *should* have a legal status of "married" just as we do.
Lucia,
I agree with you. I'm having a hard time articulating the difference. It's not the government *authorizing* the marriage really. It's ..what would you say.. providing a convenient recognition of a specific status?
It's something like that. I can't quite find the words to nail it down.
Lucia,
It's certainly true that children benefit from being born and raised within a stable marriage. And once children enter the picture, we're no longer talking just about relations between consenting adults. I think children have a legitimate claim on their parents, whether they are officially married or not. I haven't really thought about the government's role in divorce as a benefit. Back when marriage was just religious and/or private there were still rules about rights, obligations, and divorce, but I don't know how those would have evolved absent government intervention.
.
Marriage is a contract, and there's certainly a role for even the most libertarian government in enforcing contracts. Rather than loosening the obligations/rights that go with a marriage contract, I would rather see it be easier to assume those obligations/rights independent of a marriage ceremony. The details could certainly be messy. But if that had been done a generation ago, the political controversy over gay marriage could have been avoided completely. With that settled via judicial fiat, I don't know if there's any group still out there that needs marriage-like rights without actually having access to governmentally recognized marriage.
Mark,
Thanks for the link. The psychology today article was interesting, but high on assertions while low on evidence, more of an appeal to reasoning. Here's the paragraph specifically about the polygamy/violence link:
—
While polygyny may benefit the men involved, it denies wives to other men, especially young, low-status men, who tend to measure their success by their manhood, that is, by the twin parameters of social status and fertility. With little to lose, these frustrated men are much more likely to turn to crime and violence, including sexual violence and warmongering. It can be no coincidence that polygamy is practiced in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index.
—-
This reasoning looks sound at first glance — not enough women to go around, so luckless single men frozen out by polygamous marriages turn to crime and violence. But if sound, I would expect the same effect *anywhere* that the number of single males exceed the number of single females. Why hasn't that created crime, violence and war in China?
.
Further, my understanding is that where polygamy is practiced, *most* marriages are still monogamous for economic and other reasons. The scale of the deprivation as a result of polygamy can't be large. So why *can't* it be a coincidence that polygamy is practiced in all of the top 20 most unstable countries?
.
Next step was to find that list. I found the 2018 list, here's the top 20 most unstable, starting with the worst. South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Central African Republic, Congo (Dem. Rep.), Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Haiti, Guinea, Nigeria, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Burundi, Eritrea, Pakistan, Niger. With the exception of Haiti I think that polygamy is practiced in all those countries, since they are African, Muslim, or both. But these are countries suffering from extreme poverty, civil war, and extreme governmental failures — I doubt a shortage of potential brides is on the top ten list of problems for any of them. And how the heck did 43 nations get listed below Venezuela on a 2018 list of fragile nations?
.
Next step was to look up articles on the very bottom of the list, South Sudan. It's easy to find articles criticizing them for practicing polygamy, but a quick search didn't show up what I was looking for, the actual *rate* of polygamous marriages to estimate the effect of the bride drain. I did however, run across a claim that due to civil war, the potential brides outnumbered the potential grooms by a 3:1 margin. This doesn't mean the single men aren't driven to violence when seeking marriage — there may not be a shortage of brides, but there's definitely a shortage of cattle to *pay* for brides, and poor young men sometimes get those cattle with raids and violence. Brideprice is discussed in the very next paragraph of the Psychology Today article, but they blame polygamy for driving the brideprice up (mildly plausible if there's a shortage, which may not be the case). They then go on to blame brideprice for women being forced to stay in miserable/abusive marriages because if they are divorced the brideprice is returned–this seems completely backwards to me. If the groom *benefits* financially from discarding his bride (getting his cattle back), wouldn't an inflated brideprice make divorce *more* likely, not less? (I'm also suspicious of an implication that having divorce increase would be a good thing. Some of the South Chad articles I found were criticizing the men for discarding their brides, not keeping them.)
.
In any case, if polygamy were legal in this country, I think there's absolutely zero chance it would be popular enough to measurably affect the single male/female ratio; and the marriage/divorce requirements/costs are so radically different here that I don't think African brideprices have any relevance to American consequences.
.
The most significant consequence I think could follow is that in the case of polyandry, you can't assign parental rights/obligations to a particular male easily. But that's unfortunately not a new problem, and would be dwarfed in scale by out-of-wedlock births in the same category.
Dale,
You start off fine, your arguments are plenty good enough to raise doubt about the proposition under consideration. But then you lose me a little when you say "I think there's absolutely zero chance it would be popular enough to measurably affect the single male/female ratio", I don't see on what you base this certainty.
.
I'm willing to concede that African brideprices probably don't have a lot to do with anything in America though, sure.
.
But FWIW, you could be right. The idea that polygamy is related to violence or social unrest isn't really central to anything I was saying (..I don't think it was central to anything I was saying anyway, but it's been a long day…). I meant for it to simply serve as an example of hard to see consequences. If it's a poor example, we could probably find others.
DaleS
* I would rather see it be easier to assume those obligations/rights independent of a marriage ceremony.*
Meaning what? Real question.
The obligations and rights would need to be established by a contract. One has to enter into a contract somehow. The current requirements for "ceremony" aren't very ceremonial. You can be married by a judge at the county, by simply affirming you want to be married. Getting married isn't hard and I'm not seeing how it could be made very much easier. In fact, the current system is a heck of a lot easier than hiring your own attorneys to try to craft some tailor-made contract with individual provisions for anything and everything.
Besides which, if one is going to be granted some rights conferred by the government– like social security of change in tax filing status and so on– the government has good reason to require the "obligations" of both parties to each other meet some threshold standards. So you'd need some lawyers to make sure your personally crafted marriage meets the standard. That would be a heck of a lot more work and more costly than just getting married civily!
DaleS
*you can't assign parental rights/obligations to a particular male easily. *
If you want to go by biology: DNA tests.
Otherwise, we have presumtive paternity. WRT to DNA its a legal fiction, they could just decree both husbands a jointly obligated to financially cover costs of raising the kid and both have parental rights. This isn't really hard. You just make that the law.
My thoughts on polygyny (more than one wife at a time):
I can't understand why an American man would want to have legal obligations to several wives at one time. I sure wouldn't. When not fighting amongst themselves, they might gang up on me.
If sex with multiple partners is the attraction of polygyny, why not just have one girl friend after another or even several girl friends simultaneously, then settle on one for a monogamous marriage after the desire starts to fade. On second thought, polygyny would reduce the risk of catching a STD.
My thoughts on polyandry (more than one husband at a time).
I can't speak for women on polyandry, but it could be attractive for economic reasons, as multiple husbands would provide more security. Some men might find the arrangement less demanding than monogamy, and enjoy the brotherhood.
Polyandry and polygyny together would reduce the problem of "not enough women to go around" if polygyny alone was practiced.
I haven't given much thought to communal polygamy or same-sex polygamy, but those could be interesting topics.
I don't know whether it has anything to do with monogamy, but marriages fail at a high rate in the U.S.
The linked 2012 study says an estimated one-half of first marriages end in divorce.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf
Divorce can be financially and emotionally devastating.
No wonder birth rates have declined. No wonder so many young men and women just live together instead of marrying, and postpone having children. If their relationship doesn't work, they can just go their separate ways, without having the trouble and expense of a divorce and the stigma that goes with a failed marriage.
Mark #173502,
My certainty that legal polygamy would not measurably affect the single male/female ratio is based solely on my opinion. Who practices polygamy now illegally in America? Splinter religious groups and alternative lifestyle groups, both of which are insignificant in comparison to the vast mass of monogamy. They could multiply their numbers by 10x or 100x and still be insignificant. Even in countries/cultures where polygamy is legal and socially acceptable the vast majority of marriages are monogamous for practical reasons; and I don't think it would ever be socially acceptable here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any social force that would drive adoption. I don't think the males who current irresponsibly have children with multiple partners out of wedlock would flock to it; what's in it for them?
.
But it's fair to say that substituting my opinion for the opinion of the article writer isn't evidence that my opinion is right.
Lucia, #173503
You're absolutely right that getting married isn't hard. As I recall, all I had to do was fill out a short form and pay a modest fine to get permission from Cook County, then find someone licensed to declare us married. The vast majority of time, effort, and money was spent on the cultural trappings, not any requirements from the state, and AFAIK there was no likelihood at all that Cook County would say "I'm sorry, we're rejecting your application."
.
But I didn't know at the time and I doubt I *still* know all the obligations and rights I assumed as part of that easy procedure. Exactly one year later my wife was having a difficult labor, with less competent medical help she could've been incapacitated or died. Since we were married, I could have made medical decisions for her if incapacitated, and I could have inherited her (nearly non-existent) property in the absence of a will if she had died. Had we not been married, that would only have been the case if we had the foresight to prepare in advance a medical power of attorney and a will, and just doing those two things alone could've been more work than getting married.
.
Of course, that hypothetical would be our own darn fault for just not getting married, as our relationship and our future children deserved. And there was an alternate path to providing those same permissions in that case anyway. But one of the arguments for governmentally-recognized gay marriage that I found sympathetic was the claim that there were some rights/permissions that just weren't *available* to unmarried partners by any other recourse, which means that if the state *won't* give you permission you're out of luck. If true, that's not right, and that's a problem separating the bundle of governmental rights/obligations associated with marriage with the actual ceremony of marriage could solve. I'm also theory casting that some sort of easy to enter mutual-responsibility bundle would be useful for non-romantic partners who would be appalled at the idea of being considered married, but wish to support each other out of friendship. Maybe I'm wrong and there's no demand or need for such a thing.
OK_Max
*On second thought, polygyny would reduce the risk of catching a STD. *
Only if you assume the wives don't look for some side-action.
I think you seem to be forgetting that in our system, wives have the same financial obligation to husbands as husbands have to women. My mom always groused that half her teacher's pension went to Dad when they divorced.
If your concern is financial, don't marry *poor uneducated unemployed women*. Oh. Wait. Those are likely the ones most likely to be willing to a man who will have less time to pay attention to her because he already has a other wives.
As we don't have polygamy, we don't know what financial split decisions would be in divorce. It might turn out the financial claims of the divorced spouse are smaller because, say there are 3 in the marriage– the divorced spouse is only 1 of 3 instead of 1 of 2.
OK_Max
*Of course, that hypothetical would be our own darn fault for just not getting married, as our relationship and our future children deserved.*
Yes. I think it's good the government has a "package" of rights and obligations called marriage, and that it's easily accessible. You accessed it and gained them: good thing.
At your young age and likely situation, it is unlikely you would have crafted a contract that got you just the right blend and enter into said contract.
* And there was an alternate path to providing those same permissions in that case anyway.*
Some, not all. Spouse survivor privileges were limited to married couples. So was access to employer health benefits and so on. For gays to have access to ALL benefits and obligations of marriage, they would need the government to change law so that you could (a) craft a private contract and (b) have a government employee inspect it to determine if it met the conditions to qualify as equivalent to marriage. Then you would be deemed married (until you divorce and an employee of the agency deemed your marriage was dissolved.) That's not the current law.
That would be expensive. I think such a change would be silly. If we had such a path, it would be better to keep the easy path we already have and use the alternate as a supplement. (Oh… but wait. We already allow pre-marital contracts that provide the possibility of tweaks on rights and obligations! So I don't see much advantage to the alternate path.)
*I'm also theory casting that some sort of easy to enter mutual-responsibility bundle would be useful for non-romantic partners who would be appalled at the idea of being considered married, but wish to support each other out of friendship. Maybe I'm wrong and there's no demand or need for such a thing.*
Well… you can marry a friend. Obviously you won't if you find the idea appalling. The main problem with the idea of the government offering this is that it's likely all pairs who want something like this want something vastly different. Different amounts of support, different obligations, different levels required for 'getting out'.
Also: would this status exclude marriage to someone else? (It's your idea of "something". )
Some states did have civil unions and may still have them. They were seen as "marriage lite" and were often a response to offering gays something when marriage was not. But when offerred, it was hard to argue that opposite sex couples shouldn't have access to them.
The problem was that they were very easy to get out of, didn't have the government involved in enforcing asset splitting when someone got out and so on. I don't see much point in the government "offering" this sort of contract if the government isn't involved in the *dissolution* of the contract in a way that better ensurse the right and obligations of the contract are upheld *when its coming to an end*.
It looks like the Michael Cohen hearing was a big nothing. Trump did not tell Cohen to lie to Congress and there was no collusion. Cohen is hardly a reliable witness, but at this point it beggars belief that he was lying to protect Trump. Come to think of it, that is a big something; but I don't expect the media to scream "Trump is innocent!"
He did say that he lied to Congress because Trump wanted him to; apparently he read Trump's mind. He did claim that Roger Stone told Trump stuff about Wikileaks, but the charges against Stone suggest that was just empty bragging by Stone. Cohen also repeated the standard media and Democrat talking points about what a bad person Trump is.
Cohen did testify to some actual facts that are derogatory to Trump. He had a straw buyer bid up the price of a picture of Trump at a charity auction because he wanted it to sell for more than any of the other items. I doubt many Trump voters are terribly surprised by that. Also, Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels. Yawn.
Mike,
.
Yeah, political circus mostly.
Perhaps the most useful information to emerge from the hearing was the news that the Southern District of New York is actively investigating Donald Trump for criminal activities.
Did that come out of the hearing? I thought it was already known, but I might be mixed up.
It was in the.news last month that they (NY) were planning investigations, maybe that was it.
As someone who actually thinks our President is quite likely guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, I was amazed at how 'small ball' this hearing was. Bullying schools to prevent the release of test results?
We already have a society that allows multiple girlfriends and boyfriends, the technicality of marriage isn't very important in the grand scheme. Even though this is allowed, it is pretty rare to have multiple partners if any relationship becomes emotionally important. People just can't deal with the stress of another man/woman. I personally can't think of a single instance among my friends where anyone ever openly had two partners simultaneously and considered them both emotionally important.
.
My instinct would say this is biologically programmed but the animal world is very different. They tend to run by the king of the hill gets all the spoils, or whoever dances best this weeks gets lucky. The monogamous relationship seems more likely to be social programming. There is shame if you are unable to maintain a long term relationship, it reflects badly on both participants under society's rules. This is also likely social programming. Just because something is social programming doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing.
.
Suppose society had a rule that said you are only allowed to have one emotionally important friend at a time and if you have two then you are immoral? That seems rather arbitrary and counter productive. If you throw the sex issue out then the monogamous rules appears differently.
.
There does seem to be one very important issue, and that is the benefits of child rearing in a stable family. I'm not a believer in the village needs to raise the child. It's not an entirely psychotic idea though, if you are a child in a very bad situation you might benefit from having the village raise you.
Tom,
High crimes and misdemeanors. Such as?
It might have been a meaningful hearing, it might not have been. The only way to know is to watch it and make up your own mind. Given the media's excesses in TDS over the past few years they can't be trusted to render an honest opinion. My brief glimpse of the headlines shows exactly what I would anticipate regardless of the content of the hearing. I no longer have the energy or desire to track this stuff down. It's an elitist food fight that only they care about.
.
Trump isn't going down for porn star payoffs given the Clinton standard. Trump's army of opponents have looked under almost every rock at this point, and so far Trump the clown is guilty of having sex with a porn star and being creative with tax returns. The opposition broke attorney / client privilege (nobody cared) and have had Mueller looking for 2.5 years. Perhaps Mueller has some surprises but the media seems to be preparing their audience for a let down.
.
The politics of personal destruction has become so ingrained in US politics at this point that it is hard to imagine anything else. You have to be pretty old to remember that it wasn't always this way. It is not an improvement.
Hiya Mark, well, I'd start with criminal conspiracy in the receipt and use of stolen goods, e.g., emails. I'd continue with criminal obstruction of justice, e.g., firing of officials involved with the investigation, pressuring of senators and appointed officials specifically to stop/slow or arrange the team for the investigation.
I also suspect him of several low crimes and misdemeanors, such as campaign finance violations, lying to the FBI and Congress, suborning perjury on the part of Cohen and other members of the Trump team, and bank/wire fraud. None of which I would consider impeachable offenses on their own, but they would nicely pad the list.
Thanks Tom. In the car, will reply later.
lucia (Comment #173509)
February 28th, 2019 at 7:15 am
OK_Max
"I think you seem to be forgetting that in our system, wives have the same financial obligation to husbands as husbands have to women."
"If your concern is financial, don't marry *poor uneducated unemployed women*"
________
Good advice, but poor uneducated men tend to marry poor uneducated women, and have money problems that lead to divorce, causing even more money problems.
Some men and women who are financially well off may prefer to marry financially needy partners. I'm not sure why, but it could be a "who's in charge" thing.
There.
Tom, of all people to be making this argument I'm surprised to hear you doing it. I don't think that your involvement in writing a book about the climategate emails involved receiving and using stolen goods. One could speculate that you were part of a criminal conspiracy, but frankly I doubt that's true. Yet you seem to be unwilling to extend the same charity of thought to Trump.
Heck, *I* read the wikileaks emails, and made arguments based on them. I don't think *I'm* guilty of receiving and using stolen goods, or criminal conspiracy.
.
Has Trump been up to some crooked shit? I'm sure he has. Politicians at the federal level, billionaires, they're all going to have some amount of dirt under their fingernails. That doesn't much trouble me.
Hiya Mark
As someone who works for a company that does a ton of public polling, one key thing that emerged for me was when Manafort gave Kilimnik the internal polling data for the Trump campaign. It's killer and it's key. I know what was in that data (or am 90% sure). It's a big deal.
It is a clear indicator of conspiracy to aid the Russians in their social media messaging to voters. But it also highlights the level of communications between the Russians and the campaign. Communications that could only be authorized by Trump.
If Trump or his associates under his direction communicated with either Wikileaks or Guccifer about when or how the emails would be released to influence press coverage of either the Trump or Clinton campaigns, including Trump's famous public request, that's criminal conspiracy with those who stole or knowingly received stolen goods.
That's a bit different from commenting on stuff that has been released into the public domain. I hope…
I listened to the coverage on NPR this morning, and the first words from Cohen were "He's a racist, …"
That soured everything else for me. Why should Congress care what Trump's attorney thinks of Trump's views on race?
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173521): "I'd start with criminal conspiracy in the receipt and use of stolen goods, e.g., emails. I'd continue with criminal obstruction of justice, e.g., firing of officials involved with the investigation, pressuring of senators and appointed officials specifically to stop/slow or arrange the team for the investigation."
I think there is no evidence the Trump campaign received stolen emails and considerable reason to believe (via the Roger Stone investigation) it did not. The President can not obstruct justice, and firing an FBI director for cause is not obstruction in any event. Nothing at all wrong with pressuring senators and there was no pressuring of appointed officials. All of that is a fantasy of the "resistance".
.
Thomas William Fuller: "I also suspect him of several low crimes and misdemeanors, such as campaign finance violations, lying to the FBI and Congress, suborning perjury on the part of Cohen and other members of the Trump team, and bank/wire fraud."
There is zero evidence for any of that. There is absolutely no credible accusation of campaign finance violations, he never spoke to Congress under oath or to the FBI, and Cohen said that Trump never asked him to lie. Bank/wire fraud? Where did that one come from?
Tom Scharf (Comment #173517): "My instinct would say this is biologically programmed but the animal world is very different. They tend to run by the king of the hill gets all the spoils, or whoever dances best this weeks gets lucky. The monogamous relationship seems more likely to be social programming."
No, it is largely biological. Humans are different from other animals due to the enormous effort required to raise human children.
Tom,
Why does Trump go to Russia for an *illegal* social media campaign? For goodness sakes, he could have done that here in the States, legally, for a fraction of the cost and trouble. This strains credulity.
.
As for Manafort, pft. Who knows. That dude was in bed with the Ukranians since at least the early 2000's. He made god knows how many tens of millions working with those guys. If somebody wanted some info from me and they'd paid me that much in the past, I'd be inclined to give it to them. Not saying Manafort isn't crooked as the day is long, sure he is. But there's nothing particularly sinister about it as far as I can see.
Regarding obstruction of justice, double pfft. Who knows the truth in this liars stew we dine on in the media, but to hear McCabe tell it it sounds like there might have been a conspiracy to try to use the 25'th amendment to depose Trump. Honestly, I don't much care if the legal contortions can be made to argue Trump 'obstructed justice'; those guys were obviously up to some crooked shit too. I think it's obvious FBI leadership was overdue for some housecleaning.
Max_OK
*Some men and women who are financially well off may prefer to marry financially needy partners. I'm not sure why, but it could be a "who's in charge" thing.*
If you are sufficiently well off, nearly all available partners are needy relative to you.
I think more frequently: Women often prioritize being personally involved in running the "home" front more than men. So, they know that tends to mean de-prioritizing work life. So they do look for men who will bring home the bacon as it were.
Me often do actually like women who "keep the home fires burning", and so don't prioritize women who "bring home the bacon" all that much.
So, as a practical matter, (and in the "traditional" sort of 50s set up) men often have to "transfer $$" during a divorce. BUT, bear in mind that to get what they wanted in the FIRST place (a women who would prioritizes him life), they had to pretty much buy into the idea that they would assume some *financial* obligation. Because, otherwise, there is no way the woman can safely put herself in a position of not being a big earner.
So, in essence: at the time of making a commitment, they both wanted the same thing and got it. When things go wrong, they guy knows he's giving up $$ and no longer getting someone to keep the homefires burning. Meanwhile, the women generally *already gave up* earning power. So that monetary "loss" is sort of invisible because it's in the past.
Had the woman focused on her career all along, often in the case of a couple who sort of wants a "Ward and June Cleaver" set up, neither would have been getting what the wanted and hoped for. Marriage makes it possible to have that sort of set up (but doesn't require it.)
BTW Tom,
>>If Trump or his associates under his direction communicated with either Wikileaks or Guccifer about when or how the emails would be released to influence press coverage of either the Trump or Clinton campaigns, including Trump's famous public request, that's criminal conspiracy with those who stole or knowingly received stolen goods.
.
One of the charming denizens at ATTP or DeSmogBlog or .. well, pick your place really, could make the same baseless speculations against you and Mosher regarding the climategate emails. Perhaps you orchestrated the timing in secret conspiracy to serve some nefarious purpose. There's no shred of evidence to support this, and thank god that (AFAIK) nobody has tried that tack, but it might be merely because you aren't/weren't a big enough fish to try to fry.
Trump allegedly received some dirt on the Clinton campaign, which was basically a bunch of emails the DNC wrote and their level 10 incompetence allowed to be hacked, who can forget when the FBI warned them they were being hacked and they ignored it because they thought it wasn't the "real FBI". Clinton helped pay for and received the infamous dossier compiled by a "foreign agent" who says he got the dirt from the Russians. It was then shopped to every media outlet and eventually leaked. I sense an isolated demand for legal rigor here.
.
Comey's behavior since his firing has done nothing but reinforce the theory he was biased and deserved to be fired. McCabe fired for lying about leaks. Strzok fired and also proved his bias in texts. Just because Trump is a clown doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. The FBI disgraced themselves and did lasting damage to their image. I guess bias and partisanship is their higher calling.
Is there any legal basis for treating hacked emails as stolen property? Real question.
I have the impression that destroying someone's email is destruction of property. But if you copy my emails, I still have them. So it seems to me that you have not stolen my property, although you have violated my privacy. But I don't know that and the law can be weird.
Can a subpoena be used to seize my property? I would think not. But a subpoena can be used to make me turn over copies of email.
>But it also highlights the level of communications between the Russians and the campaign.
The stories about Trump/Russia collusion contradict each other.
If Trump authorized secret meetings between Manafort and Klimnik, then why in Dec 2016 did Donald Trump Jr need to try and set up a backchannel at the Russian embassy?
Why did the Trump Tower meeting have to be arranged by an Irish music producer? What happened to the conspirators? Why even have the meeting to deliver dirt on Hillary if you are already communicating thru other means?
Tom Scharf,
It's tricky to sort out biological programming from social programming in that we've been social since before we were humans. I think our biological programming plays in our social nature in some obvious ways and probably some less obvious ways. It can be slippery.
The media can even receive stolen/leaked/hacked top secret information and print it as shown in the Pentagon Papers, then the NYT all of sudden got morals and refused to print any of the "stolen" ClimateGate emails, ha ha.
While firing of Comey is an impeachable offense, it is not a criminal offense of obstruction of justice. Russia is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. Also, DOJ does not place a FBI investigation in the list of things that can be obstructed. On top of that, Comey had informed Trump he was not being investigated, taking away his motive for obstruction. It's possible Comey was being cute with the counterintelligence/criminal distinction.
Then you throw in that obstruction of justice would require a corrupt means like bribery or witness intimidation, not a firing that is within his authority as President.
Often lost in the shouting is the fact that the WikiLeaks emails from the Democratic party were the real McCoy – nothing was ever denied. Democrats claim that this cost them the election.
In other words, they lost because American voters learned the truth about the Democrats.
Damn those Russians!
MikeN: "While firing of Comey is an impeachable offense, it is not a criminal offense of obstruction of justice."
That is a real stretch, if there was any impeachment, it would be purely political. See https://verdict.justia.com/2016/07/15/three-important-constitutional-lessons-take-fbi-director-comeys-statements-hillary-clintons-email-management The President is prosecutor in chief.
JD
There isn't the faintest whiff of hope that the Senate is going to throw Trump out of office with a 2/3 majority based on what we know now. It's political theater.
.
The Senate Democrats are trying to get agreement on everyone just voting "present" for the New Green Deal. If you can't get the bill's sponsors to vote for it, then it is exceedingly unserious. Manchin already said he is voting no.
Re lucia (Comment #173531)
Thank you for your thoughts on how people regard their marriages. It's a very interesting topic.
I liked the linked article on why you should treat marriage like a business.
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/why-you-should-treat-marriage-more-business-ncna778551
Marriages arranged by parents are business like and have a lower divorce rate than "love marriages." That I am not comfortable with the thought of my parents arranging a marriage for me ( too late now anyway), may be a cultural bias on my part. Nor would I want to be responsible for arranging a marriage for a son or daughter, as it would be on me if the marriage failed.
Nevertheless, there are good things about arranged marriages. The bride and groom probably have lower expectations than couples who marry for love, and less likely suffer a let down as they settle into married life. They will have the support of the parents, since the parents did the choosing, unlike in love marriages where parents may not even like the choices of their sons or daughters.
How would you feel if it were you?
Tom, it is pretty comical. Those dastardly Republicans making Dems actually *take a vote* on a non binding resolution on what some Dems view as THE great issue of our time. SARC TAG Its good we've got courageous souls to lead the way by voting present. That'll show the world they're serious and dedicated.
Thomas Fuller,
Your imaginings about Trump being impeached are little better than a liberal’s wet dream. If the House leadership allows impeachment to proceed, they will ensure Trump’s reelection. I’m pretty sure Pilosi will keep it at the endless ‘secret investigations’ level through the 2020 election. She isn’t dumb enought to think there are 67 senators who would vote to remove Trump.
Mark Bofill,
Democrats (especially the many who want to be president) have to keep the lunatic-left base happy by announcing support for the things the lunatic-left base wants. But they can’t actually vote for something that crazy, or they would never win a general election. McConnell saw an opportunity to put the thumb screws on them, and so forced a vote. It’s hard being a Dem with presidential aspirations, especially the ones who are lying sacks of dog excrement. I keep looking for the ones who aren’t…. but no luck so far.
Steve, yup. Until the Dems realize that they ought to treat the lunatic fringe in their party like lunatics, they're going to suffer episodes like this.
I on the other hand will have to keep my laughter from killing me in the meantime.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173533)
February 28th, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Trump allegedly received some dirt on the Clinton campaign, which was basically a bunch of emails the DNC wrote and their level 10 incompetence allowed to be hacked ….
______
"Allowed to be hacked" implies it was the fault of the victim of the hack. The law didn't hold Sarah Palin responsible for David Kernell hacking her email. He was charged with four felonies and sentenced to a year in prison. The Russians who hacked the DNC are on the FBI's wanted list.
mark bofill (Comment #173546): "Until the Dems realize that they ought to treat the lunatic fringe in their party like lunatics, they're going to suffer episodes like this."
🙂
The thing is, the lunatics are running the asylum. Dem politicians who try treating the lunatics like lunatics will get locked up.
SteveF (Comment #173544)
February 28th, 2019 at 6:08 pm
Thomas Fuller,
"Your imaginings about Trump being impeached are little better than a liberal’s wet dream. If the House leadership allows impeachment to proceed, they will ensure Trump’s reelection."
_______
I'm not sure a Trump impeachment by the Democrat controlled House would ensure his reelection, but doubt they will vote to impeach unless revelations of his wrong become serious enough to move the GOP controlled Senate to impeach.
OK_Max
*How would you feel if it were you?*
I would never, ever, every have been happy with choices made by my parents. My mother was the dominant parent, and her priorities would never, ever have suited me. If the spouse she picked made me happy, it would have been purely accidental.
Bofill: "The circus going on with Cohen right now in congress. How does this square with attorney client privilege? … What the heck. I didn't think attorneys were allowed to make public every remark they were ever privileged to hear in confidence that might damage one's public image, am I full of beans on this?"
…….
This is very subtle. There is no attorney client privilege to assist a client in committing a crime. Cohen was mostly a fixer and barely an attorney. If there hadn't been the huge animosity against Trump, I don't think that Cohen's files would have been ransacked. However, there is some small legal justification for this.
….
Additionally, there would have been much more justification to ransack the files of Hillary's attorneys who either assisted or didn't stop the deletion of the emails. So, in my view, there is a weak technical justification for going after Cohen's files (Court supposedly excised legal advice), but in practice it would virtually never be done as was exemplified by the pass that Hillary's attorneys received.
JD
JD,
Thanks. But what about matters unrelated to any crime, does AC privilege no longer apply once an exception came occurs?
Perhaps I should just let this story peter out…but here's an article suggesting that Kraft might get off due to (among other things) improper collection of evidence.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/
The more I read about the case, the less happy I am with the police. Upthread, people have noted that they took a long time before coming to the aid of the "slaves". It begins to appear that they were more interested in making high-profile arrests, e.g. Kraft. Hmmm….political ambitions perhaps?
I meant 'exception case'. Sorry
I don't think I asked what I meant to ask very clearly.
Say Cohen is my fixer/attorney. Say he handles X for me, and X is completely legitimate – no crime involved whatsoever. X is some legal matter.
Say he also handles Y for me, and Y is illegal.
I get that client attorney privilege doesn't protect me from Cohen talking about Y. But does the fact of Y mean Cohen can also freely discuss X? Or is X still protected by attorney client privilege.
Bofill: "Thanks. But what about matters unrelated to any crime, does AC privilege no longer apply once an exception came occurs?"
It does apply, but from what I understand, about 3% of what Cohen did was actual lawyer work. Also, there are a fair amount of exceptions. For instance, if a lawyer and his client talk in front of someone not connected to the lawyer's office, the communication is not considered confidential and isn't privileged. Something is going on here and I don't know what. It may simply be that, in asserting the privilege, Trump would have to make assertions that would be embarrassing in the political world.
JD
HaroldW (Comment #173553)
February 28th, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Perhaps I should just let this story peter out…but here's an article suggesting that Kraft might get off due to (among other things) improper collection of evidence.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/
____________
Harold, here's a quote from your linked nypost article:
"But it appears Kraft was caught on camera getting services from two women who are not victims of human trafficking: the 45-year-old manager of the spa, Lei Wang, and 58-year-old spa employee Shen Mingbi, also believed to be an operator of the business — both licensed masseuses and Florida residents."
That's not how I pictured it, but Kraft may not be comfortable with 20-year olds.
I also saw where he hugged the women and tipped them $100 before departing. Seems like a nice guy. All this fuss over a hand job.
Even if Kraft beats the charge, the NFL probably will do something to him.
Thanks JD.
If the details in the NYPost article are correct, it seems clear that there is no evidence of Kraft receiving sex from trafficked victims, which makes it vanishingly unlikely that he patronized the spa *because* they had trafficked victims.
.
That reminds me of a comment that Sheriff Snyder gave in his NPR interview that concerned me, link to transcript here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/697839266/sheriff-who-oversaw-sex-trafficking-ring-bust-describes-investigation
—Snyder quote–
You know, there's some crimes that somehow I'm able to get my mind around and understand the motivations. And they don't seem to me to be against the – for lack of a better term – the transcendent laws of the moral universe. In this case, when you have women that are held under coercion and forced to have repeated sexual encounters with men throughout the day, for a man to go in there – and I believe in my heart of hearts that they know these women are trafficked – I think they are the monsters.
.
And what I said before, there's no locks on the door – there are locks. There's the coercion point that keeps them in bondage. And the person with the key is not the trafficker. It's the men who go into these parlors and avail themselves of this human misery. In the three groups we have – the women, the traffickers and the men – I believe the men are the most guilty.
—End Sndyer quote–
Now if the men are *seeking* trafficked women or even prefer trafficked women I could understand categorizing them as "most guilty". But if the men are simply seeking sex and would be equally content with voluntary prostitutes, then I'm inclined to slap the "most guilty" label on the traffickers who decided to use slaves instead to fatten their bottom line. And in no case should the label "real monsters" be withheld from the actual traffickers!
.
I'm also concerned that the evidence he presented that the johns *did* know was how he felt in his "heart of hearts". Does that mean he doesn't have any actual evidence that they either did know or should have known?
.
In the interview he neglects to give a count for the number of victims. He uses the plural form until the interviewer asks what has happened to the women, to which he replies as follows:
—Snyder quote—
Well, as you and I speak, one of the women that's here, we're treating her as a victim. She's in protective custody. She said that she was offered a job making a lot of money in America in a nail salon. And before she knew it, she came here and found herself in the sex trafficking industry in massage parlors.
We have NGOs helping us along with Mandarin-speaking interpreters, and we're doing our very best to try to get these women some kind of help. You alluded to it earlier, and it's true, they tend not to want to cooperate because of the coercion point. And oftentimes, and this woman said it, she feels that her family in China is at risk if she cooperates with law enforcement.
—
The implication I take from this is that at the point of the interview, only one of the potential victims has actually claimed to be an actual victim. After months of investigation and high-profile nationwide press about busting a major trafficking ring, I'd expect more than one clearly identified victim and I'd expect the traffickers to be charged with actual trafficking charges and not just prostitution-related charges. Maybe that's still coming, if you *can* identify one clear victim and prove she is a victim, that should be enough by itself to put traffickers away.
If you leave $100 on your front porch for a month and somebody steals it, it is still a crime. The problem I have is the person leaving the money on the porch claiming they are a "victim" that deserves pity and takes great umbrage at the perpetrators.
.
The DNC is an obvious target for political espionage and their incompetence (likely hiring political hacks for IT) is a big part of why they got hacked. I put a new server on the Internet a while back and it started to get probed with attempted user names / passwords within a few minutes. Additionally writing stupid things in political emails in 2016 is pretty naive.
.
Hackers should be prosecuted whenever they are caught, but I don't have much sympathy for the DNC or anyone else who takes no action when the FBI informs them they are being penetrated. People finding out that CNN town hall questions are being leaked to Clinton beforehand is in the public interest, just like the Pentagon Papers.
.
This is another exercise of countless Trump leaks are good no matter how it happened (NYT finds Trump tax return in his mailbox, etc.), and Democratic leaks are nefarious crimes. It is just spin trying to deflect.
One can recall the panic about child molestation in day care that happened in the 70's. Many of them turned out to be false or highly questionable due to how the children were asked leading questions and basically lied to please the questioner. This dramatically changed how children were questioned by police later.
.
The sheriff and investigators may have had a bad case of "wanting to believe" it was sex trafficking and one of the victims was smart enough to figure out that claiming it was sex trafficking would get her off the hook. Here we have bad incentives in place.
.
It was common (and probably still is) for families in rural China to send their daughters to work in factories in the cities and send almost all the money back to the family. They live in dormitories built by the company. Slavery or loyal daughter helping her family?
.
In this case we need to know a lot more about the alleged "locks" in place to separate out willing participants in an illegal trade and the loaded term sex slave. From what Dale S has said above it seems this tale may have been oversold. The victim here is probably an uneducated and naive person in a strange place that they don't understand. The people in charge are likely both taking care of them and exploiting them at the same time.
Some good news from Washington. The House Democrat gun control bill (not sure if they have passed it yet) now has a provision that requires ICE to be notified if an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun. The Republicans put forward the amendment and 26 Democrats voted with them to pass it. Pelosi and AOC are livid. AOC says the Democrats who broke ranks “are putting themselves on a list†for a primary challenge from the left.
Story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democrats-explode-in-recriminations-as-liberals-lash-out-at-moderates/2019/02/28/c3d163fe-3b87-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b89e37756bde
How the Republican tactic works (not clear from the above story): https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-house-republicans-are-making-life-difficult-for-democrats-pelosi
.
p.s. – In case it is not clear, the good news is not the gun control bill per se; it will be DOA in the Senate in any event. It is that the moderate Blue Dog Democrats seem willing to stand up to the bullies like AOC.
The bad news is that *only* 26 democrats in the house think it's a good idea to notify ICE when an illegal alien tries to buy a gun! This is the sort of thing that really should pass unanimously.
"It is that the moderate Blue Dog Democrats seem willing to stand up to the bullies like AOC."
I think the original Blue Dog label no longer applies. I believe that on a subsequent house vote of this kind there were no dissenting Democrats. The Dogs got the message. The Democrats in the House and Senate have towed the line over the past decade and particularly when it came to critical votes.
I think the strategy for keeping them in line is the threat of running and party financing of someone against them in the primaries. The party could get a Democrat opponent who could claim to be a little towards center of the progressive wing and then after being elected vote the party line. A good politician finds ways of saying one thing and then finding a way to vote another way. This strategy works well and particularly with uninformed voters -of which there are many- and a politician good at BSing – of which there are many.
DaleS
Oddly, I thought most democrats wanted to restrict gun sales generally and tended to want all guns sales to be reported!
Dale S (Comment #173563): "This is the sort of thing that really should pass unanimously."
Which is why swing district Democrats voted with the Republicans.
.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #173564): "I think the original Blue Dog label no longer applies."
The original Blue Dogs are mostly gone, having lost their seats in either 2010 or 2014. Many of the Dem gains last fall were in those districts. So there is a new group of Blue Dogs. Or puppies.
.
Kenneth Fritsch: "I think the strategy for keeping them in line is the threat of running and party financing of someone against them in the primaries."
Yes, and staying in line cost the old Blue Dogs their seats in the general election. The new Blue Dogs know that. And they can tell the party: "primary me and you lose the seat".
.
lucia (Comment #173565): "I thought most democrats wanted to restrict gun sales generally and tended to want all guns sales to be reported!"
Heh. Maybe they want to make it so that only illegal immigrants can buy guns.
lucia (Comment #173565): "I thought most democrats wanted to restrict gun sales generally and tended to want all guns sales to be reported!"
Requiring reporting to ICE would imply that they support that agency which is what they are upset about.
**The new Blue Dogs know that. And they can tell the party: "primary me and you lose the seat".**
I think in political terms you might have that backwards: "primary me and I lose the seat".
Almost all politicians are going to say and in some cases do what is required to win the next race which in this case would be the primary.
Sure. The Blue Dogs are on the horns of a dilemma. Defy the leadership and get primaried or obey the leadership and lose the general election. But the party, and therefore the leadership, also loses either way. So it makes sense for the two sides to come to some accommodation. If they don't, the winners will be the Republicans. If they do, maybe it will introduce a bit of sanity into the Democrats and make it less of AOC's party.
lucia (Comment #173565)
March 1st, 2019 at 11:52 am
DaleS
Oddly, I thought most democrats wanted to restrict gun sales generally and tended to want all guns sales to be reported!
_____
Yes, the Dems do want to restrict gun sales to law abiding citizens who are sane, which is why the bill mandates background checks on all gun purchasers.
Because undocumented immigrants wouldn't pass background checks and be able to buy guns, I don't know why they would even try, but some uniformed ones might. The GOP amendment would require reporting the uninformed to ICE. With time, I would expect fewer and fewer uninformed.
If I were an undocumented immigrant I would avoid background checks and anything else that called attention to my status.
Aside from most House Dems just not liking ICE, I don't understand why they object to an amendment which would seem to do little anyway. But maybe I'm not informed.
For those interested in such things (possibly nobody here, but you never know), it was fairly remarkable that an Indian MIG-21 shot down a Pakistani F-16 the other day, although the MIG was also shot down shortly after.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tension-in-the-air-iaf-paf-lose-a-jet-each-pilot-in-pakistan-custody/articleshow/68192759.cms
The MIG-21 had been upgraded. Still pretty impressive. I read that an upgraded MIG-21 is a heck of a lot cheaper than an F-16.
Mark, it's all about the pilots…
Tom Scharf (Comment #173560)
March 1st, 2019 at 8:55 am
If you leave $100 on your front porch for a month and somebody steals it, it is still a crime. The problem I have is the person leaving the money on the porch claiming they are a "victim" that deserves pity and takes great umbrage at the perpetrators.
_________
I can't imagine anyone leaving $100 on their porch, but porch pirates have become a problem. They drive through neighborhoods looking for boxes to steal.
I have yet to lose a shipment to theft, but I wonder if Amazon would say it's on me if a porch pirate steals their shipment off my doorstep?
mark bofill (Comment #173571)
March 1st, 2019 at 2:16 pm
For those interested in such things (possibly nobody here, but you never know), it was fairly remarkable that an Indian MIG-21 shot down a Pakistani F-16 the other day, although the MIG was also shot down shortly after.
______
mark, I'm interested in such things. I haven't read the article yet, but I believe regardless of differences in the planes, pilot skill can be a factor.
I have a relative who is a fighter pilot on active duty.
He said Russian aircraft technology is pretty advanced.
Tom, Max,
Pilot skill definitely matters a lot.
In 2009, France 'shot down' an F-22 in a simulated dog fight:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/2009-france-proved-f-22-raptor-can-be-killed-dogfight-25741
takeaway: "“No matter how magical the F-22, any pilot can make a mistake,†admitted Lt. Col. Dirk Smith, a Raptor squadron commander."
.
But the plane matters too:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130126054056/http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831
"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."
Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," – humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.
I know, that's the F-22. Still, F-16's are usually compared to MiG-29's, not MiG-21's.
mark bofill (Comment #173576)
March 1st, 2019 at 3:22 pm
I know, that's the F-22. Still, F-16's are usually compared to MiG-29's, not MiG-21's.
_________
I don't know how many MiG-21's were built, but just about every former iron curtain and lots of developing nations have these planes. Although dated, they may be cheap and reliable.
The Su-57 is Russia's answer to our F-22. The linked article compares the these planes. Looks like at the time the F-22 was the more proven of the two.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-battle-russias-su-57-vs-americas-stealth-f-22-which-better-36012
Max,
>>I don't know how many MiG-21's were built, but just about every former iron curtain and lots of developing nations have these planes. Although dated, they may be cheap and reliable.
Exactly. Actual mileage may vary, but I got the impression from reading that used MiG-21's could be had for around a couple of million a plane, compared to tens of millions for a used F-16 (links on request, I won't bog down linking all my claims unless somebody wants). If an avionics upgrade makes the MiG-21 competitive with an F-16, that's a game changer. [Edit: well. *I* think that's a game changer anyway.]
.
Thanks for the link on the Su-57. I haven't read much of anything about those.
OK_Max #173570,
While it would seem foolish for an illegal immigrant to try to purchase a gun given their status, the same would be true of any of the other prohibited categories — and if they lie on their forms, they're also committing felonies in the process. But prosecution for attempted purchase is extremely rare, and as several mass shooters have shown, sometimes government agencies don't report everything they *should* report. However, I found a report that suggests in this respect that illegal aliens are a little smarter than a lot of other prohibited categories in this respect. It's a GAO report here:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
.
For FY 2017, there were 8.6 million NICS background checks, and 112,000 were denied. Of those 112,000, 12,710 were referred for investigation. Of those, 50 were referred for prosecution. Of those 12 were actually prosecuted with another 10 pending. Even if you're not allowed to buy a gun, the odds of NICS missing your information is probably a whole lot higher than that you'll actually get in trouble for trying it — although I don't think an illegal getting deported would show up under these referrals.
.
Sadly reason isn't broken down, but there are three state case studies with reasons, although I'm not sure how they handle applicants who fall in multiple categories. And rejection in these three stats for alien status is comparatively rare:
In Oregon in 2011-2017, they amounted to just 149 rejections out of 12,816. In Pennsylvania 2014-2017, they amounted to just 72 rejections out of 25,772. 1,695 Pennsylvanians were rejected because they were fugitives from justice — how stupid do you have to be… In Virginia 2011-2017 just 373 out of 19,695 were rejected. These aren't high concentration states for illegals, but the percentage is quite modest (although I'm not sure where illegals who *also* ran afoul of one of the other categories would be listed) — but that seems no reason not to deport the butt of those generating nearly 600 attempted purchases in just three non-border states.
.
Still it's safe to say that based on the sparse evidence that most illegal aliens are not getting guns through legal purchases, which are practically always subject to background checks already. But a different GAO report shows that illegal aliens consist of about 25% of the federal prison population:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
Their sample of 249,000 criminal illegal aliens had 19% arrested at least once for weapons violations and 8% arrested at least once for homicide, so I think it's fair to say that background checks *aren't* actually keeping weapons out of the hands of the illegal alien population.
Re Dale S (Comment #173579)
Dale, thank you for the link to those very interesting GAO reports. You sure know how to dig into a subject.
I think the GAO studies do a good job, but the reports don't make for light reading. In skimming through them, I noted the second report defined "criminal alien" as:
"Noncitizens who are residing in the United States legally or illegally and are convicted of a crime." You may have thought gao meant only those here illegally.
As for those in prison, I couldn't figure out how many were imprisoned only for breaking immigration laws and those behind bars for breaking other laws as well. Overlapping categories were confusing, but GAO may have done as well as it could with the data available.
Do you believe non-citizens have a right to posses firearms for self-defense if their only crime has been to enter the country illegally?
Mike M,
"Maybe they want to make it so that only illegal immigrants can buy guns."
.
No, I suspect what they really want is exactly what Venezuela already has: the non-criminal general population should have no guns, while the thugs who murder dissenters on behalf of a totalitarian leftist government (AKA the thoughtful democratic socialists elites) have plenty of guns… and have the government's blessing to use them on whoever gets out of line.
.
Or as Mao noted quite correctly: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Second Amendment states it clearly: If you have no guns, then you can't defend your liberty. Venezuelan's have only recently come to recognize this.
OK Max,
"Do you believe non-citizens have a right to posses firearms for self-defense if their only crime has been to enter the country illegally?"
.
Their "only crime" is being in the States unlawfully? Sort of like a murderer's "only crime" being that he killed someone. I wish you were joking, but I am sure you are not. But to answer your question directly: no they have no right to own a gun.. nor a car, house, or anything else in the States. They should be simply deported, without any guns in hand, or if they have multiple illegal entries, jailed for long enough to get their attention, then deported. Which sounds harsh, except for it being… well… the actual law.
Re SteveF (Comment #173582)
Their "only crime" is being in the States unlawfully? Sort of like a murderer's "only crime" being that he killed someone.
_______
Crossing the border illegally is not "sort of like murder." It's not even sort of like armed robbery. Not even sort of like assault and battery. It's closer to like a traffic violation than any of those things.
You did answer my question. You think if a person is in the country illegally, he has no legal right to own "a gun.. nor a car, house, or anything else in the States." You may be right. I don't know.
If an illegal immigrant did posses a firearm and used it against a citizen who was threatening to kill him or his family, do you think he has a right to self defense, regardless of not having a right to posses the firearm?
OK_Max (Comment #173583): "Crossing the border illegally is not "sort of like murder." It's not even sort of like armed robbery. Not even sort of like assault and battery. It's closer to like a traffic violation than any of those things."
It is not really like any of those things. More like income tax evasion.
My understanding is:
Generally non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections citizens do. The second and ninth maybe, maybe not. One *does* need to be a citizen to have the right to vote. As I understand it, this is determined by the specific term used in each spot. 'Persons' isn't construed to only mean citizens generally. 'The people' probably means citizens. Certainly 'citizens' mean citizens.
Max,
>>Crossing the border illegally is not "sort of like murder."
I think you misunderstood Steve. He never said anything remotely like 'Crossing the border illegally is sort of like murder.'
.
What he actually said was, in effect: being in the country illegally is illegal. This may seem like an absurdly obvious thing to say, but recall that we live with media who largely refuse to call illegal immigrants *illegal*, but instead insist on the euphemism 'undocumented'. So, fair enough in my book that Steve made this point.
.
[Edit: although these days they don't even say that. They just call them 'migrants' or 'immigrants']
Max,
>>Crossing the border illegally is not "sort of like murder."
"I think you misunderstood Steve. He never said anything remotely like 'Crossing the border illegally is sort of like murder.'
What he actually said was, in effect: being in the country illegally is illegal.
__________
Well I already know that. I said being in the country illegally is a crime.
Steve was conflating illegal immigration with murder, mixing the two, and my point was it's far from as bad as murder.
OK Max,
Mark understood me correctly, you did not. Someone present in the country illegally has absolutely no right to be here at all, and it is absurd on its face to argue about what rights they have while here illegally. Like criminals of all kinds, the answer is: essentially none; criminals are arrested. Illegal aliens should be immediately deported. Having traveled a fair amount over the last 30 years, I can assure you this is pretty much how it works everywhere except here in the States. A government which can’t (or won’t) control the unlawful entry of non-citizens means that government fails at preserving the value of citizenship, and risks destroying the country itself.
Mitch McConnell got 68 votes for a resolution against withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. It was a warning- play ball or you will be thrown out of office.
Another way to say it is that an illegal resident isn't a *citizen*. It's not the case that an illegal alien is identical to a legal citizen who has broken the law, like an unpaid parking ticket. In the case of the parking ticket, once that matter is settled, the citizen is a citizen. In the case of the illegal, once the crime of residing here illegally is settled, they are *not* a legal citizen.
.
As far as the seriousness goes, I think policies like sanctuary cities and an unwillingness to enforce our borders exacerbate the seriousness of the problem.
.
But I think the path through could be quite simple. Why not quit the nonsense political games. Build a barrier, secure the border for real. Then we have a serious political conversation about how many people we want to admit legally every year. If liberals feel like it should be more, that's something we can talk about. Maybe they have a point. But there is something grotesquely insincere about the stance Democrats are taking right now, in my opinion.
.
It's not unlikely that Republicans are playing games too, FWIW, I know that. We all ought to quit, secure the border, and decide what policy we want as a nation.
Mark,
The whole sanctuary city/state non-sense is just a way to get the de-facto open borders policy they want *without* having to compromise. There is no game-playing, just illegality, dishonesty, and arrogance.
I want to point out one more thing: it is not just that an illegal alien broke the law when they entered without permission, it is that they are continuing to break the law continuously for as long as they are here. It is *NOT* a crime which ‘took place’ and ended, like Kraft visiting a prostitute, it is an ‘in-the-act’ crime which is happening all the time.
Steve,
.
Regarding game playing, yeah, I didn't say that very well. What I think is game playing is pretending to be interested in border security and 1) supporting sanctuary cities, 2) calling for the abolition of ICE, and 3) smearing as racist anybody who is interested in taking real steps to secure the border.
.
I think the basic problem is this – people cross the border *looking* for immigration to come pick them up. They get a court date scheduled, are released, and disappear into the U.S. and never show up again if they can help it. I think this is widely known.
.
I'll add this – I think there's more to the problem than just building a barrier. Law enforcement depends on preventing crime by discouraging it. There has to be a penalty for doing this (entering the country and disappearing) that outweighs the benefit. Further, illegal immigrants need to *believe* that they will probably be caught and penalized if they do this.
.
But in our pansy environment of political correctness where everyone is terrified of being called out for a microaggression, I don't think we have the will as a people to enforce a hard line. So, at least build a barrier and police it. It's better than nothing.
*shrug*
MikeN (Comment #173589): "Mitch McConnell got 68 votes for a resolution against withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. It was a warning- play ball or you will be thrown out of office."
That makes absolutely no sense. The Afghanistan resolution had no impact of any sort. It was the roar of a paper tiger.
SteveF (Comment #173591): "The whole sanctuary city/state non-sense is just a way to get the de-facto open borders policy they want *without* having to compromise. There is no game-playing, just illegality, dishonesty, and arrogance."
Perhaps. Some of those pushing the inane policies do indeed want open borders. But most of the politicians don't actually want that. They are posturing and pandering for political advantage; i.e., game playing. They are refusing to consider the consequences of their actions, even when those actions seem to be sincere, such as sanctuary cities. Dishonesty, arrogance, and irresponsibility.
The trouble is, given the average economic disparity between household income in Mexico and the U.S., how on earth can illegal immigration be discouraged? The motivation is strong:
2014, average Mexican household income $10K a year.
(https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/mexican-households-have-an-average-of-3-8-members-843-in-monthly-income/50000263-2666718)
2014, average US household income around $65K a year.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/24/average-american-household-income/93002252/
.
It comes back to E-Verify, which is something some really don't want, because business would suffer.
https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20180527/what-happened-to-e-verify-x2014-the-governments-popular-way-to-curb-illegal-immigration
.
So there's cross purposes here. Do we want illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor or not. Maybe we should E-Verify and increase the amount of unskilled labor we allow in. But if we do this, maybe we ought to quit carrying on about income inequality and raising minimum wage and all that, I mean, can't have it both ways. Either we want cheap labor or we don't.
.
Any way you slice it though, I think we ought to be employing legal immigrants and not illegal ones.
MikeM, exactly, the resolution has no value in law. It's value was for McConnell to make a show of force.
MikeN (Comment #173597): "exactly, the resolution has no value in law. It's value was for McConnell to make a show of force."
Some show of force. Like pointing your finger at someone and yelling Bang! Not exactly effective.
mark bofill (Comment #173596): "The trouble is, given the average economic disparity between household income in Mexico and the U.S., how on earth can illegal immigration be discouraged? The motivation is strong:
2014, average Mexican household income $10K a year.
2014, average US household income around $65K a year."
Those look like nominal exchange rates. Using PPP exchange rates, it is more like a factor of three. Since the average Mexican is a much less productive worker than the average American, the extent to which he can improve his standard of living by coming here is even less. But yes, there is a strong draw.
We need sensible border enforcement policies and strict laws against hiring illegals. The combination can surely work.
——
"because business would suffer"
I take a dim view of that, From the link:
"restaurateur Steve Carb … has had to raise wages to attract and keep workers … raising the price of a plate of fish and chips by 30 cents … The whole island [Hilton Head] is a disaster zone right now".
My heart bleeds.
The ‘draw’ is even stronger for countries like Guatamala and Honduras.
Which is why border security is so crucial…. there are unlimited numbers of poor people who would like to come to the States.
Mark Bofill,
“It comes back to E-Verify, which is something some really don't want, because business would suffer.â€
.
No, they would have to pay a little higher wages for legal residents instead of illegals, and would pass those costs.on to their customers.
.
As I have said more than once: Almost nobody is serious about stopping illegal immigration. If most people were, then E-verify (with stiff penalties for unlawful hiring), national identity cards, and proof of legal presence required for purchases of cars, houses, apartments, etc. would all be adopted immediately. But most people *aren’t* serious about stopping illegal immigration. Trump’s border wall is a very blunt and inefficient tool, but the only one that has any chance of actually being implemented. The sharp and efficient tools all require action by Congress….. enough said.
Steve,
Yeah. I think so too. Sad.
SteveF (Comment #173602): "then E-verify (with stiff penalties for unlawful hiring), national identity cards, and proof of legal presence required for purchases of cars, houses, apartments, etc. would all be adopted immediately. "
Too much Big Brother for me. Stiff penalties for unlawful hiring, sure. But I should not need permission from the government to hire my nephew. The law should require that employers reasonably believe hires to be legal, with E-verify as one way to meet that requirement. That would effectively make E-verify required for larger employers while leaving mom-and-pop operations free to use their judgement.
SteveF (Comment #173588)
March 2nd, 2019 at 4:58 am
OK Max,
"Mark understood me correctly, you did not. Someone present in the country illegally has absolutely no right to be here at all, and it is absurd on its face to argue about what rights they have while here illegally."
_____
Steve, I believe I understood you correctly, and I agree
that people in our country illegally have no legal right to be here. But I believe they may have rights to due process, depending on the circumstances, and also the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Some localities may also give illegal immigrants the right to vote in some local elections.
There's plenty of info on this subject. For example, see
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have
Mike M. (Comment #173600)
March 2nd, 2019 at 11:58 am
mark bofill (Comment #173596): "The trouble is, given the average economic disparity between household income in Mexico and the U.S., how on earth can illegal immigration be discouraged? The motivation is strong:
_______
Yes, the motivation is strong. While I can't begrudge people for wanting to better themselves, I believe we need border control as a hurdle, if for no other reason.
Make getting in difficult, and only the most motivated get in. Border control is sort of a filter.
Here's a question to consider:
Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?
The Economist has a debate on this subject at
https://debates.economist.com/debate/immigration
I think I should be able to live anywhere I want, but some countries probably wouldn't have me, and right or wrong, can keep me out.
Should people be free to choose the country in which they live?
Of course not, then there would be no countries and, more important, society would break down completely.
Mike, not necessarily. People moving freely from State to State in the U.S. hasn't eliminated State governments and broken down societies, albeit it has changed them. Probably it's the same with citizens of EU countries relocating within the EU.
But a massive number of foreigners moving to an area inhabited by small number of natives can break down the societies of the latter, as the migration of Europeans to North America and Australia has demonstrated.
Max,
Why do you think you should be able to live anywhere you want?
Also, do you believe you have any responsibilities towards the society you live in, and if so, what are they?
.
These are not rhetorical questions. Still, I will supply my answers. I don't see why I 'should be able' to live anywhere I want. I am *grateful* that the U.S. permits immigration and that my parents became citizens. I was born here rather than in Cuba because of their hard work and determination to be Americans. But nobody *owed* it to them.
.
I think that I owe my society certain things, although I haven't determined the exact extents of this obligation. Loyalty to my country. A commitment to work for the betterment of myself, my family, and my society. Political participation. Perhaps an obligation to speak and defend what I think is true.
.
What are your thoughts Max?
MikeM, FDR's court-packing bill never even came up for a vote in committee, but the Supreme Court heeded the message.
OK Max,
I visited your link on the debate about whether people should be allowed to live in any country they chose. It looks like there was a debate (which we can't read.) At the end they had a vote and "NO" won pretty overwhelmingly (as in 2 Nos to 1 Yes.).
https://debates.economist.com/debate/immigration
Unfortunately, I can't seem to read the arguments for and against. Do you have links to the arguments?
OK_Max
*But a massive number of foreigners moving to an area inhabited by small number of natives can break down the societies of the latter, as the migration of Europeans to North America and Australia has demonstrated.*
Well… in the case of Europeans arriving in the Americas, the introduction of new – to- the Americas diseases like measles, small pox, malaria and so on helped drastically reduce the native populations during the early period. Lots of natives died even when a *small* number of Europeans arrived. So the natives being wiped out wasn't purely because "lots" of people arrived in regions where few natives were present.
(See for example "Effects of expedition in North America" under DeSotos army. 600-700 men was not large compared to the local native population, but is thought to have depopulated the region around Florida.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto
Similar thigns happened in Mexico where small pox was raging when Spaniards attacked what is now modern day Mexico City.
I bet similar happened in Australia, but I'm not actually familiar with Aussie history.
Current immigrants arriving may carry diseases, but it's nothing like the introduction of diseases into an area where the local population had no immunity. There is an impact of lots of people without the separate impact of triggering epidemics in the local population.
Mark,
I also don't think everyone "should" be able to just move anywhere and everywhere they want. It's unfortunate for some they are unlucky enough to be born somewhere that is not hospitable, but the organized well off societies would crumble if they had to take in everyone. That does no one any good.
It's sad, but there you have it.
I do want more access to legal immigration in the US. But I don't favor absolutely open borders. So clearly, I don't think everyone in the world has a "right" to move and live here.
mark bofill (Comment #173611)
March 2nd, 2019 at 7:32 pm
Max,
Why do you think you should be able to live anywhere you want?
Also, do you believe you have any responsibilities towards the society you live in, and if so, what are they?
________
mark, I shouldn't have said "able." That implies a different question which I will get to at the end of this post.
I think the better question is why shouldn't I be *allowed* to live anywhere I want as long as I behave myself and contribute to the society?
My ancestors apparently believed they could live anywhere they wanted, coming here uninvited in the 1700's from the British Isles, and some before them went uninvited to the British Isles from Scandinavia. Unlike me, however, it's doubtful the ancestors felt obligated to contribute much to host societies.
Certainly I have responsibilities toward the society where I live, those being obey the law, work and provide for myself and family, be a good neighbor, and serve in the military service.
As a practical matter I am not *able* to live anywhere I might want, whether the country would have me or not. I want to live in Italy, but am unable to speak the language, and am not motivated enough to learn. So I don't think I would be able to live there.
If I didn't live in the U.S. I would be able to live only in another English speaking country, and I believe I should be allowed to live in any of those countries.
lucia (Comment #173613)
March 2nd, 2019 at 9:34 pm
OK Max,
https://debates.economist.com/debate/immigration
Unfortunately, I can't seem to read the arguments for and against. Do you have links to the arguments?
__________
lucia, I'm sorry.
Try clicking on the "Comments from the floor" which is on the left. I clicked on the 80 opening comments.
I haven't read all of comments, and there may be things behind a paywall.
lucia (Comment #173613)
lucia, without a subscription to the Economist, looks like you can see only the opening and closing statements (quite a bit there) and the comments from the floor (on the right).
I'm not a subscriber.
OK_Max #173580,
Thank you for the correction on the definition of criminal alien. The cover report to the GAO report linked had a breakdown of population in 2009 between the two groups as 14.5 million with legal immigration status and 10.8 million without lawful immigration status. If they committed offenses at the same rate, we would expect a minority of criminal aliens to actually be illegal aliens — that seems unlikely to me, since aliens who are *already criminals* can effectively only get in via the illegal route. I also erred in referring to a 250,000 sample population — the methodology was 1000 random selections from the 250,000 population, of which 5 were disqualified for not having the arrest record available, just the administrative records, so projecting from a random 998 criminal alien sample.
.
The report also does some analysis of SCAAP criminal aliens. SCAAP is intended to compensate states for the costs of housing illegal aliens in state and local prisons, so the population there consists *entirely* of those the state believes to be illegal (though this would include those who entered legally, but are no longer legal) — however it too has two sub categories — illegal aliens and unknown aliens, the latter being those who haven't previously had contact with DHS, so they can't verify illegal status yet. They are reimbursed at a lower rate. Incarcerations of SCAAP aliens in 2009 (most recent year reported in study) were 204,136 in local prisons and 91,823 in state prisons.
.
You may reasonably ask what proportion of those approximately 300,000 SCAAP alien incarcerations in state/local prisons, or the 52,929 incarcerations in federal prisons that same year (figures 1 and 2) were incarcerated *solely* for the crime of crossing the border illegally. I suspect that's very low. Federal prisons are used for those sentenced for federal crimes, but the recourse at the federal level for crossing is deportation, not incarceration. There are immigration offenses that could result in prison time (e.g. human trafficking, but I have a hard time believing overcrowded federal prisons are wasting their precious beds on those whose only offense is border crossing. For the SCAAP alien population it has to be zero by definition, because in order to qualify for SCAAP reimbursement you need at least 4 consecutive days in jail *and* at least one felony or two misdemeanor *state or local* convictions. Illegal entry isn't a state or local violation.
.
One of the links gave a link to a different GAO report from 2005 that focused solely on criminal aliens who entered illegally, which I understand to be about half of the total illegal alien population. Their sample population from 2003 was just 55,302. In the federal population, it's drawn from 46,603 criminal aliens incarcerated on December 27th (about 27% of the total, according to the other report), reduced to 36,390 for those that have both a FBI number and an alien identification number, and further reduced to 18,581 for those identified by ICE as having entered illegally. So while just under 40% of the federal criminal aliens are definitively identified as illegal *entrants*, that's a floor, not a ceiling. For the state/local numbers they started with 262,105 SCAAP incarcerations (as a reminder, those are *all* believed illegals, and do not include any illegals incarcerated where no request was made). When you shrink those down to unique individuals with both FBI numbers and AIN (it's drawn from number of incarcerations, *not* the number currently incarcerated) that shrinks to 59,427, of which 36,741 were already identified by ICE as illegal entrants. So of the illegal population that can be definitely identified, at least 62% entered illegally.
.
The arrest offenses chart in this reports shows that the 18,581 sample of federally incarcerated illegal entrants generated 84,382 immigration arrests, an average of 4.5 immigration arrests per prisoner. Homicide was 5,992 arrests; 11,883 arrests for sex offenses, 22,623 for weapons violations. Unfortunately only the total arrests are given, not the percentage that that were charged with a certain class of crime.
.
There is one bit of information that may shed some light on the gun purchase failure counts for VA/OR/PA I gave in my earlier post. A chart breaking down arrests for state/local incarcerated illegal entrants by state shows 69% in California, 10% in Texas, and 8% in Arizona. Oregon is 1% of arrests, and both Virginia and Pennsylvania are grouped in the "remaining 41 states" that account for just 4% of arrests. (Oddly, New Mexico is in that grouping as well.)
.
Both reports also have a breakdown of federal convictions for criminal aliens, but as this includes convictions whether an incarceration resulted or not it is dominated by immigration convictions.
.
One last note — illegal aliens are the most common entry in the database used for instant background checks as recorded here:
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active_records_in_the_nics-indices.pdf/view
As of January 31st, 2019, there were 7,950,999 listed in that category, the highest single category. This is obviously smaller than the number of illegal aliens believed to be in the country and it seems probable to me that not all of the nearly 8 million are *currently* in the country. For illegal entrants, this is a list of people who have been caught. Other categories in that total also make me think that NICS coverage is incomplete; I have a hard time believing there are only 2,074 fugitives from justice, and 177,481 for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions also seems low (it would be good news to me if that figure were accurate).
OK_Max,
I want to address this question separately:
"Do you believe non-citizens have a right to posses firearms for self-defense if their only crime has been to enter the country illegally?"
No, I don't. I believe the right to possess firearms is not founded specifically on "self-defense", but also to reinforce the idea that power belongs to the people, not the government — a right to bear arms permits ordinary citizens to defend themselves against standing armies *both* foreign and domestic and at the last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government. In this respect the founders were working from experience, this country was founded by armed citizens rebelling against their own government. The idea that aliens, especially aliens present in the country without permission have a "right" to possess arms goes directly against that purpose.
.
Do I think that an otherwise-law-abiding illegal alien would benefit from having a gun in their household for some of the same reasons that actual law-abiding citizens benefit from having them? (The reason, BTW, why laws that have the primary effect of making *legal* gun ownership more difficult should be looked at unfavorably). Of course! But the fact remains that since they *are* illegal aliens, our goal should be to get them out of the country, not to make their stay more comfortable here. If they want to go home and then re-enter the country *legally*, then I am in favor of completely-law-abiding resident aliens being able to own a gun. Now some illegal aliens can't take that route even in theory precisely because they're not otherwise-law-abiding. We don't want them to have guns.
.
One reason for politicians to turn a blind eye hasn't been mentioned in the recent discussion — proportional representation based on persons rather than citizens. California in particular benefits in Congress from a high number of illegal aliens.
Max,
>>I think the better question is why shouldn't I be *allowed* to live anywhere I want as long as I behave myself and contribute to the society?
.
Well, what's the problem exactly then? Generally you can live where you want. If you can secure a job and/or if you have enough money to support yourself, if you can demonstrate that you're serious and committed and will be a law abiding productive citizen in many cases you *can* live most anywhere you want.
.
It's just that there's also the question of whether or not you can behave and contribute to a society, usually. I mean, the society gets a say too. But many places have immigration policies that allow people who can contribute to society to immigrate.
.
It's sort of like saying, 'I want to make a good living'. Well, if you're intelligent, hardworking, dedicated, skilled, reasonably healthy, whatever, pick two of five, that shouldn't be a problem. Something like that. If not, well.. *shrug*
Max, this isn't directed to you specifically, but it's related.
.
Some people are unfortunate enough to be born into societies so bad that they are virtually born into slavery. I think Cuba is such a nation. Probably North Korea is as well.
.
What do we do about this? It's a hard question.
.
One can make an argument that the thing to do is to overthrow these regimes. In practice this doesn't usually work out well. It's expensive, it destroys what infrastructure there is, the loss of life is terrible. It costs everybody dearly. It usually doesn't turn out the way you want either; cultures don't change on a dime.
.
Well, what then? Maybe one thing we can and ought to do is be mindful about *what caused these nations to become slave nations*, and to oppose those ideas. Jordan Peterson says equity / equality of outcome is one of the recipes for this sort of disaster that the left is fond of, just as the right has used racial superiority as a recipe for disaster in the past. He might have a point. Socialism, collectivism; these things lead to human misery. Maybe we ought to oppose that.
.
It's not much, but it's something. I'm open to suggestions on what to do about the poor devils in Cuba and North Korea and other places though. It's not that I don't care, it's more that I'm not God and can't fix the world by waving my hand in the air.
OK Max,
“I want to live in Italy, but am unable to speak the language, and am not motivated enough to learn. So I don't think I would be able to live there.â€
.
So if someone can’t speak English they souldn’t be allowed to come to the States? Bizarre.
.
“If I didn't live in the U.S. I would be able to live only in another English speaking country, and I believe I should be allowed to live in any of those countries.â€
.
Which seems to imply, as do most of your comments, you do not believe in citizenship in any meaningful way, or even the idea of a nation-state as a legitimate, self governing entity. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who agree with you, which is why we have “sanctuary cities†and “sanctuary statesâ€. Fortunately, there are many more who disagree with you.
While a perfect wall on the southern border should reduce illegal immigration, it wouldn't end it. Up to half of all illegal immigrants overstayed legally obtained visas rather than by sneaking across the border.
Link for modes of illegal immigration: https://www.pozogoldsteinny.com/illegal-immigration/
DeWitt,
.
That's very true. I heard an argument about this (forget where, I'd like to give credit) that *at least* the legally obtained visa over-stayers passed muster for a work visa. There was *some* reason to think that the work visa person was going to contribute in a legitimate way.
I don't know that I think this is a wonderful argument, but it's something to think about.
DeWitt,
A wall is a blunt and inefficient tool which can only *reduce* illegal immigration, not stop it. Stopping it (or nearly stopping it) would require Congress to take significant actions. They won’t.
Mark Bofill,
I believe it is mostly over-stays on tourist and student visas, not work visas.
Well, OK. Still, maybe a student isn't the worst class of person to have stay.
But yeah, point taken. A tourist could be anybody.
Actually the argument is made in DeWitt's link:
"The time a person has to remain in the United States legally depends on the kind of visa granted to the traveler. Typically, a visa overstayer enters the U.S. on a tourist or business visa. For this reason, most people consider visa overstay immigrants as educated and better-off than other types of illegal immigrants."
*shrug*
Mark Bofill,
About 1% of entries on tourist visas end up being ‘permanent overstays’. I personally know several Brazilians who went to the States on “vacationâ€, and never returned to Brazil. Once they overstay, if they leave the they can’t get another visa, so they do in fact never return to Brazil. The US Consulates in Brazil careful screen visa applicants for people likely to overstay (they look for property ownership in Brazil, regular employment, close family ties in Brazil, etc.) but even that does not identify potential overstayers. The motivation to live where crime is low, wages high, and infrastructure good is overwhelmingly strong.
.
Most importantly, the USA is the only developed country where an illegal resident can lead a pretty much normal life…. no hastles with legal residency documentation for most activities. Brazilians do not overstay visas in the UK Japan, or Australia because undocumented people simply can’t conduct a normal life in those places. I find the immigration situation in the USA absolutely weird.
Steve,
Yeah. The trouble is, it's still illegal immigration. Consoling myself by saying 'well, maybe it's a better class of illegal immigrant' is maybe a little bit silly.
You know, continuing along the line of comment 173623, another thing that many of the crappy oppressive regimes do that end up making crappy oppressive societies that nobody wants to live in and everybody wants to leave is to disarm the populace. Maybe we should bear that in mind in our political discourse here, in pondering the plight of people born into oppressive societies around the world. Maybe we should be a little more supportive of our Second amendment.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #173625): "Up to half of all illegal immigrants overstayed legally obtained visas rather than by sneaking across the border."
That appears to be a myth, related to the myth that there are only 11 million illegals in the country.
The 11 million number comes from surveys, which are unreliable for counting people who are trying to hide. So it is really a lower bound. A more careful study gives 22 million:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2018/09/mit-yale-study-of-govt-data-finds-22-1-mil-illegal-immigrants-in-u-s/
But the error bars are large, the range seems to be 17-29 million.
DeWitt's link gives 5 million from visa overstays. I don't know how accurate that it. But taking it at face value, that amounts to 15-25% of illegals.
The claim that illegals are otherwise law abiding appears to be another myth.
Here are statistics on the federal prison population:
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citizenship.jsp
Some "highlights":
20% of prisoners are non-citizens, but only 7% of residents are non-citizens.
12% of prisoners are Mexican citizens, about 3.5% of Americans were born in Mexico.
32% of prisoners are Hispanic, compared to 17% of the total population.
38% of prisoners are black, compared to 13% of the total population.
So it seems that there are roughly equal numbers of Hispanic prisoners as White/Asian prisoners, in spite of the latter groups being 4 times as large.
7% are in prison for immigration offenses, so even excluding them non-citizens and Hispanics are much over-represented.
OK_Max
*My ancestors apparently believed they could live anywhere they wanted, coming here uninvited in the 1700's from the British Isles, and some before them went uninvited to the British Isles from Scandinavia. Unlike me, however, it's doubtful the ancestors felt obligated to contribute much to host societies.*
Uhmmm… perhaps use some logic:Coming HERE doesn't mean they believed they could live *anywhere* they wanted. It meant they thought they (correctly) believed they could live *here*. That doesn't mean they thought they could move to Spain, China, Germany and so on.
Now use some history: If accurate history is our guide, it is quite likely they *knew* there were countries where they could not live. ( Protestants weren't welcome in France for a decent period of time; Jews weren't welcome in England or Spain for quite a period; Catholics weren't welcome in some places either and so on.)
Most people probably think your parents contributed economically to their "host country". They likely settled down and had jobs of some sort.
*As a practical matter I am not *able* to live anywhere I might want, whether the country would have me or not. I want to live in Italy, but am unable to speak the language, and am not motivated enough to learn*
Being unable to speak Italian doesn't prevent you from living in Italy. My mom was unable to speak Spanish when she first moved to Latin America. Lots of immigrants to the US (both legal and illegal) are unable to speak English when the arrive here and do just fine. Some never learn English. There have been neighborhoods where lots of women speak only Polish in Chicago for a long time.
*If I didn't live in the U.S. I would be able to live only in another English speaking country, *
I think I've shown this is nonesense. At most we can say you only WANT to live in an English speaking country *under current political and economic circumstances*.
*and I believe I should be allowed to live in any of those countries.*
I disagree. I think Australia, Canada, England, India and all those countries have a perfect right to exclude you if they wish, and for a variety of reasons. These include not wanting to have to worry about the risk supporting you in your dotage should you run out of funds and live far from anyone who will assume the burden of supporting you of their own free will. (That group is generally children.)
I think citizens of those other countries have a perfect right to say: Let someone else take care of you in your dotage. They also have a right to protect jobs for their citizens (if your presence risks that) or to protect their culture and way of life. I don't think you have any right to decide to seize that right from them.
OK_Max, DaleS
*"Do you believe non-citizens have a right to posses firearms for self-defense if their only crime has been to enter the country illegally?"
No, I don't. I*
I think this question is a red-herring. I think the relevant question vis-a-vis the recent vote on legislation is "Do you think we should identify and create all mechanisms to better identify the presence of people who are here illegally and deport them?" The law creates a way to detect the presence of the person here illegally and then we can remedy the legal problem: which is they are here illegally. We can then deport them.
Once they are elsewhere, as far as I am concerned they can own guns. But that will be up to the country they then reside in, not me.
Whether a person who is here illegally has a right to own a gun is utterly irrelevant to this issue. They don't have a right to BE here. The new law set up a another way to detect their presence.
SteveF
*So if someone can’t speak English they souldn’t be allowed to come to the States? Bizarre.*
Sounds like OK_Max's position is they "can't" as in are "unable". But clearly that's untrue! If it were true, we wouldn't even be having an argument about illegal immigration because all sorts of illegals would (like Max) conclude they "can't" live here. And yet, they think they "can", come here and set up residence!
SteveF (Comment #173632): "Most importantly, the USA is the only developed country where an illegal resident can lead a pretty much normal life…. no hastles with legal residency documentation for most activities."
That is an exaggeration. When I re-established residency in the U.S., I needed my passport and SSN for all sorts of things. No doubt, there are work arounds. But it is certainly not "no hassles".
I think it was harder to re-establish residency in the U.S. than it was to establish residency in Canada. But I suspect the intervening quarter century made a big difference in what was required.
I'd guess that it is a lot easier to live a normal life here if you overstay a work or student visa. Those individuals can legally establish residence here. Once established, there are few checks; so hassles might indeed by minimal in such cases.
A Brazilian woman, who overstayed her tourist visa some 25 years ago, was arrested in a Falmouth MA restaurant 6 days ago, after her unprovoked, drunken assault at a bar on a 23 year old man wearing a MAGA hat. She was arrested by local police *during* the assault, and hit the man again as the police escorted her from the restaurant. She was then released on her own recognizance by the local magistrate. She claimed to the local press that *she* was the victim, because the man should not have been wearing a MAGA hat. She was then arrested by ICE, and the immigration judge released her again…. turns out she has two US born children, and there is no way the immigration judge will will deport her, no matter the provocation. But of course, she should never have been here in the first place. Immigration policy in the States is crazy.
Wow. Interesting conversation here. I don't think I agree with… umm, anybody?
First, I have lived large portions of my life in Italy, the UK, mainland China and Taiwan. I learned Italian on the fly when I got there, never mastered Mandarin and still get confused by the UK's version of English. All of those moves were enriching in every sense, and I hope the enrichment was mutual.
Of the seven years I lived in Italy, I was strictly legal for about 90 days of it. I couldn't get through their bureaucracy for part of the time, and was just plain illegal for the rest. I had their version of a Social Security number and paid taxes. They knew I was there, they knew I wasn't strictly regular and they just didn't care.
About 9 million Americans live overseas, according to State Department figures. They are uncertain about the exact number, because many of them are not strictly legal. The social security administration sends retirement checks overseas to about 400,000 Americans.
The idea of nation states with sovereign borders only goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. People who found themselves in different countries before than (and for a couple of hundred years afterwards) were far more likely to be victims of the state moving than of them picking up sticks. Immigration was largely unregulated worldwide until the borders of countries were more or less stabilized, and even later in countries that Europeans were late in colonizing.
Most of humanity never traveled more than 200 miles from the place of their birth, if what I learned in anthropology is true. People the next village over often spoke either a different language entirely or a variant dialect that was hard to comprehend.
A lot of immigration before the 19th century was involuntary–and a lot of it afterwards as well. Americans who worry about Hispanics crossing our borders seem to forget that we redrew the borderline more than once, that we moved our indigenous tribes from their own territories and that we get all upset when some country changes their visa requirements to make it tougher or more expensive for our kids to live and work outside of the country.
For those who do move and can handle the linguistic challenges, immigration is good. For the host country, immigration (legal or illegal) is good. For the country of departure it is often bad.
The population density of the United States is just over 35 souls per square kilometer of land, similar to the Faroe Islands and Kyrgystan. We're not full, although we should steer immigrants away from states like New Jersey (467/ sq/km) and towards places like West Virginia (29.8 / sq/km). We're not full.
We took control of our immigration about 150 years ago, mostly to combat the Yellow Peril. We've changed policy numerous times. Majorities of previous waves of immigrants had to learn English the way I learned Italian and tried to learn Mandarin–in the street, on the fly. They came here non-legally (not illegally–there weren't any laws about it).
We didn't start worrying about safe borders until we decided we didn't want to expand any more geographically. We have always been relaxed about illegal immigrants, recognizing the truth–they came for seasons to work on our farms and in our factories and hoped to get back home 'soon.' This attitude lasted through Johnson's bracero program and started to fall apart during the Reagan administration. We have more recognized illegal residents in large part because we changed policy, making people illegal.
Most illegal immigrants come here legally and overstay their visas. Most illegal immigrants do anything they can to avoid dangerous treks across the southern border. More people on the Terrorist Watch List have entered the US from Canada than Mexico, by a huge margin. (41 to 2, I think?).
Most drugs that enter this country come in two ways–in shipping boxes from China and hidden in vehicles coming through Mexico and Canada at established ports of entry.
Absolutely nobody is arguing for open borders. Really. Democrats opposing the Republican version of immigration control of course try to minimize the negative effects of illegal immigration, while supporters try to exaggerate it. Democratic policy alternatives would probably be more effective in securing the border, but fencing or a wall certainly makes sense in certain targeted portions of the border.
The most effective weapon against illegal / undocumented immigration would without doubt be enforcement of E-Verify. Forcing employers to verify the legal status of employees would stop people from coming here for work. Republicans don't want that, hence focus elsewhere. (Democrats aren't thrilled by it either.)
This has been quite a ramble, written on the fly, and I'm sorry. To sum up:
1. The US does not have a real need to limit immigration, legal or otherwise. Our legislative handling of immigration is not very old, not very stable and not very well thought out.
2. The free movement of people worldwide was taken for granted, in part because the free movement of empires was too.
3. Americans like to live, work and retire abroad, legally or illegally. We used to let people from other countries do the same here.
4. There are institutional reasons why illegal immigration is tacitly welcome here and why much of the fuss in the press is just for media consumption.
5. I strongly believe that immigration should be welcomed and that people here without documentation should be offered an opportunity to regularize their status.
Sorry for the rant.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173642): "For the host country, immigration (legal or illegal) is good."
That is an ideological position without any foundation in fact. Many societies have disappeared as a result of immigration.
It is certainly possible for immigration to be good. The immigrants must have the ability to contribute to the host society. They must be willing to abide by the rules of the host society. They must be in small enough numbers for the host society to be able to absorb them.
For those reasons, every country in which it desirable to live exerts control over the number and type of immigrants they admit. With one notable exception.
.
Fuller: "The free movement of people worldwide was taken for granted"
Only until it became easy. The difficulty of movement was a sufficient restriction until a little over a century ago. But thanks to technological advancement, things like passports and visas became necessary.
.
Fuller: "Forcing employers to verify the legal status of employees would stop people from coming here for work. Republicans don't want that, hence focus elsewhere. (Democrats aren't thrilled by it either.)"
Half truths. Many states require E-verify; they are all red or purple states. Some states actually discourage it; those are all deep blue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify#State_laws
Thomas Fuller,
My experience is that nearly every American I have encountered living outside the States is doing so legally. Anecdotes are nice though.
.
I agree that immigration can be good for both the receiving country and the immigrant. But I think there are three basic disagreements:
1) Illegal immigration is lawless, and encourages lawlessness.
2) WHO is going to be admitted is uncontrolled with illegal immigration (which in large measure determines if immigration will be beneficial).
3) How many will be admitted is uncontrolled with illegal immigration.
You may be shocked, but I strongly support legal immigration, and sensible policies which maximize benefits to the USA. Just as strongly as I adamatly oppose ALL unlawful immigration.
.
I just din’t see a shred of support among Democrats to address the above three issues.
Tom, Steve,
>>You may be shocked, but I strongly support legal immigration, and sensible policies which maximize benefits to the USA. Just as strongly as I adamatly oppose ALL unlawful immigration.
.
Same for me.
.
We largely appear to agree about the utility of E-Verify as well.
.
[Edit: You say Republicans don't want E-Verify. Weelll. We're a pretty conservative bunch here. *We* seem to want it. So – some Republican congresspeople I guess is what you meant?]
.
[Edit2: Lucia in 173637, I strongly agree.]
However Tom,
>>Absolutely nobody is arguing for open borders. Really.
.
That doesn't appear to be so:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-new-guard-of-the-democratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders
"Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., isn’t on the fringe of the Left. He is the second ranking member of the Democratic National Committee and he basically wears his immigration policy on his sleeve. More specifically, the No. 2 Democrat wore a T-Shirt that literally said “I don’t believe in borders.â€
.
Now look. I don't want to walk through a long laundry list, but honestly – some on the left want open borders. Let's not kid ourselves about that. Maybe it's not a mainstream position. Yet. Universal healthcare / single payer didn't used to be a mainstream position either, not even a decade ago.
"Opinion
There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration."
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html
.
I mean, there's a difference between knowing something is outside the Overton window and not being for it privately.
Historically mass migration has destroyed societies. Gauls, Germans, Vandals, Danes, and Goths come to mind.
If a society is unwilling or unable to defend itself, it dies. Personally, I am infavor of defending my society by any means required.
Ask the Romans how well mass migration across their borders worked for them.
If I can derail the thread momentarily, I would like to post a comment that willard won't allow at And Then There's Physics.
It regards climate catastrophe.
"Several commenters here have asked me to define catastrophe. I will do so here.
But I will start by explaining why I haven't done so previously. VeryTallGuy was the first to pose the question, I think–maybe it was Joshua. VTG did so with the predicate, "The IPCC gives a range of 2.1-5.8 degC for end of century temperature rise under RCP6. [WG3 table SPM.1]" He wrote, "Are you seriously suggesting a six degree temperature rise is not catastrophic? Seriously?"
I had previously listed the impacts predicted for warming offered by the IPCC, the same organization that provided VTG's source for temperature rises. I struggle to understand why the same source for temperature predictions is not adequate as a source for impacts predictions.
It was (and is) obvious to me that the various commenters clamoring for a layman's opinion on climate impacts were in fact playing ClimateBall, the game invented and destroyed by willard.
So. willard insists that I cannot comment here unless I respond to VTG's question, later modified to the more general 'What is a catastrophe?' I will try and answer both.
In the context of the climate conversation I will limit my definition of catastrophe to impacts on human health and safety. I know that JeffH and others will object to this. I consider insults to the environment and other species caused by climate change to be tragedies–avoidable tragedies that make it worse–but catastrophe for me is reserved for effects on humanity. And I recognize that negative impacts on the biome will also negatively impact humans, but I'm interested in primary effects.
A catastrophe is a disaster. It is commonly used without scale. As Vocabulary.com points out, it can be used for a landfalling hurricane but also to describe a fight between in-laws at a wedding. So it is subjective, which means that everyone will have their own definition. Here is my definition of catastrophe in a climate context.
For me, a climate catastrophe would simply be a return to the number of deaths due to natural disasters last experienced in the 1920s and 1930s, when millions of people died due to natural disaster. Currently, deaths due to flooding, storms and wildfire are in the tens of thousands in a normal year. For me, if the gross number of deaths due to these causes, as well as death by exposure to extreme heat, sudden lack of access to potable water and probably two or three other conditions directly attributable to changes in the climate, climbs dramatically I would consider that a climate catastrophe.
To VTG's direct question, do I think that temperature rises of 5.8C would be or cause a catastrophe, I would suspect so. I haven't considered it, mostly because I haven't read much of anything in the primary literature considering it. Most recent literature has focused on identifying the difference in impacts between 1.5C and 2C. For most of the decade prior to that, impact conversations were mostly about 3C to 4.5C. As impacts of 4.5C are credibly portrayed as meeting my previous definition of catastrophe, it would be ludicrous not to assign the term to warming of 5.8C.
However, I would point out that the reason there is so little in the literature discussing the impacts of 5.8C rise in temperatures is because it is not considered a likely outcome. For me, I have not spent time looking at that scenario because I don't think it's going to happen. Like the dog that didn't bark, the lack of discussion of impacts of 5.8C can be considered at least partial support for my belief.
1. This part of this discussion is to give my opponents more reasons to criticize me
2. I offer my laymen's Lukewarmer view of the subjects in question
3. The literature that discusses the temperature rise in question is the same literature that discusses the impacts, which I quote repeatedly in discussions here"
Why do you even post at that place Tom…
SteveF (Comment #173644): "You may be shocked, but I strongly support legal immigration, and sensible policies which maximize benefits to the USA. Just as strongly as I adamatly oppose ALL unlawful immigration."
That is my position also.
————-
mark bofill (Comment #173645): "You say Republicans don't want E-Verify. Weelll. We're a pretty conservative bunch here. *We* seem to want it. So – some Republican congresspeople I guess is what you meant?"
I think that Fuller is right that there are elements in the Republican party that don't like E-Verify. Those would include the libertarians, the donor class, and the think tanks. The first two tend toward open borders and the last two have outsize influence in D.C. They have less influence at the state level, which I think is why many red states have made E-Verify mandatory.
Mike M,
Fair enough.
Most Republicans I know support legal immigration. Most Democrats I know support effective border security.
We're all getting played.
Thomas Fuller,
I gave up on Ken Rice's echo chamber, which is filled with raging arrogant greens and raging arrogant leftists (who are often one in the same, of course), a long time ago. It is a good read once in a while for its comedy value, but really, there is no substantive discussion allowed, so it is just a waste of time. The fact that the unhinged rant endlessly about things like "5.8C temperature rise this century" shows they are either not serious or not rational (AKA "nuts"). I rather suspect the later.
Thomas Fuller,
"Most Democrats I know support effective border security."
.
Funny that I have not read of a single serious proposal. Where has effective border security been proposed by Democrats?
Hi SteveF (how are you?)
Well, the most recent Democratic proposal (supported by 5 Republican representatives) was this:
• More than $1.3 billion for new fencing in the Rio Grande Valley and funding to replace secondary fencing in San Diego and other existing pedestrian fencing.
• $366.5 million for border security technology.
• $7.7 million to hire 328 additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection customs officers.
• $224.6 million for "non-intrusive Inspection equipment" at ports of entry.
• $7.08 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Prior Democratic proposals had a lot more money in them.
Tom,
>>Most Republicans I know support legal immigration. Most Democrats I know support effective border security.
We're all getting played.
.
Well, then maybe what's really needed is a brave Democrat to stand up and draw a line between reasonable liberals and radical leftists. Such a Democrat would defeat Trump actually, if s/he could pass the primaries somehow. [Edit: IMO, obviously.]
What would be equally as useful is a Republican drawing the same distinction between the different segments of the GOP. Hopefully at the same time as your dream Dem doing so.
Tom,
I'll think about that seriously. My impulse is to scoff, but maybe you have a point. Do you mean between the 'racist' right and the reasonable right, or … what part of the right do you view as too extreme right now, I guess is what I'm asking?
Maybe it doesn't matter what you answer, maybe you still have a point. I don't know, I'll think about it.
Thanks.
Thomas Fuller,
Well, I assume the $7 billion is the just normal annual funding, not any increase. Repairing damaged fencing is nice. But Here is what I consider a serious proposal:
1) Changing the law so that illegal immigrants, accompanied by a child are no longer given a hearing date and allowed to disappear.
2) Make E-verify mandatory nationwide, with stiff penalties for non-compliance.
3) Funding for physical barriers where CBP agents say they are needed.
4) funding for many more immigration judges.
5) Detention sufficient to detain people who cross claiming asylum.
6) Legal status for Dreamers, simultaneous with adoption of the above.
Tom F.,
I don't think what you say shows you disagree with everyone. To some extent, you are just changing the subject from "right" of people to enter the country and what might be American's preference for what they allow
*1. The US does not have a real need to limit immigration, legal or otherwise. Our legislative handling of immigration is not very old, not very stable and not very well thought out.*
Whether we need to limit imigration or not has nothing to do with whether we have a right to do so. I think we have a right to do so, but I also think that we have no need to limit legal immigration. I do think illegal immigration needs to be limited. (Otherwise, just declare open borders and make coming here 'not illegal. ) I do agree our legislative handling of immigration is not well thought out.
*2. The free movement of people worldwide was taken for granted, in part because the free movement of empires was too.*
This has nothing to do with the right of people to move. I don't think people have every considered empires "free to move". Battles were fought. One side won. Unless one's idea is "might makes right", this has nothing to do with might.
*3. Americans like to live, work and retire abroad, legally or illegally. We used to let people from other countries do the same here.*
Sure. Some like to live, work or retire abroad. That has nothing to do with "rights". Lots of countries don't let us live abroad and sometimes it's illegal. I don't think this suggests we can't make laws that make residence here illegal for some.
*4. There are institutional reasons why illegal immigration is tacitly welcome here and why much of the fuss in the press is just for media consumption.*
Sure. Once again: this has nothing to do with the "right" to immigrate. It is related to the insanity of our immigration laws.
*5. I strongly believe that immigration should be welcomed and that people here without documentation should be offered an opportunity to regularize their status.*
I think a fairly high level of immigration should be welcomed. I also think it can , and should be regulated through proper channels.
*Sorry for the rant.
*
Rants allowed.
The Trump administration is trying to restore some degree of sanity at the border by forcing asylum seekers to apply at regular ports of entry, then wait for a decision.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/remain-in-mexico-update/index.html
It is, of course, being challenged in the courts.
RE: TWFuller: "The US does not have a real need to limit immigration, legal or otherwise. "
There are a number of problems with your position.
1. It is impossible to have a legal system without shared values at its base. Law is a construct on the foundation of shared values. For example, one writer for the Wall Street Journal stated one time that the US Attorney General was obligated to follow the law. I looked up the statutory authorization for the AG, and as I expected, there was no requirement that the AG follow the law. The clear assumption under the law, understood by everyone, was that the AG would follow the law. However, it is not a part of his statutory authorization. (The authorization is quite sparse) There are innumerable laws based on similar assumptions that people just take for granted that will go away if we have large areas of distinct and different cultures.
2. In the internet world, there is much less reason for foreigners to assimilate in the US. Someone from Syria, Nicaragua, Bangladesh or whatever, can retain his own culture by using the Internet. When the US had mass migration in the late 1890s and early 1900s that was not the case. My Italian grandfather immigrated to the US from Southern Italy. My father spoke all Italian until he was 7. When he became an adult he forgot all of the Italian, and he had zero interest in visiting Italy. That would not be the case today. Somali arrivals, for instance, will come here and live the Somali way.
3. In terms of Muslims, this is what Trevor Phillips, who popularized the term Islamophobia had to say:
…..
"UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better,’†by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, April 10, 2016:
The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong†on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations†in the West.
….. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:
One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.
"Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.â€
I would add that several days ago a Chinese friend of mine (green card holder in US for about 10 years) who is a highly educated engineer told me that she supported Xi Jinping's social credit policy. (where for instance, your right to ride a train can be taken away because you are not a good enough person)
The bigger point is that the only way to have a Western Democracy is to actively defend and fight for it. The current open borders policy supported by the Dems (anything that works in keeping out people or in making sure that illegals are deported is practically hamstrung by procedures that make real enforcement impossible) If enough Muslims, Indians or Chinese come here, they will simply revert back to their home culture and means of governance. People have to stand up for Western Culture, part of which explicitly gives credit to white males for the good they have done. (Borlaug,Einstein, Maxwell et cet), while acknowledging the horrible things they have done. (Hitler & Stalin). Additionally the number of people allowed into the country must be limited in order to protect a Western democratic form of government.
……
Additionally, of course, there are about 750,000,000 people who live on less than $2 per day. There is absolutely no reason for them not to come to the US and sneak in.
JD
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173656): "Well, the most recent Democratic proposal (supported by 5 Republican representatives) was this:"
That proposal just pays lip service to border security.
"• More than $1.3 billion for new fencing in the Rio Grande Valley and funding to replace secondary fencing in San Diego and other existing pedestrian fencing."
In other words, not enough to make much of a difference.
"• $366.5 million for border security technology."
I doubt that will make much difference. It might pay for effective surveillance along a few tens of miles of border.
"• $7.7 million to hire 328 additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection customs officers."
That's nice. For scale, there are now 21,000 officers.
"• $224.6 million for "non-intrusive Inspection equipment" at ports of entry."
Again, unlike to be nearly enough to do the job.
"• $7.08 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
A cut from the current budget of $7.6 billion.
How's this for a serious border security proposal?
End catch-and-release
Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.
Enforce all immigration laws
Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported
Complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.
Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.
Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers
TWFuller: "3. "Americans like to live, work and retire abroad, legally or illegally. We used to let people from other countries do the same here. "
…….
To the extent that you are saying that everything is kambala and currently and historically people just moved wherever they wanted, you are wrong. A prime example of that is China, the world's largest country by population. China only allows several hundred foreigners to become citizens every year. https://www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/How-to-Become-a-Chinese-Citizen
JD
lucia,
This might just be a typo, but you wrote (Comment #173661): "I also think that we have no need to limit legal immigration. I do think illegal immigration needs to be limited. (Otherwise, just declare open borders and make coming here 'not illegal. )"
It seems to me that legal immigration with no limit is pretty much the same thing as open borders.
I guess that's what I get for going jogging right after submitting a comment… I don't know if I can respond to everyone…
Mark, I don't believe Republicans tend towards racism as a group. I think racists tend to move between independent and Republican as the political winds blow. Bob Dole asked them to leave the party through the front door. Some other Republicans seem to have invited them back in the back door. I obviously think that should stop.
And of course, like almost all Democrats I know, I agree that immigration should be in accordance with our laws and that there should be limits. I think the previous soft limit of about a million a year, mostly family reunification, is just fine.
However, there are existing laws regarding asylum seekers and refugees that are not being followed by the current administration. I hate that. And unless I missed it, there has been no discussion on this thread regarding the separation of children from their parents. It is kidnapping and it disgusts me. When Republicans call for its cessation, then I will be more willing to talk numbers and budgets.
Even with Lucia's permission to rant, I should stop there before I get all excited and fly off the handle.
Tom,
>>Some other Republicans seem to have invited them back in the back door. I obviously think that should stop.
Fine. That's the sort of claim that I meant, that it'd be proper for conservatives to sort out.
>>there has been no discussion on this thread regarding the separation of children from their parents.
So look – that's great. This is actually what we need the reasonable left for, to point out stuff like this. Unfortunately, well meaning as I might be, I can't do this for the left, because I'm not on the left for various reasons. It's not the way I look at the world.
.
But this sort of digresses from what I was talking about. Overall, do you think the right is being pulled *too far* to the right, or that the left is being pulled *too far* to the left.
.
See, I don't think the right is being pulled too far to the right, except in response to the left going left. I oppose this reaction when I bump into it on the right, which is awfully rare, frankly. Identity politics isn't the way to look at the world for example, even if it's one of my 'identity groups' doing it.
.
Maybe it's that lefties have control of the humanities, I don't know, but it's not a symmetric situation in my view. I'm not asking you or anybody on the left to quit being left and instead stand up for the right, that's not my point at all. My point is, rein in the loonies on your side, because they seem to be controlling the content of the conversation and policy on your side. If you want to say 'same on your side', fine, but I don't see how that's so.
MikeM,
Yes. I was hurrying (because I had a tutoring appointment.) I don't think we need to limit legal to below what we have, and can even relax it. But yes, I do think we need SOME limit.
If what I'm saying sounds too vague and abstract, we can instantiate it. Look at the Democratic presidential hopefuls. They've got some pretty radically far left ideas going on. Reparations for slavery and native americans? Support for the NGD? Heck, Medicare for All is probably the least radical part of it.
.
The democratic party has become the democratic socialist party, it looks like. I get that you call yourself a socialist, Tom, but still – the democratic party in the US didn't used to be a socialist party. It wasn't so in JFK's day. It's swinging further and further left.
.
Are Republicans taking positions that are really any further right than they've always been? I don't think so, but embarrass me if I'm just being stupid and wrong and point it out.
Hi Mark,
Although it seems to me that the left surged in response to certain Republican policies, I think it's a mistake to go down that rabbit hole.
I personally am really angry at Republicans for permitting some very specific policies by the current Administration: Kidnapping / child abuse of asylum seeking children, ignoring the inhabitants of Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria and the 'rehabilitation' of racists posing as nationalists.
The current administration has done many, many things I disagree with–but were policy proposals presented by Trump during his candidacy. He's doing what he said he would do. His judges, his relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the tax cuts, the push for the border wall–that's what he ran on and he's working very hard to deliver on his campaign promises.
But he didn't say he was going to kidnap children. He didn't say that he would ignore Puerto Ricans in their hour of need. And he didn't say he would turn a blind eye to murderous Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville.
Tom,
* murderous Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville.*
I get all the other things. But as far as I am aware, the Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville have not murdered anyone. Had they murdered someone, they would be charged with murder regardless of Trumps position. I also haven't heard Trump endorse murder, nor suggest someone is allowed to murder anyone.
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "murderous".
That's fine Tom.
Just remember – for those of us on the right who might agree with you to some extent, if in 2020 we have to choose between Trump and somebody best summarized as AOC, we're all probably going to end up with Trump, warts and all.
*shrug*
Hiya Lucia!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/07/neo-nazi-convicted-murder-charlottesville-car-assault-killed-heather-heyer/2243848002/
"A man with neo-Nazi beliefs whose brazen assault on counterprotesters of a “Unite the Right†rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year was found guilty Friday of first-degree murder.
James Alex Fields, Jr. plowed his 2010 Dodge Challenger into the crowd, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer. A jury in Charlottesville deliberated for seven hours before convicting Fields, 21, a Nazi sympathizer from Maumee, Ohio."
Hiya Mark
Well, that's what elections are about. I would prefer to vote for someone like Amy Klobuchar. But if the nominee is Sanders or Warren, I will pull the handle for them.
I can't think of a Democratic candidate that would persuade me to vote for Trump. I am struggling to consider an independent candidate that would capture my ballot.
Our current President has more or less radicalized me. And I was pretty radical (in American terms) to begin with.
Tom,
Thanks. I don't think that makes them ALL "murderous". But one did intentionally hit someone with his car. So at least I know what you are referring too.
I tend to stay away from these sorts of protests (on either side.) But I at least see what you mean.
Ah, Santa Lucia… if it were only the one… 5 minutes on Google news finds…
"A jury has found a man accused of having neo-Nazi ties guilty of first-degree murder in the killing of a Phoenix woman nearly a decade ago, Maricopa County Superior Court officials said.
Travis Ricci, 37, shot and killed Kelly Ann Jaeger, 39, in October 2009 while she was walking with her boyfriend in a Phoenix park.
Ricci had approached the interracial couple and began to yell racial slurs at Jaeger's boyfriend, Jeffery Wellmaker, who is black, court records show.
He then left the couple, returned later with a friend, and fired shots from a car. Documents show the shots were intended for Wellmaker, but hit Jaeger instead."
"A Las Vegas felon whose neo-Nazi tattoos drew international attention pleaded guilty Wednesday to first-degree murder for killing a 75-year-old woman."
"At first glance, five killings in three states since last May appeared to be unrelated, isolated cases.
But a common thread is emerging. Three young men have been charged, and all appear to have links to the same white supremacist group: the Atomwaffen Division.
Atomwaffen is German for "atomic weapons," and the group is extreme. It celebrates Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson, its online images are filled with swastikas, and it promotes violence."
"Mr Taylor was bludgeoned with a hammer by Edhouse and another man, who cannot be identified but pleaded guilty to murder and received a reduced sentence in return for testifying at the trial.
A fourth man, 21-year-old Corey Dymock, was sentenced to five years in jail after being found guilty of being an accessory to the murder.
With time already served he will be eligible for parole in about a year.
Edhouse was also sentence to 10 months' jail for contempt of court, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence, for lashing out at Dymock in the dock when the guilty verdict was handed down.
All four were members of a Neo-Nazi group called Aryan Nations and were labelled at trial by the prosecutor as "a white supremacist death squad"."
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173672): "And he didn't say he would turn a blind eye to murderous Nazis and Klansmen in Charlottesville."
Trump has consistently condemned such people. He did not ignore Puerto Rico. And the separation of families is the result of idiotic court decisions that make it impossible to detain children who illegally cross the border.
Hi Mike
We live in different worlds.
Why are children separated from their families at the border, Tom, and what have democrats done to stop it?
Thomas Fuller,
"We live in different worlds."
.
Agreed. This has been clear to me for decades: very different priorities, very different conclusions, very different preferred policies.
.
I was probably a radical conservative/libertarian (at least by your standards) a decade ago. But it was Barack Obama who really raised my awareness of the damage being done to the social fabric by people intent to "fundamentally change" society in the USA. Trump is only in office *because* of Obama's policies, yet I doubt Democrats can ever accept that. The now ascendant loony left (like AOC) will drive people to vote for Trump again, and may well get him re-elected, not because most voters like him (he is a buffoon and a jerk after all), but because they truly fear the alternative.
Tom
"At first glance, five killings in three states since last May appeared to be unrelated, isolated cases.
As far as I can see, the others don't have anything to do with Charlottesville or Trump. I'm no Trump fan. But Trump didn't endorse them, nor their group.
I get there are groups who are hate filled. But you are going a bit too far.
Hi Lucia
Of course Trump doesn't endorse them. They endorse him.
I don't know what is in Trump's head or heart. I certainly consider it possible that he tries to manipulate sentiment among the fringe to get political support.
I also think that his enthusiastic embrace of birtherism and his call for the death penalty of black suspects who proved to be innocent leave him open to the charge.
But racists, Klansmen and neo-Nazis think he is on their side and there is ample evidence of that. Are they all wrong?
From back in 2016, in Politico,
"The embrace of Donald Trump by America’s white nationalists has been one of the most surprising and unsettling threads in the 2016 campaign. The celebrity New York developer has been endorsed by the nation’s most prominent neo-Nazis, as well as both current and former Klansmen. He is supported online by a legion of racist and anti-Semitic trolls, who push his campaign’s message and viciously attack journalists and politicians they see as hostile to Trump. Whether deliberately or not, the candidate, his son Donald Jr. and his surrogates have circulated white nationalist messages and imagery online. The Republican National Committee even displayed a white nationalist’s tweet during the GOP convention."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-white-nationalists-alt-right-214388
Tom,
Before I forget, thank you for talking with me. I disagree with you on some things, but you've got my respect and I appreciate the things you have to say.
SteveF (Comment #173682): "I was probably a radical conservative/libertarian (at least by your standards) a decade ago. But it was Barack Obama who really raised my awareness of the damage being done to the social fabric by people intent to "fundamentally change" society in the USA."
I was left-of-center a decade ago and was glad Obama got elected. He had the same effect on me as on Steve.
Hi Mark, I feel the same way–I learn things and remember to check my premises when I am conversing with you. Thanks.
Steve and Mike–more evidence that we live in different worlds–I would be very happy to vote for Barack Obama again, were such a thing permitted.
Tom
*Of course Trump doesn't endorse them. They endorse him.*
So? Really… So? I could have endorsed Mother Theresa or Pol Pot. And… so? (The So is a real Q btw.)
*he tries to manipulate sentiment among the fringe to get political support.* So does Bernie Sanders. So does Hillary. So does AOC. So do nearly all politicians.
*I also think that his enthusiastic embrace of birtherism*
Do you mean specifically the Obama thing? I criticize him for that too. If you mean more, then be more specific.
*his call for the death penalty of black suspects*
Well… no one is going to put people to death for being suspects.
Trumps no cupcake. That's for sure. But I'm not going to get any more upset about this sort of thing than Kamala's tweets after the whole "Jussi" accusations. Politicians are vile. Trump is worst than most, but others are also bad.
*But racists, Klansmen and neo-Nazis think he is on their side and there is ample evidence of that. Are they all wrong?*
Maybe they are wrong. Or maybe they are right. I honestly can't tell.
I think "bad person X thinks Y likes them" and so "Y must be bad" is a pretty bad argument for why I ought to think "Y must be bad".
Not a fan of Trump. But that some Nazi's might like him has nothing to do with my not being a fan of Trump. I'm basing it on things Trump *actually does or says*. I'm not going to base my opinion on other people's opinions of him.
Hi Lucia
My last comment got eaten. Sigh… You make a lot of cogent points, but they are somewhat tangential.
In the past, Republicans who were endorsed by Nazis, racists, Klansment rejected their endorsements publicly, winning praise and votes from the public, including many Dems. Trump has done the opposite, using winks and nods to signal sympathy for them, if not thier causes.
His Call for the Wall, tirades against Mexkins, Muslim ban and more seem crafted to retain their support.
Yes, politicians are politicians. Harris and Booker seem painfully artificial, Warren is trapped by her Indian claim–but more importantly, the whole crop on either side is full of people who realize that it is at least feasible to think about being President–and then wondering just what they have to say to get people to vote for them.
I'm not sure that's different from times past.
TWFuller: "His Call for the Wall, tirades against Mexkins, Muslim ban and more seem crafted to retain their support. "
I don't agree with a lot of what you say here. However, it doesn't matter. This was the same argument Jesse Jackson and others used to oppose busing. And, yes, racist people opposed busing. But, also, it was a bad policy. The de facto open borders of the Dems is bad policy, irrespective of the motives of some who oppose it.
…..
With respect to Birtherism, that is a case of faux outrage. My personal view is that restricting the Presidency to someone actually born as a citizen is stupid. If I was running for President and I found out that Obama was born in Africa, I wouldn't raise the issue. However, Obama's birth certificate was weird and his failure, initially, to release the whole birth certificate was also weird. Anyone has the right to make a legal challenge if they wish. The ones that were discussed were based on crappy facts, but that happens all of the time. This pretty much people looking for a reason to be outraged and finding one. (I am pretty certain the Dems did preliminary work in trying to disqualify McCain based on his birth in the Panama Canal zone)
…….
If you want to talk nasty politics and vile politicians, the FISA warrant on Carter Page was an absolute disgrace. All of the substantive allegations were false. He testified in front of Congress that they were false. Mueller has his emails and hundreds of millions of people have access to his testimony and could provide evidence that he was lying if it was true. He was telling the truth and he was set up by the Obama administration and people like Sallie Yates, so that they had an excuse to spy on Trump and other Americans. This episode, and the virtual silence of everyone on the Left on this Beria, Obama abuse, shows the depths to which American politics has fallen.
JD
Thomas,
Tangential to what? Seriously, as far as I can tell, you want to say "X is bad because Y endorses him". I reject that. I reject the ideas that "X" is bad for this reason. I'm not seeing how me rejecting that claim is "tangential" to what you are claiming and I see it even less now that you've claimed my statment is "tangengial".
*His Call for the Wall, tirades against Mexkins, Muslim ban and more seem crafted to retain their support.
Or, he may just want a wall for reasons having nothing to do with wanting to curry favor with Nazis. It's possible to want to reduce illegal immigration for reasons that differ from those of Nazis.
Or he doesn't like illegal immigration or drug lords for for reasons having nothing to do with wanting to curry favor with Nazis. There actually are good reason for not wanting drug lords– of even huge carravans to enter the country, without the reason being "curry favor with Nazis".
And perhaps he's willing to endure stand up for his view even if you point out that some Nazis happen to also share that view. He's not going to back away from these positions merely because some evil people also share them. I don't see this as "winking and nodding".
Heck, as much as I don't like Trump, I can't respect people trying to sink a position by merely suggesting that supporting it would somehow be "winking and nodding" to someone bad who happens to like that position. If you think the wall is bad, advance some argument *other than*… oh… you know Nazi's like the wall too.
Not go go all "nazi" on you when you are complaining about Trump not dis-endorsing nazis….. but I don't criticize vegetarians for continuuing to be vegetarian despite the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian. I'm not going to accuse modern day vegetarians endorsement of being vegetarian with winking and nodding toward Hitler. (BTW: My niece is vegetarian. I don't think that means she is "winking and nodding" her endorsement for Hitler!)
The fact is: sharing a view on "the wall" with groups "X" doesn't mean one is "winking and nodding" to support all the views of "X". That "X" is Nazi's isn't some magic exception to that principle.
Wanting a wall just means one happens to thing the wall is good– for reasons. Those reasons could well be different from those held by "X" (aka, "Nazis). The wall could be bad or good. But that argument stands on its own merits, not on whether or not Nazis like the wall.
Hi all,
Lucia, again, I don't know what is in Trump's heart or mind. And he may have had other policy goals in mind when he proposed the three policies I mention above.
But his rhetoric about Mexicans during his campaign, his lies about knowing David Duke, the 'fine people on both sides statement' to me indicate that he knows that the racist/Nazi/Klan brigades are on his side and he will do nothing to alienate them.
I agree with JD Ohio (Comment #173692) .
For the record Miami's annual average is 10C hotter than NYC … today. The climate doomsters can feel free to visit the apocalypse of Miami any time they wish. There is already "climate migration", people are leaving NY in droves to FL. If global warming will make the NY'ers move back to NY than I'm going to go buy 5 SUV's tomorrow. Get in your car, drive south for 200 miles and there you are, in a 2C hotter world from where you left. On top of this the warming is not linear, the colder regions will warm the most. The response to this is usually "are you saying there will be no impacts?". No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that you don't have to dream about different climates, they already exist, and the dreams about what warmer climates will look like to the doomsters isn't close to reality. Everyone knows all this, but they insist on catastrophe hypnotism or … something.
I agree with Mr. Fuller, we should guide our politics and views of other groups by anecdotal crimes such as Charlottesville, after all that is what loving, tolerant, charitable people do. I'm quite sure that if I went searching for horrid crimes by illegal aliens I would find absolutely nothing.
.
But hypothetically if for some reason I came across a group of illegals that liked to use machetes to chop up their rivals then everyone would rightfully decide all illegals are bad and anyone who supports them actually supports wanton murder and mayhem, regardless of if they repeatedly say it is not. After all, we cannot know what is really in their heart, so let's just assume the worst, like self described loving people do.
.
Additionally one would accurately surmise that people who supported illegals are winking and nodding at the dismemberment of US citizens, which would be quite disgraceful and immoral. Fortunately only Republicans are vile like this, or this conversation might get complicated.
Thomas Fuller, look at the full 'fine people on both sides' video. He specifically says he is not talking about neoNazis and white supremacists. The fine people actually refers to protesters against them along side antifa.
Lucia:
> I don't think that makes them ALL "murderous". But one did intentionally hit someone with his car. So at least I know what you are referring too.
Do you? The Charlottesville killer did not drive into the crowd of protesters, but instead into another car which went into a van which went into the crowd. The car did hit some others behind though. The dead girl was never actually hit but suffered a heart attack from the trauma.
The person who gave a beat down to the "brave" conservative activist at Berkeley has been arrested. The alleged victim has now been praised twice by none other than Trump.
.
The incentives for being a victim are way too high in the US. We used to praise and honor people for accomplishing things. Getting randomly beaten is now the highest honor one can obtain. Really, how hard is it to take a beating to become famous?
Re Dale S (Comment #173620)
Dale, I estimate that in 2009-2010 only * 1.4 % * of the legal and illegal immigrant population in the U.S. were in Federal prisons, State prisons, and local prisons, compared to * 7.7 % * of the non-immigrant population. The immigrant figure could be understated if the SCAAP data I used are not a complete count. The immigrant figure also doesn’t account for crime by immigrants who flee to their home countries before being arrested. And of course, the data are not recent. Below, I explain how I got the estimates.
You said “The cover report to the GAO report linked had a breakdown of population in 2009 between the two groups as 14.5 million with legal immigration status and 10.8 million without lawful immigration status.â€
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000. https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
(55,0000 + 296,000) / (14,500,000 + 10,800,000) = .0139 or 1.4% of legal and illegal immigrants were in prisons and jails
The total U.S population in 2010 was 308.7 million and the total prison and jail population peaked at 2,310,300 in 2008.
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/02/americas-incarceration-rate-is-at-a-two-decade-low/
308,700,000 – 25,300,000 = non-immigrant U.S population
2,300,000 – 351,000 = 1,949,000 non-immigrants in prisons and jails
1,949,000 / 25,300.000 = .077 or 7.7% of non-immigrant population in prisons and jails
OK_Max, I'm on your side, so don't take this harshly… but our opponents will quite rightly mention that immigrant crime is additive. Most of them are law abiding, good wannabe citizens. But every crime committed by an immigrant is an addition to the crime total. It doesn't replace one that would otherwise have been committed by a native.
I like immigrants–documented and un. I believe they are more law abiding than natives, either from prudence or nature. But this is not a winning point for us.
SteveF (Comment #173624)
March 3rd, 2019 at 6:59 am
OK Max,
“I want to live in Italy, but am unable to speak the language, and am not motivated enough to learn. So I don't think I would be able to live there.â€
.
So if someone can’t speak English they souldn’t be allowed to come to the States? Bizarre.
______
Steve, I wasn't speaking for them, I was speaking only for myself, which should have been clear had you not misinterpreted my use of the word "able."
I was using "able" as in having the skill, the first definition in Webster's, not "able" as in having the opportunity, the second definition.
I would like to live in Italy, and the Italian government might give me the opportunity, but I don't have the skill ( Italian language ability) to get by well in Italy. So I won't be moving, but I still fancy the idea of living there.
I also would like a Ferrari, and I'm sure a dealer would give me the opportunity to buy one, but I am not practically able to buy one. So I'm not buying a Ferrari, but would still like to have one.
Now if the Italian government would not let me live there, I would not be *able* to live there, regardless of my language ability, and if the car dealers were out of Ferraris, I would not be *able* to immediately buy one, regardless of money. Those are examples of the second kind of "able."
OK, I think I have pounded this one into the ground.
Steve, if it's any consolation, you aren't the only one who misinterpreted my use of the word "able."
lucia (Comment #173637)
March 3rd, 2019 at 9:09 am
OK_Max
"Now use some history: If accurate history is our guide, it is quite likely they *knew* there were countries where they could not live."
"Most people probably think your parents contributed economically to their "host country". They likely settled down and had jobs of some sort."
________
I imagine my Viking ancestors thought they could live just about anywhere, at least long enough to rob and rape the locals. Their contribution was making the locals try to come up with ways to defend themselves.
I suppose some Vikings eventually grew tired of raiding, settled down, and contributed to the British Isles.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173701)
March 3rd, 2019 at 11:12 pm
OK_Max, I'm on your side, so don't take this harshly… but our opponents will quite rightly mention that immigrant crime is additive.
______
My interactions with Hispanics have always been positive. I don't understand why some people don't like them, but I believe it's because they are different, and some people fear different.
The fear may be driven by the large and rapidly growing Hispanic population, and the suspicion that most are illegal immigrants, since it is hard to tell
the status just from casually observing.
The illegals are a small part of the total Hispanic population in the U.S., but it's safe to complain about them, whereas complaining about too many Hispanics
would be seen as racist.
Dale S (Comment #173621)
March 3rd, 2019 at 3:26 am
I believe the right to possess firearms is not founded specifically on "self-defense", but also to reinforce the idea that power belongs to the people, not the government — a right to bear arms permits ordinary citizens to defend themselves against standing armies *both* foreign and domestic and at the last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government.
_________
I see only two reasons for me to own firearms (1) self-defense, and (2) recreation.
I'm not keen on the idea of defending myself against the U.S. Army like the Confederates did, but fighting with the U.S. Army or at least supporting their fight against a domestic rebellion or foreign power would be my duty.
Not everyone can agree on what is a tyrannical and whether a particular tyrannical government is better or worse than the alternative. When one group of people think the government is tyrannical and another group does not, or agrees but still likes it, the result can be like the mess in Syria.
Think about how Canada ended up with as good a deal as the U.S. without going to war with the tyrannical British.
"Would you, if you could, would you take the wall down here — knock it down?" Chris Hayes, echoing question from Dan Crenshaw
"Yes, absolutely," answered O'Rourke,
Democrats say they support securing borders but end up opposing the means to make it happen. They passed a Secure Fence Act calling for $25 billion for two fences at the border, with a road in between for patrolling, then refused to appropriate the money for it. They later amended it to give discretion on the type and amount of fencing needed. The Bush/Obama result was certifying this fence as meeting the requirements:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw5Wi6LX4AEkYSC.jpg
OK_Max (#173700):
Your estimate of "7.7 % * of the non-immigrant population" incarcerated in US prisons struck me as unreasonably high.
A small math error. Accepting your figures, the non-immigrant population is 308,700,000 – 25,300,000 = 283.4 million. Hence the fraction in prison is 1,949,000/283.4 = 0.69%.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173696): "Get in your car, drive south for 200 miles and there you are, in a 2C hotter world from where you left. On top of this the warming is not linear, the colder regions will warm the most."
Yep. And the warming will be mainly in winter. The main negative impact of warming will likely be on built infrastructure. Sea level going up or down matters for seaports. Changing rainfall patterns have implications for irrigation and flood control systems. But those are things that can be planned for and on century time scales built infrastructure is largely replaced. So the cost of adaption will surely be much less than the cost of AOC's mad plan to rebuild everything.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173699): "The person who gave a beat down to the "brave" conservative activist at Berkeley has been arrested."
That is good. Have any prominent Dems condemned that guy? Or the guy who shot Scalese? Or any of the antifa thugs? Or any other such criminal?
Trump routinely denounces the nuts on the right. Most Dems rarely, if ever denounce the nuts on the left. But somehow that makes Trump the bad guy.
Tom,
That's fine. We all develop opinions of people based on inconclusive data. With politicians to some extent we must. But others don't need to agree with your conclusion because there are *tons* of other reasons he can say what he said.
As a result of a discussion at Brandon S. site, I read every non-paywalled impact paper referenced in AR5's chapter on economic impacts. They as a group or individually are unimpressive in methodology (IMO) but fall well short of catastrophic impact. And it's important to remember that even the unrealistic RCP 8.5 *requires* a much richer world to generate all those extra emissions.
.
The large economic impact estimates are that a *far richer* world in the future will be less rich than they would be, absent climate change. This is something less than an existential threat, even before considering the vast majority of impact papers ignore adaption (and for agricultural papers, typically ignore CO2 fertilization). If there's a non-paywalled impact paper out there that is high quality and projects an actual catastrophic impact, please point me to it–I haven't read one yet.
.
Frankly, the only possibility I see for an actual existential threat related to climate change is geo-engineering gone wrong. If we try to suck CO2 from the atmosphere and it works too well, we all die.
Max_OK,
You've made an error in your numbers. The overall incarceration rate in the U.S. (local, state, federal) is about 600 per 100K. By race:
Non-Hispanic white: 450
Hispanic: 831
Black: 2306
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Ethnicity
Note that the native-born rate is a low bar since it is enormously inflated by the huge rate among blacks.
Max_OK: "1.4% of legal and illegal immigrants were in prisons and jails"
That would be 1400 per 100K. Huge. I imagine that legal immigrants are very law abiding.
OK_Max
*I was using "able" as in having the skill, the first definition in Webster's, not "able" as in having the opportunity, the second definition. *
But you DO have the skill to live in countries where you don't speak the language. It actually takes very little. So you are "able" using the Websters definition.
You just don't *want to do live there*.
As far as I am concerned, the Canadians, Australias, British and Indians have just as much right to exclude you from living there as the Italians. Your *wanting* to live in some and not others doesn't affect their rights nor yours.
OK_Max
*Their contribution was making the locals try to come up with ways to defend themselves.*
Uhmm…I think your knowledge of Viking history is a bit scant. They had entire settlements in England. They established the Danelaw. Farming and everything. I suspect their farming contributed just as much as the local Anglo-Saxon or Briton farming.
They had entire settlements with governments in Normandy. Farming and everything. Those people were called the Normans who eventually conquered England and created a government.
They has settlements elsewhere also. Vikings did invade and plunder sometimes. They also settled and created thriving communities.
OK_Max #173705,
I don't actually own any firearms, for reasons related to my family situation. Perhaps someday, but my father was accidentally shot as a young child and I never grew around guns nor was trained in their use. It would require time and money for me to become a responsible gun owner and I lack sufficient quantities of both to indulge.
.
With that said, I am glad to leave in a city, state, and country where others could reasonably suspect I *do* have a gun, and I am glad to live in a country where people would, at need, be willing to use their weapons not just for self-defense or recreation, but at need against government tyranny. I am also glad that people several centuries ago took up arms against what they saw as British tyranny–I would much rather live under American law than British. That includes the fact that we have the constitutional right to bear arms.
.
It's nice that Canada was able to gain independence without having to fight for it, but in part that may be because Britain learned some lessons from fighting to hang on to us. An independent America turned out not to be terrible for the British empire, but a commonwealth America would have been a better outcome for them and would've *easily* been attainable prior to 1776 and perhaps even after.
.
I don't expect another civil war will be necessary in this country, but in part that's because the large number of armed citizenry would make acquiring a sufficiently large *and* reliable standing army to enforce tyrannical rule impractical. Chavez banned private gun ownership back in 2012, how did that work out for Venezuela?
On a side note, I think the term "illegal alien" is more accurate than "illegal immigrant". An immigrant is someone who intends to stay here — this is true of some but certainly not all resident aliens, legal or illegal. Some are just working here and have no intention of transferring their allegiance to this country.
.
The idea that border security shouldn't be enforced because a large percentage of illegals are overstay doesn't make sense to me. A large percentage also is illegal entry, stop or severely restrict that, and ICE can concentrate their efforts on a smaller group. It should also be an *easier* group, since there's a fundamental difference between overstays and successful illegal immigrants — we should know who the overstays could be, because they came as *documented* aliens. An illegal entrant is not recorded and is certainly not vetted.
Thomas William Fuller,
Your mention of Charlottesville that includes only the neo-nazi's and klan wannabe's without any mention of antifa is telling. I would think that you would be as disturbed by an organized group wearing what amounts to a uniform and hiding their identities with masks as you seem to be disturbed by the racists. The only differences I see between antifa and the Nazi brown shirts and the Italian Fascist black shirts is that I don't remember hearing that the brown shirts and the black shirts wore masks and antifa doesn't yet have a charismatic leader, that we know of anyway.
Dale S,
"The idea that border security shouldn't be enforced because a large percentage of illegals are overstay doesn't make sense to me."
That's because it's a straw man argument that you just created. It has no basis in fact.
In my post to Tom Fuller, change 'be as disturbed' to 'be more disturbed' in the second sentence.
Mike M,
"Non-Hispanic white: 450
Hispanic: 831
Black: 2306"
per 100,000 population.
.
Which according to the woke (like AOC) just means the USA has grossly racist police (even black police!) and judges (even black judges!), who usually look the other way when white folk commit crimes, but arrest and incarcerate more Hispanics and always arrest and incarcerate blacks. Such lunacy would be funny were it not so socially destructive.
.
The real problems (breakdown of family, disinterest in education, a culture which tolerates dishonestly, crime, and violence) have been recognized and understood since Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but even discussing these has become so non-PC that people are afraid to talk about them. Instead, we have people seriously suggesting the answer is large cash payments ("reparations") to the descendants of slaves who lived 150+ years ago…. It is all so crazy that it would (again) be funny, save for that it is so very socially destructive, by making it impossible to address the real problems.
SteveF,
>>The real problems (breakdown of family, disinterest in education, a culture which tolerates dishonestly, crime, and violence) have been recognized and understood since Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but even discussing these has become so non-PC that people are afraid to talk about them. Instead, we have people seriously suggesting the answer is large cash payments ("reparations") to the descendants of slaves who lived 150+ years ago…. It is all so crazy that it would (again) be funny, save for that it is so very socially destructive, by making it impossible to address the real problems.
.
Yes. What sucks is that while intelligent lefties will agree and say "we're all being played" on specific issues case by case, they will not agree that the "players" ought to be reined in. At least not on their side.
Can't let addressing real problems get in the way of the revolution, I guess.
*shrug*
DeWitt #173718,
It's not an argument I've ever seen you made, nor is it something I suspect you believe. However, I did not invent it, I've seen it included in reasons "why border walls are ineffective" as an excuse for doing nothing to improve border security. For example, inside https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration, or in a Jennifer Rubin op-ed at the Washington Post. And I know it's low-hanging fruit, but according to bustle.com's account of AOC's interview with Rachel Maddow:
—
Ocasio-Cortez went on to say that even if people are "anti-immigrant" in the United States, that was no reason to build a border wall, because "the majority of people [in America] who are documented is because of visa overstay, not because people are crossing a border illegally."
—
If I overstated at all it was by framing wall opposition as "border security shouldn't be enforced" — however, *that* idea is also present among certain Democratic politicians, as I'm sure you know well. And even those who haven't explicitly gone that far (like Speaker Pelosi) I'm not sure how else the idea that wall construction would be "immoral" should be construed.
HaroldW (Comment #173707)
Harold,It was kind of you to refer to my math error as "small." My error was huge. Your 0.69% is correct.
Mike M. (Comment #173712)
March 4th, 2019 at 7:39 am
Max_OK: "1.4% of legal and illegal immigrants were in prisons and jails"
That would be 1400 per 100K. Huge. I imagine that legal immigrants are very law abiding.
_________
Yes, that would be twice ratio for nonimmigrants. But as you pointed out in your Comment #173635, the number of illegal immigrants may be understated, and there might be as many as 29 million.
Using 29 million illegals in my calculations, I get 0.81 % compared to the corrected 0.69 % for non-immigrants.
ucia (Comment #173713)
March 4th, 2019 at 7:42 am
OK_Max
But you DO have the skill to live in countries where you don't speak the language. It actually takes very little. So you are "able" using the Websters definition.
You just don't *want to do live there*.
________
lucia, we just don't think alike.
Didn't you ever fancy having something that's just to much trouble or impractical for you to have?
OK_Max,
Sure. But not wanting to go to the trouble to sew a quilt doesn't mean I'm unable to do it. I could make one… but I'm not going to bother.
OK_Max,
I described the error as "minor" because it was just a matter of taking the wrong figure from a previous calculation. While it made a large difference in the result, you "showed your work" and it was easy to spot the one slipup.
.
More importantly, if one wishes to compare crime rates, I think the relevant figure would be those solely of illegal immigrants, rather than immigrants as a whole. Nobody here, as far as I can tell, has any beef with legal immigrants. It is only the illegals about whom there is disagreement. One can have philosophical disagreement about open borders, certainly. But if you're trying to make a *practical* argument for the desirability of accepting the illegal immigrants — e.g., that they are not more likely to committing crimes — you should cite the rate just for that group. I don't think I've run across such figures in this post or elsewhere.
OK_Max (Comment #173724): "Using 29 million illegals in my calculations, I get 0.81 % compared to the corrected 0.69 % for non-immigrants."
So even cherry picked numbers give a huge problem since the non-immigrant number is inflated by our hugely disfunctional inner cities.
Poor people go to jail more often than rich people for a lot of obvious reasons. There seems to be a disconnect between the claims of immigrants are more law abiding and the incarceration ratios. I don't have the energy or desire to track it down, but I suspect the * in this claim is that poor immigrants are just as law abiding as poor citizens, which is to say less law abiding than middle class people.
.
Most people want to filter out high risk immigrants. Few people want to filter out high value immigrants. These type of questions are rarely asked or highlighted in the media because it doesn't serve the narrative. Part of the dishonesty in the immigration debate is that areas of agreement are never even discussed because activism dominates the discussion.
Lucia,
My wife has made many dozens (hundreds?) of quilts… some so complex that they take hundreds of hours to complete… different strokes for different folks I guess. She even teaches quilting techniques from time to time.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173729): "Poor people go to jail more often than rich people for a lot of obvious reasons. … poor immigrants are just as law abiding as poor citizens, which is to say less law abiding than middle class people."
I have no idea what those "obvious" reasons might be. Most poor people are law abiding and I see no reason why poor people would be any less law abiding than others simply as a result of being poor.
On the other hand, I do see reasons why criminals might tend to be poor. I would guess that most criminals have a slew of undesirable personality traits such as irresponsibility, laziness, and poor impulse control. People with such traits tend to be poor.
Mike M,
One obvious reason is less money to pay really good lawyers.
Re Mike M. (Comment #173728)
Mike, statistics on inmates are not complete measures of the amount of crime.
"The U.S. has a staggering 2.3 million people behind bars, but even this number doesn’t capture the true scale of our correctional system. For a complete picture of our criminal justice system, it’s more accurate to look at the 6.7 million people under correctional control, which includes not only incarceration but also probation and parole."
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/correctionalcontrol2018.html
I don't know for sure, but my guess is illegal aliens who commit crimes are much less likely to be on probation and parole than citizens. If true, comparative statistics on numbers in prisons and jails could overstate illegal alien crime relative to citizen crime.
HaroldW (Comment #173727)
" One can have philosophical disagreement about open borders, certainly. But if you're trying to make a *practical* argument for the desirability of accepting the illegal immigrants — e.g., that they are not more likely to committing crimes — you should cite the rate just for that group. I don't think I've run across such figures in this post or elsewhere."
______
Me neither. I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess, I would say there's probably not a lot of difference between crime rates for illegal aliens and crime rates for citizens.
I don't know the exact figures either, but it seems fairly obvious that illegal aliens have an extra incentive to keep their noses clean. I have seen lots in the media how illegals are less likely to report crimes that they are victims of. It stands to reason that they feel more vulnerable to the justice system processes and hence are somewhat more likely to walk the straight and narrow.
Dale S (Comment #173715)
March 4th, 2019 at 7:57 am
"I don't actually own any firearms, for reasons related to my family situation. Perhaps someday, but my father was accidentally shot as a young child and I never grew around guns nor was trained in their use. It would require time and money for me to become a responsible gun owner and I lack sufficient quantities of both to indulge."
______
Dale, sorry to hear about your father. I had two friends who were shot by accident, fortunately not fatal, but one was crippled for life.
I grew up in a gun culture. Had my own 22 rifle before I was out of elementary school. Have no firearms now. Lost interest in hunting. Wouldn't hesitate to buy a firearm for self-defense if necessary, but fortunately circumstances don't make it necessary.
Regarding another post by you, I agree that "illegal alien" is a better term than "illegal immigrant."
OK_Max (Comment #173734): "Me neither. I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess, I would say there's probably not a lot of difference between crime rates for illegal aliens and crime rates for citizens."
Not so. The "SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations" Max cited earlier are illegals. So the incarceration rate for illegals is something like 1400-2700 per 100K, depending on how many illegals there are. For Hispanics who are here legally, it looks like 400-600 per 100K. For non-Hispanic whites, 450 per 100K. For blacks, 2300 per 100K. For the population as a whole, 600 per 100K.
So it looks like we have whites and Hispanics being incarcerated at a rate of about 500/100K, blacks at 4-5 times that and illegals at 3-5 times that. Illegals are similar to black citizens. That is not something we need more of.
Note that the criminal aliens in U.S. prisons are at least 85% from Latin America.
lucia (Comment #173732): "One obvious reason is less money to pay really good lawyers."
For the poor vs. the top 20%, that is so. But most middle class people can't afford really good lawyers.
Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173735): "it seems fairly obvious that illegal aliens have an extra incentive to keep their noses clean. … It stands to reason that they feel more vulnerable to the justice system processes and hence are somewhat more likely to walk the straight and narrow."
The flaw in that argument is that few people become criminals as a result of a carefully considered career choice. If neither internalized morals nor the threat of prison won't encourage you to keep your nose clean, not much else will either.
Tom Fuller,
.
I don't disagree with you. For the most part, I expect most illegals try to stay out of trouble for the reasons you mention. I don't think illegals are (generally speaking) evil villains who come to rape pillage and murder, in general they come here to make money I think.
So, open season on Trump- fishing season, I'd say.
.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think 'we don't like you' was a good enough reason for Congress to start investigations into every aspect of a President's life.
I don’t get the logic of trying to evaluate the criminality rate among illegal aliens….. it is 100% by definition. They simply should not be here. OK, ‘100% criminals’ is a little harsh…. minors brought ilegally by their parents had no criminal intent, which is of course why legalization of ‘dreamers’ has a lot of public support. Their parents are still criminals.
Steve,
Sure, that's true. I didn't realize anybody was trying to make a point about it, sorry.
I suspect that legal immigrants are more law-abiding than the general population, since they require some vetting and natives just have to be born here.
.
However, with regards to Max's calculation, in #173700, there's a problem beyond the math. The federal count is 55,000 criminal aliens at a specific point in time, and includes both legal and illegal. But the 296,000 SCAAP is *not* a point in time figure — it's the total number of incarcerations that they wanted reimbursements from the feds. This would not include any incarcerations less than 4 days (too short to qualify), this does not mean that 296,000 were in prison at the same time the federal count was taken, and it doesn't even mean that there were 296,000 unique individuals involved. Almost certainly there people with multiple qualifying stays.
.
But most importantly, SCAAP reimbursement is *only* for illegal aliens. Reducing the count of incarcerations to account for the illegal/legal split is not warranted, because you can't get SCAAP reimbursement for a legally-present alien that is imprisoned. See footnote 3 on page 1:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
—
By statute, criminal aliens reimbursed under SCAAP are limited to those who entered the United States illegally, were in removal proceedings when taken into custody, or failed to maintain or comply with the conditions of their immigration status.
Mark Bofill,
I was commenting about comments like this:
“I would say there's probably not a lot of difference between crime rates for illegal aliens and crime rates for citizens.â€
Which I think is very, very strange; the crime rate for illegal aliens is obviously 100% (except for kids brought by their parents). To say it is the same as citizens is just wrong.
That's certainly the case Steve. And sometimes obvious things are the easiest ones to overlook.
When I was commenting for example, I'd like to believe I was aware of that, that we all were aware of that, and that we were assuming for the purposes of the conversation that we were talking about crimes besides that.
But I'm not sure, quite frankly. Maybe I just overlooked it for a few minutes.
.
Thanks Steve.
OK_Max, #173733,
I'm sure it's true that illegal aliens are unlikely to be under probation and parole, but given that they are likely to be deported instead of under probation and parole I wouldn't add those figures to the ledger. It might be interesting to see what level of non-immigration crime is necessary for an illegal to actually be prosecuted instead of just removed.
.
I found something that might be relevant to this. Illegal entry by itself is not a felony, but re-entry after deportation is. This is a link to a sentencing report from 2015:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/immigration/2015_Illegal-Reentry-Report.pdf
.
The purpose of the report was to focus on sentencing compared to sentencing guidelines based on 2013 data, but there's some interesting numbers hidden in it:
In 2013 there were 368,644 deportations, but it was not said how many of those had previously deported. There were 18,498 illegal entry re-offenders, who averaged 3.2 previous deportations — it seems highly improbable to me that most previous deported are actually prosecuted for illegal re-entry, even though they could be. Of those 18,498, only 4.7% had only a single deportation and no previous convictions, 92.0% had a previous non-traffic conviction with an average of 4.4 convictions. 61.9% had a conviction *after* their first deportation, and a full 40% of the prosecuted had a previous aggravated felony conviction.
.
The large gulf between deportation and re-entry prosecutions makes me wonder how many other prosecutions are dropped when removal is going to happen.
SteveF,
"…the crime rate for illegal aliens is obviously 100%…."
Can you say red herring? First time illegal entry to the US is a misdemeanor. What is being discussed are felony convictions, violent and property crimes. You know, the kind of crimes that result in a prison sentence. Otherwise, the crime rate for most citizens with cars would be very high because at some point they all probably broke some traffic law.
I thought most traffic law violations were infractions, rather than misdemeanors.
*shrug*
.
I don't know what percentage of the population is guilty of at least one misdemeanor, but I bet google does. I'll go look.
This claims maybe 80-100 million Americans have some criminal record, misdemeanor or better:
https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Americans-with-Criminal-Records-Poverty-and-Opportunity-Profile.pdf
[Edit: This is from some activist organization though..]
DeWitt,
The difference is that a traffic infraction is an event which happens and ends, illegal presence is a continuing crime which ends only when the person is no longer in the States.
I don't see illegal immigration as an existential threat, nor do I see it as a moral imperative to support. I see it mostly as a mundane cost / benefits analysis and optimization problem. I just find it hard to get worked up about it. Build a wall, tear it down, whatever. I just want them to pay taxes and behave. If you don't do those then out you go. Why am I paying $30K a year to house an illegal immigrant in a prison? That's crazy.
.
One of my main customers at the moment was born in Cuba, my cleaning person was born in Mexico, my wife was born in Taiwan. They are all legal immigrants. None of them care very much about immigration either. I knew approx. zero immigrants growing up in WV unless you count an exchange student from Mexico I hung out with. A foreigner would have been somebody from NJ. I don't feel particularly worldly or "culturally improved" just because of increased contact with immigrants. Language and cultural barriers are just a pain in the butt. I never thought other countries should be forced to accept me as a citizen, what a silly thought.
Tom Scharf,
Not for me. It's more than an immediate practical problem. If every illegal behaved in a perfectly exemplary way, I'd still have an issue.
.
It's irresponsible governance. At best, it's Congress pursuing policies they know perfectly well won't do what they are supposed to do in order to pander to further their own careers. At worst, it's ideologs bent on transformation (which generally screws everything up). We're all used to it, but I'm not going to quit pointing it out.
.
It's not *just* illegal immigration. It's tolerance for illegal immigration. Then it's we can't require ID's for voting, or even ask about citizenship on a census form. Then it's open borders. What next? It's not unlike gay marriage, which I think was fairly reasonable. Then it was trans rights. Then it was trans rights trump *your* rights. In Canada, parents sometimes have no voice anymore about their kids getting hormone therapy to change the degree of their masculinity or femininity, even though it's well known that most (like 90% of) children will generally change their minds about this eventually. First we had 'great society'. Now we have ballooning deficits and debt due to our entitlement programs. What's next? Universal basic income at a cost of over 3 trillion a year. Economic security for those unwilling to work. Let's shut down all our fossil fuel consumption, tear down every building in America, and put the government in charge of everything.
.
Enough already. In this climate, listening to this craziness and observing the trends, I'm not inclined to say 'Oh, fine. It doesn't *really* matter if we allow illegal immigration to proceed unchecked or not'.
SteveF,
Handmade quilts are beautiful. I have a friend who also makes beautiful ones and is constantly engaged I making one. Obviously skill grows as one makes more of them.
Definitely different strokes for different folks. In fact that's my entire point to OK_Max. My reason for not making is not that I am "unable", but that I don't wish to do so.
Mark Bofill,
" If every illegal behaved in a perfectly exemplary way, I'd still have an issue."
.
I agree, except I would say "in an *otherwise* perfectly exemplary way". The point being that unlawful presence in a country is in no way exemplary; it is lawlessness. If some politicians want essentially open borders (and I think it is clear that some do) then they should try to change the law. They won't try, because the political consequences would be negative. They are dishonest.
Dale S (Comment #173744): "The federal count is 55,000 criminal aliens at a specific point in time, and includes both legal and illegal. But the 296,000 SCAAP is *not* a point in time figure — it's the total number of incarcerations that they wanted reimbursements from the feds. … it doesn't even mean that there were 296,000 unique individuals involved. Almost certainly there people with multiple qualifying stays."
An important point. But how did you arrive at that conclusion? I come to a very different conclusion.
On page 49, under the heading "Incarcerated Criminal Alien Population in Federal and State Prison Systems and Local Jails" the report says "incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly population snapshots". Averaging snapshots gives an expected number for how many are in state and local prisons at any point in time. That number is 296K.
On page 50, under "Types of Criminal Alien Arrest Offenses and Convictions" the report says: "the population of convicted criminal aliens incarcerated in state prison systems and local jails from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, for whom state and local governments sought reimbursement under SCAAP (approximately 460,000 inmates)". I think that larger number is the number of different individuals incarcerated at some point in that 4 year period. Although there might be some unintentional double counts in that number, the subsequent text does not make much sense unless they are referring to different individuals.
I think the issue here with regards to illegals committing crimes other than illegal entry is that we are not just talking about whether people have committed a paperwork violation. Yes, mark is correct when he says "If every illegal behaved in a perfectly exemplary way, I'd still have an issue." But if the illegals are committing rape and murder and dealing drugs, it is a much bigger problem.
The Left claims the latter is not a serious problem. President Trump says it is. The statistics show that 1 out of every 6 people in prison or jail is here illegally. So Trump is correct and the Left is lying (using the standard they apply to Trump).
Note that the criminal aliens have 7-8 arrests apiece. How is that possible? Either they are not deported (thank you sanctuary cities and states) or they are deported and return (build the wall!). From the report:
"About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were arrested at least once for a drug violation."
——–
I have an idea. From the report:
"The federal government also reimburses state and local government entities for portions of their incarceration costs for certain criminal alien populations through DOJ’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)."
State and local governments should not get that assistance unless they notify ICE when the individual is scheduled to be released.
mark bofill (Comment #173753) asks "What's next?"
One thing on the horizon is normalizing pedophilia. After all, pedophiliacs are "born that way", so why should they not have the same rights as everyone else? That will start with defining down the age of consent. If a 14 year old can decide to change his/her sex, then a 14 year old should be able to decide to have sex. It won't stop there; the activists think that pre-adolescents should be able to start the sex-change process.
I am not being sarcastic. Until recently, I'd have never believed what I just said. But the Left's rapid normalization of trans-rights extremism has convinced me otherwise.
From 'The Historical Basis of Socialism, 1889' by Sydney Webb:
"In the present socialist movement these two streams are united: advocates of social reconstruction have learnt the lesson of democracy, and know that it is through the slow and gradual turning of the popular mind to new principles that social reorganization bit by bit comes. All students of society who are abreast of their time, socialists as well as individualists, realize that important organic changes can only be (1) democratic, and thus acceptable to a majority of the people, and prepared for in the minds of all; (2) gradual, and thus causing no dislocation, however rapid may be the rate of progress; (3) not regarded as immoral by the mass of the people, and thus not subjectively demoralizing to them; and (4) in this country at any rate, constitutional and peaceful. Socialists may therefore be quite at one with radicals in their political methods."
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1889webb.asp
Mike M #173756,
Here's the full sentence from page 49, assuming we're referencing the same report:
"BOP incarceration data are based on an average of the 12 monthly population snapshots for each type of BOP institution, such as minimum security, within the fiscal year."
That clearly applies *only* to BOP incarceration data. I agree the approximately 460,000 for 2004-2008 is likely an estimated individual count, but if there were no duplicates they wouldn't have to estimate, the number of SCAAP reimbursement requests is fixed and known. In fact, you can see the exact count of incarcerations for 2004-2008 in figure 3 (page 10) and they sum out to well more than 460,000.
.
We don't know how many individuals are responsible for 2+ incarcerations in the SCAAP data for a given year. This discussion dismisses the percentage as likely too low to be significant:
http://fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/scaap-data-suggest-illegal-aliens-commit-crime-much-higher-rate-citizens
Their reasoning is that since the average SCAAP incarceration is six and half months (derived from SCAAP data), and since the cycle time between arrest and incarceration is "generally" six months or more (derivation not given), that doesn't leave much room for multiple incarcerations. Of course, it's also worth remembering that SCAAP is a floor of suspected illegal alien incarcerations, not a ceiling, there's an unknown number of illegal incarcerations who don't generate a SCAAP request.
Dale S (Comment #173761): "We don't know how many individuals are responsible for 2+ incarcerations in the SCAAP data for a given year."
I don't see why should care. The 296K number is the average at any given time. It does not matter if the individuals in prison in March are or are not the same as the individuals in prison in July.
The number is prison at any given time is essentially the rate of incarceration times the average term of incarceration. In other words, an average number weighted by severity. That does not tell us everything, but it tells us a lot.
Re Dale S (Comment #173761)
Dale, just yesterday the Cato Institute released a new study on the topic we have been discussing.
Table 1 in the study shows the incarceration rate per 100,000 by race , ethnicity, and immigration status.The rate was 891 for native Whites and 1,097 for Hispanic illegal immigrants, not a huge difference. Put another way that’s about 9 out 1,000 native Whites and about 11 out of 1,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants.
The incarceration rate for all illegal immigrants was lower than the rate for native Whites, and the rate for Hispanic illegal immigrants was lower than the rate for native Hispanics.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-2017-their-numbers-demographics
Mike M #173762,
The 296K number is *not* the average at any given time. It represents the 295,959 number of *incarcerations* in FY2009 for which SCAAP applied. We don't know the number of distinct individuals involved in that 295,959, and they aren't all spending the entire year incarcerated.
CATO is libertarian so they are pro-immigrant, it's probably better info than most places though. I just noticed that the incarceration rate for all US citizens is heavily distorted by … uhhhh … never mind, let's not go down that rabbit hole. It all seems to be about what I would expect. Hispanic illegals are more or less the same as legal Hispanics.
.
There are some questions about illegals who commit crimes and are departed not being counted as incarcerated like citizens are. I suppose a better count would be the arrest rates.
.
None of this changes the fact that we don't want known criminals in the US and should be screening for them.
OK_Max,
Thanks for the link to the cato study. Their incarceration rate listed is 756 per 100,000 for illegals, with an estimate of 106,431 illegals incarcerated in 2017. This implies an illegal population of just over 14 million, rather on the high side. But the 106,431 estimate for illegals (based on teasing out information from ACS surveys) strikes me as on the low side given the numbers we've talked about. In FY 2009 you have almost 296,000 SCAAP incarcerations, and while that may include some duplicates there's no *way* that population could shrink to 100k illegals, and that's without considering the illegals in federal prison, and illegals in state/local jails *without* a SCAAP reimbursement (as a reminder, you need *two* misdemeanor convictions to qualify, and not all jurisdictions use the program. Also private prisons are not eligible). Could the illegal population in jail shrunk by *at least* 50% and probably more in just that short time period?
.
Interestingly, the number of SCAAP requests *have* dramatically declined, and in 2015 were about 200,000 (figure 2 of this report:)
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693162.pdf
Some of this actually is less incarcerations per participant, though the number of participants in the program also shrunk by 13%. At the state level it says 46-50 states (including DC as a state) participated during 2010-2015, I suspect from figure 4 that the state of New Mexico did not participate, since the other border states are all in the 10k-50k range and it is in the lowest sub-1k range. Still, even if SCAAP was complete *and* had legitimately shrunk by 50%, the Cato estimate still seems obviously too low.
.
The bottom line is that since we lack solid numbers for both illegal prisoners and illegal aliens, there's a lot of play in how the incarceration rate compares to legal residents. Also in play is whether offenses that would result in incarceration for a citizen ever result simply in deportation when done by an illegal. One thing is certain — *any* crime committed by an illegal alien was performed by someone who wasn't supposed to be here in the first place. (To be fair, the same would apply to lives saved and good deeds done by illegal aliens.)
Dale S (Comment #173764): "The 296K number is *not* the average at any given time. It represents the 295,959 number of *incarcerations* in FY2009 for which SCAAP applied."
What is your basis for that? It is not what the document says. Or if it is, I missed it.
———–
It appears that the CATO study determines if a prisoner is here illegally by asking him "are you here illegally?" and believing the answer. Yeah, that's reliable.
I don't think CATO is just pro-immigration; they are more like pro open borders.
The problem is cities/states don't record immigration status. So they infer it. They use the same techniques as others (who are likely pro-immigration) and get the same answer. No idea how accurate this is.
.
"The ACS counts the incarcerated population by their nativity and naturalization status, but local and state governments rarely record whether prisoners are illegal immigrants.10 As a result, we have to use common statistical methods to identify incarcerated illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding prisoners with characteristics that illegal immigrants are unlikely to have.11 In other words, we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant. Following guidance set by other researchers, those characteristics are: the immigrant must have entered the country after 1982 (the cutoff date for the 1986 Reagan amnesty); cannot have been in the military; cannot be receiving Social Security or Railroad Retirement Income; cannot have been covered by Veteran Affairs or Indian Health Services; is not a citizen of the United States; was not living in a household where someone received food stamps (unless the immigrant’s child, who may be eligible for food stamps if a U.S. citizen, is living with the immigrant); is not from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Syria; was age 59 years or younger on arrival; and is not of Puerto Rican or Cuban origin if classified as Hispanic."
.
etc.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173768): "we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant"
Wow. So they assume that being in prison is not a characteristic associated with being an illegal alien. Then they find that being an illegal alien is not a characteristic associated with being in prison.
What a surprising result.
Note: That *was* sarcasm.
Dale S (Comment #173715)
March 4th, 2019 at 7:57 am
OK_Max #173705,
I don't actually own any firearms, for reasons related to my family situation.
.
With that said, I am glad to leave in a city, state, and country where others could reasonably suspect I *do* have a gun, and I am glad to live in a country where people would, at need, be willing to use their weapons not just for self-defense or recreation, but at need against government tyranny.
_______
But if you do not agree with a group that rises against what they consider a tyrannical government, you may wish this group did not have firearms, unless civil war appeals to you. And if this group wins, there's no guarantee it won't install yet another tyrannical government, just a different kind.
Mike M #173767,
The description of SCAAP here and elsewhere is always about the number of incarcerations. That this could involve some double counting is acknowledged in the footnote at the bottom of page 10:
"SCAAP data do not represent the number of unique individuals since these individuals could be incarcerated in multiple SCAAP jurisdictions during the reporting period."
.
There's a description on page 5 on how the process works:
—
State and local entities wishing to get reimbursed for incarcerating eligible criminal aliens submit identification data each year, such as the individual alien’s name, and date and country of birth to DOJ by means of a web based system. DOJ then sends this data to ICE, which researches DHS databases to try to determine the individual’s immigration or citizenship status. For each individual name submitted, ICE reports to DOJ that it (1)verified the individual was illegally in the United States at the time of incarceration (called SCAAP illegal aliens), (2) lacked documentation to confirm an individual’s immigration status (called SCAAP unknown aliens), or (3) verified that the individual was an alien legally in the United States or a United States citizen and therefore not eligible for reimbursement under SCAAP. According to ICE officials, some of the
unknown aliens may be in the United States illegally but have not come into contact with DHS authorities, which is why ICE could not verify their immigration status."
—
So — this is manually entered data at the state/county/city level, there is neither mandatory reporting nor automated reporting. There's no point for locals to enter any names *except* people they think are or may be illegal — no one but illegal aliens gets them money back. (The SCAAP incarceration count in these reports does *not* include those who were determined to be legal by ICE). The subsample they analyzed was 69% confirmed illegals, I think it quite likely that those who can't be verified either way by DHS are unknown for a reason and are virtually all illegal, though it might be useful to know how many SCAAP claims were rejected.
.
As the names are entered at the whim and timing of the local authorities, using it for a point-in-time snapshot would be difficult. A later report from 2018 makes the same point with perhaps clearer wording:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693162.pdf
—
We used both SCAAP jurisdiction-level and inmate-level data to conduct our analyses, as described throughout this report. For the SCAAP inmate-level data, we were not able to determine how many unique SCAAP criminal aliens were in the data set, since a SCAAP criminal alien could have more than one incarceration in the same fiscal year. As a result, when reporting on these data for certain analyses, we refer to SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations rather than SCAAP criminal aliens.
—
From the same report (main text)
—
Overall, our findings are not generalizable to criminal aliens not included in our federal and state and local study populations. However, they provide valuable insights into the criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States. For example, we used SCAAP data because there are no reliable population data on all criminal aliens incarcerated in every U.S. state prison and local jail.
—
and the footnote for that statement
—
In addition to SCAAP data, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics collects data on noncitizens incarcerated in state prisons but these data do not include all states. For example, in 2016, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that certain states—including California, which has the highest number of SCAAP criminal aliens-did not report or were unable to report data on the number of noncitizens.
—
Since the subject has become so politicized, there may be jurisdictions who wouldn't even desire to report on non-citizens, or whether they are legal or illegal.
OK_Max,
We've had exactly one successful revolt by armed civilians in this country, at the very beginning of it, and it worked out pretty well. The other significant rebellion was started by direct action of states, not armed populaces. Still, I don't think an armed populace needs to *actually* resist tyranny in order to deter it, the scale of reliable armed force needed to suppress and disarm an armed and resolute populace becomes impractical. I don't think a successful armed coup is practically possible in this country, on the left or on the right, because acquiring sufficient loyal troops to disarm everyone else can't be done. That task becomes *much* easier if you can disarm potential opponents first. Cromwell understood that a long time ago. When challenged by an opponent with his plan being unlawful and impractical, he appealed to the safety of the nation to supply the law. But he asked why it was impractical? Per Life of Cromwell (published 1743):
—
Calamy replied "O, tis against the voice of the nation, there will be nine in ten against you."
"Very well", says Cromwell, "but what if I should disarm the nine, and put the sword in the tenth man's hand, would that not do the business?"
—
It did do the business for Cromwell — and after he died and the restoration happened, the English were very leery of standing armies for a very long time.
.
TLDR version — an armed populace willing to resist tyranny does not necessarily make civil war more likely. It does make tyranny less likely.
Mike M. (Comment #173767)
It appears that the CATO study determines if a prisoner is here illegally by asking him "are you here illegally?" and believing the answer. Yeah, that's reliable.
_______
I doubt the Census Bureau is stupid. I don't know exactly how the Bureau goes about questioning inmates, but it seems reasonable to assume that both the Bureau and the CATO study use checks and controls.
If the inmate requested the Census questionnaire in Spanish, that would indicate he likely is either a legal or illegal alien. That's a start.
Dale S (Comment #173772)
March 5th, 2019 at 4:24 pm
OK_Max,
We've had exactly one successful revolt by armed civilians in this country, at the very beginning of it, and it worked out pretty well. The other significant rebellion was started by direct action of states, not armed populaces.
________
The American Revolution didn't work out well for the Loyalists. They weren't bad people, just chose the side that lost.
It makes little difference how a revolt starts if it becomes a civil war and many combatants and innocent civilians are killed. One-half million Americans were killed in our Civil War.
Many of the armed revolts throughout the word have been by communists (Russia, China, Cuba, etc) who turned out to be as tyrannical or worse than who they replaced.
>>It makes little difference how a revolt starts if it becomes a civil war and many combatants and innocent civilians are killed. One-half million Americans were killed in our Civil War.
.
Sure. War sucks.
.
The ability/readiness of citizenry to make war [by virtue of the obiquitousness of their guns] may be a deterrent against aggression and tyranny. It's not like a tyrannical government can do what they please with the American people without a cost, and they know it.
.
Maybe it'd be the same with these hypothetical civil war groups. A price for mayhem may be an incentive towards a peaceful solution, rather than a genocide.
The people who lecture the most on diversity have the least:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/us-counties-vary-their-degree-partisan-prejudice/583072/
.
"In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves. This finding aligns in some ways with previous research by the University of Pennsylvania professor Diana Mutz, who has found that white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity."
Max,
>>But if you do not agree with a group that rises against what they consider a tyrannical government, you may wish this group did not have firearms, unless civil war appeals to you. And if this group wins, there's no guarantee it won't install yet another tyrannical government, just a different kind.
.
You may have hit on an excellent reason for nations to control borders there. A conservative viewpoint is that our society should hold common values *sacred* and in common, and that these should unify us. The progressive tolerance and indeed value placed on every form of diversity may be anathema to this.
.
[strike this, it's a digression that doesn't fit all that well with what I'm trying to say: Therefore we end with a society of liberals who say 'when was America ever great' alongside a society of conservatives who want to 'make America great again'. Perhaps this is a dangerous trend.]
.
Perhaps we exacerbate the problem by letting anyone in, regardless of what we have in common.
*shrug*
mark bofill (Comment #173775)
"A price for mayhem may be an incentive towards a peaceful solution, rather than a genocide."
______
You would think, but it doesn't always work out that way. Even if everyone looked the same and had basically the same religion and/or ideology, other differences could result in violent conflicts. Still, the world may be more peaceful than a 100 years ago.
BTW, gun ownership doesn't make people righter or better. If it did, I would buy a bunch.
Max,
Sure, nothing is certain. It definitely doesn't always work out any particular way.
.
No. Gun ownership makes people both righter and better.
.
.
.
Just kidding. 😉 I never claimed it did I don't think. Except just now as a joke. It *does* make them more dangerous, and maybe we have to reckon a little more seriously about dangerous people, this was my point before of course.
Re mark bofill (Comment #173777)
mark, if America were any greater, even more illegal aliens would try to sneak in. Anyway, its already greater than it used to be, except for those native born in sh*t hole locations who lack the gumption to better themselves by migrating like the illegal aliens do.
You may be right about diversity causing friction. Immigration, legaI and illegal, has a history of causing resentment. I think much of the division in America today, however, is among the native born, a split you do recognize.
In an article worthy of The Onion:
Google pay equity analysis leads to raises for thousands of men
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/google-pay-equity-analysis-leads-to-raises-for-thousands-of-men/
.
"Men account for about 69 percent of the company's work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money"
Colorado has dropped its infamous gay wedding cake discrimination case against Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Jack Phillips. I suspect this is more rooted in an analysis that they don't want the case returning back to the SC where they will lose in a much bigger way.
With Google that's simple supply & demand. Women have made up less than 20% of computer science degrees in recent years. In interest of diversity 24.5% of Google's hires into tech positions have been women. The weighted attrition of women is also less than 100. In order to corner a larger % of the market (women in tech) and prevent their recruitment to other companies seeking diversity, you will need to pay them above market rate.
AndrewP,
Perhaps. Evidently, the finding is woman at "level X" were paid more than men at "level X". Supposedly, they are not looking into the relative qualificaitons of men and women at "level X". The article I read had several women who were hired with experience hired at some level (say 3), and they report that men with the same experience were consistently hired at a higher level.
If true, it could just be that women at "level X" are paid more because they are, in fact, more qualified then men at "level X". But, it may be that women are just "leveled down" at hiring don't don't get promoted and so on. (Or further investigation may show that doesn't happen either. )
I guess we'll hear more eventually.
OK_Max (Comment #173780): "except for those native born in sh*t hole locations who lack the gumption to better themselves by migrating like the illegal aliens do."
A smug, elitist attitude. It contains a little bit of truth, just enough to hide how unreasonable it is. Many people desire to remain near family and friends and are reluctant to throw away major financial assets (homes, farms, businesses); that is perfectly reasonable. They may not have the skills for the jobs favored by the elites. A big part of the reason that many locations are in desperate shape is that our leaders (rulers?) have sold them out. They burden manufacturers with excessive regulations and taxes and let foreign countries, especially China, and illegal aliens compete unfairly. Then they refuse to address the problems that result. They don't care that lives are destroyed by their policies; they just smugly blame their victims. Hence, the necessity of Trump.
Mike,
I thought he was talking about California and New York.
*shrug*
Re Mike M. (Comment #173786)
I can empathize with poor folk because I used to be one. I can appreciate the difficulty of uprooting, leaving family and friends.
But if you live in an area that lacks opportunity, and you choose to remain there anyway, then you have to accept the consequences of your choice.
If the nation’s economy only had a fixed number of jobs, a number that never grew, then new immigrants (legal or illegal) could take the jobs of citizens. But the number of jobs is not fixed. Employing immigrants creates economic growth, which in turn creates more jobs. Our nation couldn’t have devloped like it did without all those
Immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, and other countries.
The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US is more a result of automation and high wages than government regulations. I doubt workers would want to take wage cuts to put their pay in line with that of workers in China.
mark bofill (Comment #173787)
March 5th, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Mike,
I thought he was talking about California and New York.
*shrugâ€
___________
I was not thinking about any State in particular, but rather cities or areas within some States. No need for me to be specific and offend anyone.
Generally these would be places with high unemployment rates. Population loss might be another indicator.
Dale S,
#173772: great comment. Goes to the heart of the issue. Too bad the Venezuelens were not aware of this. Too bad also they didn’t recognize what Chavez was up to when he began confiscating all guns owned by individuals (“to reduce crimeâ€) and banned the sale of ammunition for the guns he did not get.
Tom Scharf,
#173783: That is true; with the departure of Kennedy, there is almost certainly a majority that would declare Colorado’s law simply unconstitutional. Colorado’s govenor surely wants to be able to continue tormenting people he disagrees with. It is a tactical retreat.
OK_Max #173744,
I thank you for the reminder that there are good people on both sides of a civil war, and that being on the losing side of one may not work out so well. Nonetheless, I am going to hold to my patriotic sentiment that the American Revolutionary War was a Good Thing ™, and to the extent that the right to bear arms that the rebels of 1774 felt they *already had* as English citizens aided the rebellion, that was also a good thing. Actually, although there were atrocities on both sides during the war, for the most part it was remarkably civil for a civil war, and even after losing I think it worked out remarkably well for the loyalists — there were no violent post-war recriminations, the vast majority chose not to emigrate (and those who did were permitted to do so), and their children supported America, not Britain, in the sequel a generation later. It produced the greatest country on earth without anything like the bloody consequences of revolt seen in France a few years later–and it's probably no accident that of the many colonial nations that achieved their independence by force in the late 18th century and early 19th century, the best governed was the one where the mother country permitted the highest degree of freedom to their subjects.
.
How a civil war starts may not matter if you are merely reckoning the cost that follows — but it matters a lot when we're talking about whether the right to bear arms as a check on tyranny *actually does* lead to wasteful, unnecessary rebellions! The Civil War was a rebellion of states, not peoples. Though again, I'm not going to apologize for the end result of that bloody war, despite it being avoidable by simply accepting secession. As a reminder, the CSA did not achieve immediate de facto independence by violence, they achieved it by declaration. In the end I think the result was better than accepting a divided nation, half slave and half free.
.
It is certainly true that armed revolts, especially communist ones, can lead to greater tyranny, as seen in Russia, China, and Cuba. Now remind which of those three (or any other countries you care to name) the following were true:
1) The pre-revolt tyrannical government had and honored the equivalent of the second amendment
2) The post-revolt tyrannical government had and honored the equivalent of the second amendment.
.
A disarmed populace is a soft target for tyranny.
OK_Max (Comment #173788): "if you live in an area that lacks opportunity, and you choose to remain there anyway, then you have to accept the consequences of your choice."
That is why I said that your comment contains a kernel of truth. But the reason many parts of the U.S. lack opportunity is not the fault of the inhabitants but is because of benighted government policies pushed by the coastal elites. People should not have to accept the consequences of those decisions made by others.
.
OK_Max: "Employing immigrants creates economic growth, which in turn creates more jobs."
That is an ideological position without foundation. Yes, immigration can be a big contributor to growth, but that is not guaranteed. Massive unskilled immigration has become a drag on the U.S. economy. In particular, it undermines the wages of many people here legally, immigrants included.
I grew up poor and had close relatives for whom English was a second language, I am a big supporter of immigration. But immigration must be regulated so as to benefit the country. The entire country, not just parts of it.
.
Max_OK: "The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US is more a result of automation and high wages than government regulations. I doubt workers would want to take wage cuts to put their pay in line with that of workers in China."
Increased productivity does not actually cost jobs since it expands the economy as a whole. So we should not care about jobs "lost" to automation, other than by providing transitional assistance to individuals. But exporting jobs to Mexico or China shrinks the economy; as does excessive regulation. Those are the major sources of woe in much of the country.
Of course American workers don't want to lower their standard of living to that of the developing world. It is outrageous to suggest that they should either do so or accept the consequences. But that is what our ruling class seems to expect of them.
———-
On a not entirely unrelated topic, Dale S (Comment #173792): "A disarmed populace is a soft target for tyranny."
It is important for a large fraction of the citizenry to be armed. That serves as a check both on government and on those who might wish to seize power. If the people are broadly armed, then a revolt can not succeed without broad public support and the government can not stand against broad public opposition.
OK_Max,
If I'm not mistaken, your argument against the populace having access to effective arms is that "war is bad' and that harms that can cause motivate wars are often not remedied by war.
However, the reality is that States (including countries) have access to effective arms, and also generally have entire militaries. So, the State is perfectly able to carry out wars against others and against their own populace even if the populace is not armed. Outside countries can also do so. War is equally bad in these circumstances.
It's not at all clear that the populace being permitted arms makes either the risk of war against the populace greater, the outcome worse or that it has any negative consequence vis-a-vis what can go wrong in wars. Maybe it is worse for the populace, but you certainly haven't brought a single bit of evidence to suggest so and there are plenty of reasons to suggest the populace might be better off if well armed. (For example: Jews during pogroms in the Soviet union. Jews in the Ghetto in Poland. I've to go.. so I won't google for other historic things. )
I think Mike M makes a good point. A lot of the resentment in places like WV isn't a declining energy economy (which has always struggled), it is that it is being made a lot harder by "out of town" politicians. I am quite certain the people in CA and NY would feel quite resentful if WV had the political power to make the rules in those places.
.
Now imagine that WV made the rules under the guise of do-gooding and self congratulation and these rules that just so happen to benefit WV people and make poor people poorer in the backwaters of NY and CA.
.
I can tell you that this feeling is real and pervasive. Are they going to open clean energy factories in WV, put windmills on WV mountains? There will be a political dogfight for the clean energy money pile and WV is going to lose in every way imaginable. They do get the side benefit of being declared racist and bigoted along the way as well. Hooray for tolerant loving progressives!
.
These out of town politicians don't even pretend to care anymore. One ironic benefit of Trump is that he has exposed the thinly veiled prejudice against fly over country in a big way. Not that people didn't already notice, that is how Trump got there in the first place.
Mike M. (Comment #173793)
March 6th, 2019 at 8:14 am
MikeM.: "Yes, immigration can be a big contributor to growth, but that is not guaranteed. Massive unskilled immigration has become a drag on the U.S. economy."
OK_Max: If unskilled immigration results in a high rate of unemployment it could be a drag on the economy. But with the unemployment rate being so low, I'm not sure we can say if not for recent illegal immigration, it would be even lower or non-existent.
Deporting all the illegal aliens could create a labor shortage and slow economic growth.
MikeM.: "Increased productivity does not actually cost jobs since it expands the economy as a whole. So we should not care about jobs "lost" to automation, other than by providing transitional assistance to individuals."
OK_Max.: Increased productivity like free trade is a net benefit, but it can displace workers. If not for rising productivity in manufacturing, more workers would be needed to produce the amount manufacturers are now producing.
MikeM.: "Of course American workers don't want to lower their standard of living to that of the developing world."
OK_Max: Nor do American consumers want to lower their standard of living by paying more for goods when import tariffs are placed on what they buy.
ucia (Comment #173794)
March 6th, 2019 at 8:32 am
OK_Max,
Lucia: "If I'm not mistaken, your argument against the populace having access to effective arms is that "war is bad' and that harms that can cause motivate wars are often not remedied by war."
OK_Max: Yes, I believe "war is bad," but sometimes violence is the best answer to violence.
I'm not "against the populace having access to effective arms" though I'm not sure what you mean by "effective." I am comfortable with people buying firearms solely for self-protection and recreation. I am not comfortable with people buying arms because they believe they might need these arms to overthrow the government. They puts me in the position of having to consider arming myself against them if I don't agree the government should be overthrown.
I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied. We don't have a King George. If you can imagine such a scenario, please describe it.
Back to what you meant by "effective arms." Probably you just meant arms that work. But to be really effective I think I need something more lethal than a 22 to protect myself from people who against my wishes may try to overthrow the government. The NRA would be pleased with my thinking.
OK_Max (Comment #173796): "If unskilled immigration results in a high rate of unemployment it could be a drag on the economy. But with the unemployment rate being so low …"
The true unemployment rate has been much higher than the official rate. Lots of underemployed people. Lots of people who are taking disability. Lots of people in the underground economy. Lots of people who had given up. Stagnant wages. Excessive low skill immigration contributed to that. Trump finally has the economy moving reasonably well. Note that the unemployment rate has been roughly constant in spite of strong job growth. That is pulling people back into the work force. And wages are finally rising again.
Also, many of the illegals aren't working. They are collecting welfare.
.
OK_Max: "Deporting all the illegal aliens could create a labor shortage and slow economic growth."
True. But nobody is suggesting that.
.
OK_Max: "Increased productivity like free trade is a net benefit, but it can displace workers."
They are very different. Trade is only beneficial if the displaced workers get *better* jobs (i.e., more productive jobs). That has clearly not been happening.
.
OK_Max: "Nor do American consumers want to lower their standard of living by paying more for goods when import tariffs are placed on what they buy."
Yes, there are a lot of greedy people. But cheap imports are not actually the reason that trade is beneficial.
OK_Max (Comment #173797): "I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied. We don't have a King George. If you can imagine such a scenario, please describe it."
Seems like you have not been listening to the more extreme, intolerant elements on the left. They make me glad that lots of people have guns, although I don't expect it to actually come to that.
Mike M. (Comment #173798)
Mike.: "The true unemployment rate has been much higher than the official rate. Lots of underemployed people. Lots of people who are taking disability. Lots of people in the underground economy. Lots of people who had given up. Stagnant wages. Excessive low skill immigration contributed to that."
OK_Max: Labor force participation rates have been declining but I wouldn't much blame low skill immigrants. If they were a significant cause, labor force participation rates for Blacks would have declined more than the rates for Whites, since Blacks are more likely to have low paying jobs, the kind low skill immigrants would seek. But that didn’t happen.
The rate for Whites declined from 67.2 in 1996 to 62.9 in 2016, a drop of 4.3 points, but the rate for Blacks declined even less, from 64.1 to 61.6 during the same period, a drop of 2.5 points.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
________________________
MikeM.: "Also, many of the illegals aren't working. They are collecting welfare."
OK_Max: I doubt a significant proportion of illegal aliens collect welfare. I sure wouldn't try to get welfare if I were one. I would avoid calling attention to myself.
______________________
MikeM.: "They are very different. Trade is only beneficial if the displaced workers get *better* jobs (i.e., more productive jobs). That has clearly not been happening."
OK_Max: I don't see automation and trade the way you do. Rising productivity in manufacturing reduces the prices we pay for goods by reducing labor costs, and likewise imports of goods reduces prices by reducing labor costs. Either way, I like the savings I get from paying less for the goods I consume.
Manufacturing labor displaced by automation and cheaper foreign labor can find other jobs created by consumers like me spending those savings on services, creating more service jobs. Actually, a lot of what I save goes into the bank, where it helps small businesses start up or expand, thus creating even more jobs.
While it's true that service jobs in general pay less than jobs in manufacturing, that doesn't mean that in effect subsidizing manufacturing jobs by preventing automation and/or placing tariffs on imports is a good thing for the economy or the American people.
OK
*I am not comfortable with people buying arms because they believe they might need these arms to overthrow the government.*
I think very few buy them TO overthrow the government. However, I think many people oppose allowing the government to *strip people of arms* because they know the arms people buy for self defense can also be used in self defense against government agents should things to horribly wrong (as in places like Venezuala.) A populace who owns arms originally bought for self defense or recreation can also join together to oppose a government that has gone wrong. (Again: Venezuala, but there are other examples.)
I think it would be pretty silly to put a "motive" clause in a regulation about buying arms. We should allow people to buy and have them.
*I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied. We don't have a King George. If you can imagine such a scenario, please describe it."*
Geeee…. welll. I couldn't imagine we'd elect Donald Trump before we did it. People would have laughed at the thought.
Yes, I can imagine we'd elect AOC sometime in the future, and I can imagine if she was popular enough she might seize reins do something unconstitutional and make it impossible to "vote her out". It doesn't have to be her. I really don't find an argument like "I can't imagine" very convincing.
*Back to what you meant by "effective arms." Probably you just meant arms that work. *
Well… kitchen knives are arms. Shovels can be used as arms. So I mean guns and rifles.
Max,
I didn't follow what point you were trying to make about caliber. 22s are popular for practice I thought because the bullets are so inexpensive. But it's not like it's the only thing out there by any stretch.
OK Max,
"I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied."
.
Both your imagination and your knowledge of history (and all the despotic rulers who have seized governing power) appear to be very limited. An armed populace is a serious impediment to despotic rule. No, we don't have a King George. An armed populace is the reason we don't.
OK_Max (Comment #173800): "The rate for Whites declined from 67.2 in 1996 to 62.9 in 2016, a drop of 4.3 points, but the rate for Blacks declined even less, from 64.1 to 61.6 during the same period, a drop of 2.5 points."
An interesting argument, but it really does not prove anything. Those numbers are aggregates across many groups: age, sex, geographical region, urban/rural. It is possible for whites to be more affected than blacks in every group, but to be affected less than blacks overall. That is known as Simpson's paradox. There are also many factors in play other than illegal immigration, at least one of which (exporting manufacturing jobs) impacts whites more than blacks.
———-
OK_Max: I doubt a significant proportion of illegal aliens collect welfare. I sure wouldn't try to get welfare if I were one. I would avoid calling attention to myself.
When I look for data on this I find two extremes. One says that few illegals get welfare, the other says that most do. The former seem based on hand waving that consists of your argument and the fact that it is illegal for them to collect welfare. The other is based on data, like this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/
In many cases, illegals have U.S. born children and can use that to legally collect welfare payments. But of course, many illegally collect welfare, just as they illegally get jobs, driver's licenses, etc. And they don't seem shy about accessing those benefits.
——-
OK_Max: I don't see automation and trade the way you do.
Then you should learn some economics.
.
OK_Max: Rising productivity in manufacturing reduces the prices we pay for goods by reducing labor costs, and likewise imports of goods reduces prices by reducing labor costs. Either way, I like the savings I get from paying less for the goods I consume.
Low prices might benefit some individuals, but they are of no benefit to the economy as a whole. Increased productivity does benefit the economy as a whole.
.
OK_Max: Manufacturing labor displaced by automation and cheaper foreign labor can find other jobs created by consumers like me spending those savings on services …"
When you by American goods, ALL of what you spend goes into the U.S. economy. When you buy cheaper foreign goods and spend the excess on American goods, only a small fraction of your spending goes into the U.S. economy. That does not mean that trade is bad, but it does mean that your argument is nonsense.
.
OK_Max: "While it's true that service jobs in general pay less than jobs in manufacturing, that doesn't mean that in effect subsidizing manufacturing jobs by preventing automation and/or placing tariffs on imports is a good thing for the economy or the American people."
You are again conflating two completely different things. Preventing automation would always be a bad thing, tariffs might or might not be bad, depending on their effect on overall economic productivity.
"I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied."
.
Can you imagine somebody trying to get Trump out of office merely because they don't like him under a pretext of obstruction, collusion, or porn star payoffs? Can you imagine someone trying to stack the SC just because it's not working to their advantage? Can you imagine someone trying to remove the electoral system on a party line vote? Can you imagine someone trying to collectivize states together to prevent people losing elections who won the popular vote? Can you imagine endless "danger to democracy" propaganda being broadcast to the masses when the implied remedy is unquestionably not democratic?
.
Your imagination is constrained by an assumption that your side is reasonable and the only reason they would oust somebody was because it was necessary. If they did oust Trump on a pretext it is almost certain you would agree with it, because your team is the one benefiting, and when the "domestic terrorists" try to take back power it will be your side fighting alongside god and angels.
.
Not to poison the discussion with the H word, but Hitler invaded countries under a pretext of protecting people of German heritage living in these countries who were under threat, many times these threats were false flag operations by the Germans themselves. The aggressors and their many supporters in these take overs always believe they are fighting the good fight.
.
This threat is not constrained to the left of course, the right could be the ones taking over. A well armed populace does put a big kink in the plans of somebody doing something that would be very unpopular, who controls the military is always critical in attempted coups of an unarmed populace.
.
But I agree with the general thought that it is unlikely it will ever come to that. Although the word unimaginable is not correct just looking at history.
Max,
I am a little curious about something here.
>>They puts me in the position of having to consider arming myself against them if I don't agree the government should be overthrown.
.
There have been claims in the media (indeed at least one book has been written) about the idea that Donald Trump is a fascist. If it turned out that these claims in fact had basis in reality and Trump attempted to install himself as a dictator, well, two questions really:
1) Do you subscribe to this possibility? I think this is fairly absurd stuff, but I understand that some progressives profess to believe this is possible anyway.
2) If this turned out to be the case and Trump tried to install himself as a dictator, would you approve of popular armed insurrection against this?
.
My answers:
1) I think this is absurd and highly unlikely, but I do not rule it out as impossible.
2) I would approve of popular armed insurrection against the installation of a dictatorship in the U.S.. It's not inconceivable I'd join such an insurrection, actually.
Almost all economists agree that an influx of low skilled labor puts wage pressure on unskilled jobs. They tend to disagree on the overall affect to the long term economy. Second order affects make this measurement really hard. If unskilled immigrants have 8 babies that all get public healthcare and public education (at a very measurable cost to the US taxpayer) but these 8 babies all get taxpayer loans, graduate college, and become productive citizens then it turns into a win for the US economy.
OK_Max writes:
"I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. government couldn't be just voted out if most people were dissatisfied. We don't have a King George."
.
King George in fact lost his power to influence the Revolutionary *because* Lord North, his ally and prime minister, was voted out by a dissatisfied parliament. George was a constitutional monarch, his very right to sit on the throne was granted to him by parliament; by right of descent it should have been a Stuart. And while he sought to rule instead of reign, what person of high office in Washington DC could that not be said of? In fact, certainly every president since FDR and arguably every president ever has had more inherent power than George III.
.
So if George could only work his will through an elected body of representatives, how is that he was able to exert tyranny over the colonists in America? It turns out that just being an elected representative doesn't mean that you will protect the people against government overreach, as should be perfectly obvious from the history of our legislative and executive branchs. And in fact, the revolutionary war *started* with an attempt by the British military to seize weapons from colonists.
.
What prevents men like George III from becoming tryants is not, in fact, a shortage of men like George III. You need structural remedies that makes it difficult for ambitious, power-hungry leaders (never a shortage of these) to become tyrants. The founders of the nation were very alert to this danger, and intentionally designed a government with inherent checks and balances, limited government and retention of rights for the people, and so forth. The second amendment is just a part of this, but an important one all the same. I also applaud whoever wrote the military oath for making the very first sentence swear allegience to the *constitution*, and to defend it from foreign *and* domestic enemies.
.
Now can I *imagine* a scenario where a tyrant seizes power in the United States? Yes, but not without first disarming the population. I don't think it's *possible* for a tyrant to acquire enough reliable troops to disarm the population after seizing power; contrary to what Rep Nuke-em Swalwell thinks, the large and powerful armed forces are not that reliable. The best bet would be voluntary disarmament of the populace, shrinking the military and/or deploying unreliable units out of country, and weaponizing domestic agencies that *are* politically reliable. If you can do all that, a coup at least becomes practically possible.
.
But what would possibly motivate any of our leaders, all of which have sworn their own oaths to respect the constitution, to do such an unconstitutional thing? If sufficiently power-hungry anything will do, as Aesop reminds us "any excuse will serve a tyrant". But consider this for a moment. Not just an obvious flake like AOC but also politicians as influential as Speaker Pelosi (third in line for succession) and former VP Al Gore (very nearly was President) have framed Climate Change as a potential *existential threat*. It's impossible to tell whether they are cynical or ignorant, and I'm not sure it matters. Suppose for a moment you truly believed that business-as-usual was an *existential* threat to mankind itself. What action would not be justified by the need of humanity? Would not the threat *require* not only that the constitution be set aside if it is incapable of supplying the needed assault on fossil fuels, air travel, and farting cows — but that it *requires* us to use the most powerful military on earth to make sure the rest of the world complies as well. Better to nuke China and India than to let them industrialize the human race into extinction.
.
It's simple logic. If humanity itself is at stake, *any* responsible leader should be willing to break the eggs the omlets require and hang the rights claimed by those bitter people clinging to their guns and religon. The situation demands a far-sighted Kodos to save humanity from themselves.
With regard to Dale S (Comment #173808):
That was brilliant.
I would imagine that the bulk of the military and police aren't going to cooperate with any edict to disarm the populace from a wannabe dictator, for the very least reason of it being a life threatening action. This is why all the paranoid gun rights people are quite emotional about registering guns. A NY newspaper proved their point when they put a map online of everyone who owns guns in their county.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-down-map-of-gun-permit-holders.html
.
Bask in the irony:
"The paper received a flood of angry phone calls and letters, and opponents posted the home address of editors and other staff members online. The reaction prompted the paper to hire armed security for its headquarters and for a bureau in Rockland."
.
A leftist getting support from the US military is almost "unimaginable", ha ha. Their plan would be to rule by force of Twitter shaming. A rightist is also very unlikely.
Dale S (Comment #173808)
Dale, after reading your excellent excellent post, I decided to look further into the American revolution and it's causes.
Rather than attribute the American Revolution to King George III being a tyrant, I attribute it to the colonists being unwilling to pay their fair share of the cost of the British troops who helped them win the French and Indian Wars, much more to the benefit of colonists than their fellow British taxpayers across the Atlantic.
“By 1775, the British government was consuming one-fifth of its citizens’ GDP, while New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes."
 https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revolution/
And it wasn’t only King George III’s idea that the colonist should pay their fair share of the cost of the French and Indian Wars, Parliament thought so too. There was also the expense of continuing to station British troops in the colonies for security, which many colonists thought unnecessary.
What is or is not tyrannical is in the eyes of the beholder, but I don’t see King George III or British Parliament as being tyrannical for insisting colonists pay their fair share of taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the King attempted an end-run around Parliament like Trump plans to do around Congress on the Wall, which in the eyes of some would be a tyrannical act.
Prince Charles in a 2012 interview named King George III as his most respected monarch, saying he was a good man who was misunderstood.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9738292/Prince-Charles-names-King-George-III-as-his-most-respected-monarch.html
Re Mike M. (Comment #173804)
OK_Max: Manufacturing labor displaced by automation and cheaper foreign labor can find other jobs created by consumers like me spending those savings on services …"
MikeM: "When you by American goods, ALL of what you spend goes into the U.S. economy. When you buy cheaper foreign goods and spend the excess on American goods, only a small fraction of your spending goes into the U.S. economy. That does not mean that trade is bad, but it does mean that your argument is nonsense."
OK_Max: Mike, I fear you are not carefully reading what I write (not that I'm never guilty of the same with others). I was talking only about my spending what I save by buying imports. Of course I know that not all of what I spend on imported goods goes into the American economy. I also know that some of what I spend on American produced goods goes to foreign owners as profits (e.g. Budweiser).
I am for free-trade period. That means I am against duties on imports, everywhere. I am in good company.
“100% of economist asked said import tariffs were not a good idea.â€
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/23/100-of-economists-asked-said-import-tariffs-were-not-a-good-idea/#52b46b6858c7
OK_Max (Comment #173811)" "I attribute it to the colonists being unwilling to pay their fair share of the cost"
Not so. The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances. Number 17 was: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent". Not excessive taxes, but for violating the long standing principle of the people consenting to taxes.
—————
OK_Max (Comment #173812): “100% of economist asked"
The key word there is "asked". They asked about 40 people on The University of Chicago Booth School of Business Economic Experts Panel, of whom 3 did not answer.
The U.S. does not have a single free trade deal. We only have things that are falsely called free trade deals.
mark bofill (Comment #173806)
March 7th, 2019 at 10:24 am
Max,
"There have been claims in the media (indeed at least one book has been written) about the idea that Donald Trump is a fascist. If it turned out that these claims in fact had basis in reality and Trump attempted to install himself as a dictator, well, two questions really:
1) Do you subscribe to this possibility? I think this is fairly absurd stuff, but I understand that some progressives profess to believe this is possible anyway.
2) If this turned out to be the case and Trump tried to install himself as a dictator, would you approve of popular armed insurrection against this?"
________
mark, in answer to your questions
1) Trump would have to have the backing of the Armed Forces to install himself as dictator, but I don't think he could get it. Conscription would be a better guard against that than volunteer forces. A related question is should personnel on active duty be allowed to vote?
2) I might support it, but not in suicidal missions. Here's another related question: If you joined an insurrection which later started to crumble, would you stay the course, abandon the cause, or switch sides?
OK_Max (Comment #173814): "A related question is should personnel on active duty be allowed to vote?"
Are you just trolling? Real question.
Max, thanks for your response. I'll reply but I gotta go spar (hurray finally!) now. I reply later.
Max,
>>Conscription would be a better guard against that than volunteer forces. A related question is should personnel on active duty be allowed to vote?
.
Interesting. I feel like I ought to know why you're saying this, but I got pummeled tonight and am not feeling sharp right now.
.
I certainly think personnel on active duty ought to be allowed to vote, definitely. It's your first remark that's eluding me.
.
Regarding crumbling insurrections… The devils in the details. I like being alive and I've got no wish to die anytime soon. This said, there are things I want to avoid more urgently than death. It's a very complicated question that'd depend heavily on a lot of details that would most likely be largely personal ones that I wouldn't care to discuss here (God what an awkward sentence..).
.
I asked my question about Trump because I was starting to get the sense you couldn't ever see yourself opposing the government. I gather from your answer that you *could*, if it was a right wing dictatorship taking over. Thanks.
Mike M. (Comment #173813)
The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances. Number 17 was: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent". Not excessive taxes, but for violating the long standing principle of the people consenting to taxes.
_________
Mike, I doubt the colonists would have been complaining had they not thought the taxes had been raised too high, regardless of how they felt about taxation without representation.
I don’t know what “long standing principle of the people consenting to taxes†you are talking about. The British didn’t have any such principle at home or elsewhere.
“In early-19th-century Britain very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people – less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million.â€
“Large industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester did not have a single MP between them… “
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_v
“In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.â€
I wouldn’t be surprise if those Loiners, Brummies, and Mancunians back then thought the colonists were tax freeloaders.
BTW, U.S. citizens who are residents of the District of Columbia are taxed without representation.
As for the other 26 grievances, the U.S has been doing many of the things those early Americans were complaining about. I guess if alive today they would view the U.S. as tyrannical.
Mike M. (Comment #173815)
March 7th, 2019 at 7:28 pm
OK_Max (Comment #173814): "A related question is should personnel on active duty be allowed to vote?"
Are you just trolling? Real question
_______
The following countries do not allow military personnel to vote:
1. Brazil
2. Dominican Republic
3. Guatemala
4. Kuwait
5. Oman
6. Tunisia
I'm not sure why but my guess is it's because the military is supposed to be politically neutral and serve whoever is elected, and these countries may fear the military becoming affiliated with one party. But as I said, I'm not sure why.
The Washington Post online has an article about the history of voting in the U.S. military. As I recall, American servicemen could not vote prior to the Civil War, but maybe not for the reason given above.
mark bofill (Comment #173817)
Max,
>>Conscription would be a better guard against that than volunteer forces. A related question is should personnel on active duty be allowed to vote?
.
Interesting. I feel like I ought to know why you're saying this, but I got pummeled tonight and am not feeling sharp right now.
______
On the military voting, see my reply to MikeM. above.
On conscription, because the draft gets a cross-section of the population, conscripts are more likely to represent all political views than a solely volunteer force. A military with a political ideology could more easily become the tool of a dictator who shares that ideology.
Max,
*snort*. Denying people a vote does not make them neutral, or cause them to support or not support anybody. That's crazed.
Denying people a vote doesn't prevent them from having a political ideology either.
OK_Max #173811,
You bring up a lot of points that deserve elaboration, so I'll break my response into separate posts. First, I largely agree with you that George III's *personal* failings are oversold, and my first few paragraphs in the last place were specifically about George's role as a constitutional monarch who could only work his will through parliament. Britain never succumbed to the trend towards absolute rule as they nationalized, unlike some of their fellow monarchies, the only leader who exercised powers akin to a modern dictatorship was Lord Protector Cromwell. But what I said of George III applies equally to him — what prevents men like Oliver Cromwell from becoming tyrants is not a shortage of people like Oliver Cromwell! (I say this in respect to his *willingness* to exercise authority, not any other personal attributes. In terms of executive ability, there are few great men in Britain's history who measure up to Cromwell's standard.)
.
However, for the founding fathers George III was singled out as a tyrant, even though the rebellion was against the "Crown", which stands for the entire system of government. It was impossible for the founding fathers to tease out across the ocean whether the policy of the Crown was the product of George III personally or the ministers he had selected to run his government. It remains impossible for historians today, as the passage of time and removal of the parties involved from the scene gives us no magic ability to read minds or transcribe conversations that were unrecorded at the time. But if you want to know why the Declaration of Independence of 1776 *personally* charges George III with tyranny, it's important to look at the preceding context.
.
The Continental Congress of 1774, *prior* to the outbreak of hostilities, rejected the Declaratory Act of 1766. This is where parliament claimed full power to enact laws affecting the colonies — parliament claimed that supreme legislative power rested with themselves, not with the local colonial assemblies. Both assemblies could not be supreme, and the British body claimed supremacy for itself.
.
The continental Congress agreed with the reasoning, but not with the result. The colonies were founded on a charter from the crown and owed allegience to the *monarch* (George III), but legislative bodies derived their sovereignity from the *people*, and the colonial assemblies were elected by the people of colonies, while Parliament was not elected by the people of colonies. The Declaratory Act essentially said that British Citizens in the America should not be governed by bodies representing British Citizens in America, but by bodies represent British Citizens in Britain. This is the fundamental philosophical difference which led to the revolution, and it was in place before the fighting start. But note — this did *not* amount to a claim against the Royal charter that founded the separate colonies, the role of constitutional monarch in the colonial mind was to be filled by the lawful ruler. This was in 1774 none other than George III. But the claim to local supremacy also puts the congress in the position where the *only* binding political link between England and the colonies is the king himself.
.
In 1775 the Continental Congress produced the Olive Branch Petition, specifically addressed to and intended for George III himself. George had a reputation as a peacemaker from the end of the Seven Years War, and had been credited in the colonies for a role in the end of the Stamp Act. The fighting had already started at this point, but the appeal presents itself as coming from loyal british subjects to their lawful sovereign, appealing him to stop the abuse of power being done in his name. The document expresses no desire to no longer be the subjects of George III, rather it deems it the duty of a constitutional monarch like George III to ensure that his American subjects enjoy their rights.
.
George III did not receive the petition, instead declaring them in rebellion. While historians may never know exactly how much influence George had on the actual prosecution of the war, from that point on it is clear that George fully associated himself with all war measures. Bear in mind, at this point George III is the *only* binding political link with Britain for the colonists. But instead of protecting their rights as his subjects under his charter, he has instead fully endorsed the dissolution of their assemblies and their subjection by force.
.
This is what leads to the personal indictment of George III in the Declaration of Independence. They don't condemn parliament because they don't recognize parliament as an authority. But George III *had* been recognized as their head of state, an object of allegience, by endorsing the actions taken against the colonists he has associated himself with them and turned every one into a personal misdeed, justifying dissolution with their monarch to which they *previously* had owed allegience. We don't have to guess whether or why they considered George a tyrant, for they spell it out
—
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
—
Parliament was too far removed from the people it presumed to govern, and, just as today, that leads to an attitude of arrogance and contempt for the populace ie comments about deplorables.
.
I'll add that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the press weren't busy stoking tensions to sell more papers either.
OK_Max (Comment #173811): “By 1775, the British government was consuming one-fifth of its citizens’ GDP, while New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes."
I am suspicious of that claim. The article cited lists the types of taxes paid in the colonies, but says nothing about tariffs. Tariffs in the colonies were levied and collected by the government in London. So it looks like the colonials share of those taxes are being lumped into spending by the British government and the author is crediting New Englanders with only the taxes paid to their local governments, excluding both tariffs and the Stamp Tax. Tariffs would have been a major source of U.K. revenues in those days.
———-
OK_Max (Comment #173818): "I doubt the colonists would have been complaining had they not thought the taxes had been raised too high"
Perhaps so. You are claiming that the colonists were hardly paying any taxes but were mad that the taxes were so high. I guess that makes a nice narrative from your point of view. But it makes more sense that either the tax was indeed excessive or the complaint was indeed on principle. Or both.
.
OK_Max: "The British didn’t have any such principle at home or elsewhere."
The 1689 Bill of Rights lists that under "certain ancient rights and liberties". Deficiencies in the U.K. electoral system are irrelevant to the *principle*.
———–
OK_Max (Comment #173820): "The following countries do not allow military personnel to vote: …"
I don't know that I believe you, but if you are right, that list would be an argument against the policy.
.
OK_Max: "A military with a political ideology could more easily become the tool of a dictator who shares that ideology."
mark bofill (Comment #173822): "*snort*"
What mark said.
.
OK_Max: "American servicemen could not vote prior to the Civil War, but maybe not for the reason given above."
They were not disbarred from voting but voting was problematic since it had to be done in person in those days. That was never much of a problem until the Civil War, then steps were taken to at least partly fix the problem.
OK_Max #173811,
Let us now look specifically at the issue of high taxes as a motivation for the Revolutionary War. You say, and I know this is a popular view in some quarters, "Rather than attribute the American Revolution to King George III being a tyrant, I attribute it to the colonists being unwilling to pay their fair share of the cost of the British troops who helped them win the French and Indian Wars, much more to the benefit of colonists than their fellow British taxpayers across the Atlantic."
.
There's a useful history of some of the history of taxation prior to and up to the Revolution here:
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1756
There's a number of claims that I think you should support, if you really believe the cause is so simple:
1) What was the "fair share" of the colonists?
2) Why do you think the Seven Years War (of which the French and Indian war was just a part) was "much more" for the benefit of colonists than for people in Britain?
3) How would revolution avoid the higher taxes supposedly motivating the colonists?
.
Let me address the third question first. As you well know, because it was in the very next paragraph you wrote, taxes were *low* in the Americas at the time of the revolution. Parliament had indeed enacted the Stamp Act as a way of squeezing money out of those ungrateful colonists, but the ensuing colonial boycott was highly successful and resulted in *withdrawal* of the hated Stamp Act, only the tea tax being retained to make the point they had the right to do it, even if the broader tax wasn't worth the cost *for the british*.
.
So aside from the deep underlying philosphical conflict over the *right* to tax, there was no onerous tax burden to revolt against! Yes, a higher tax regimen had been tried — but it *failed*, and there was no reason to suppose an economic boycott would not succeed in the future. There was no immediate danger of being subject to ruinous taxes, and there would be (and was) severe economic damage that would occur from rebelling, not to mention the distinct possibility that they would lose all their property and all their lives. Fashionable as it has become to dismiss the founders as tax-evading cheapskates who rebelled to fatten their bottom line, at no time have I seen any compelling argument of *how* revolution was going to be a great financial play for them as individuals, nor even evidence that the founders *did* get richer as a result of the revolution. It's certainly not intuitively obvious that rebelling against the most powerful nation on earth is going to be more lucrative than paying a piddly 1-2% tax.
.
Return to issue one, exactly how much the colonists could make a practical difference in paying down the enormous debt from the Seven Years War is something I don't have a good handle on — nor what proportion of the debt was incurred by operations in North America as opposed to subsidizing Frederick the Great in Prussia or other operations in the true first world war. There's a question of scale here. In you reference the tax page above, you'll see that when Britain cracked down on smuggling in 1762 they managed to raise duties from 2,000 pounds per year to 30,000 pounds a year. That's impressive — but the british national debt went from 75 million pounds to 133 million pounds during the war. The hated Stamp Act was expected to raise just 60,000 pounds per year. We're not talking about a lot of money, and certainly nowhere *near* enough to pay for the vast expense of the Seven Years War. Indeed, the Stamp Tax wasn't even intended to pay down 7YW debt — it was to cover *part* of the cost for the "necessity" to station troops in North America, estimated at 200,000 pounds per year.
.
But colonies not paying in tax revenues what they cost in administration is the *rule* in colonial history, not the exception. If you want to consider whether colonists are paying their "fair share" you have to look beyond direct taxation and consider other economic factors, especially under the philosophy of mercantilism. Colonies existed for the benefit of the mother country, not the colonists. Colonies were expected to provide their raw materials to the mother country, which would be turned into finished products and sold back to the colonists. The intention was for the colony to be a captive market which exists for the purpose of enrichment of the mother country. Since the trades are voluntary both sides did in fact benefit, and enforcement difficulties allowed smugglers to make (more lucrative) trades outside the restrictive mercantilist system, but the colonists consistently consumed more than they exported. The scale of the trade can be shown by the figure that in 1769 (boycott over the stamp act) exports exceeded imports by 800,000 pounds.
.
Indeed, that's the reasoning by repealing the stamp act — the mother country profited from *selling* finished goods to the colonists. Adding a tax on top of that works against mercantilism, while a boycott costs them far more than they would have gotten in revenue. If we're going to talk about shouldering a "fair share" of the governmental burden, it is by no means clear that trade-restricted colonials with a lower direct tax is worse off than citizens in Britain.
.
But what about the idea that the expenses disproportionately exist for the benefit of colonials, and the specific claim that the 7YW was fought on behalf of the colonists *and* that it primarily benefited them. The first claim is motive and can't be proven, but while it's certain that the spark for conflict with France was lit by George Washington and his colonial troops, even if you constrict your view to the narrow part of the 7YW known as the French and Indian war I don't think it holds water. The decision to conquer the French colonies was taken in Britain, the plan was formed in Britain, it was executed largely by British, and it was part of a larger global effort against French power.
.
And it *succeeded*. Britain emerged from the Seven Years War with a doubled debt, but also as master of the oceans and the pre-eminent world power. These were material benefits to the mother country, not the thirteen colonies. Even constraining our view to North America, the vast gains in British possessions didn't translate to any obvious advantage for the thirteen colonies. Indeed, as you will recall the conflict was set off by the incursion of Virginia troops establishing a fort in territory claimed both by France and Virginia (and other colonies, thanks to overlapping sea-to-sea grants in colonial charters). But the territory acquired by Britain was set aside by the proclamation of 1763 for use by its original inhabitants and migration past the Alleghanies was forbidden. If this was done for the colonists' benefit, what did they get out of it?
Two comments:
1) The taxes and duties the Parliament tried to impose on the Colonies were substantial… tariffs reached as high as 60% of the value of the imported goods, and the Stamp act tariffs on documents of all kinds were a substantial financial burden on every form of business and personal activity.
2) It has always puzzled me that the British Parliament would not listen to the "no taxation without representation" complaint from the colonies. In 1775 the colonies had a non-slave population of ~2 million, while Great Britain had a population of ~8 million. If these people in the Colonies were considered "British subjects" by Parliament (and clearly they were so considered, and subject to every manner of taxation!), then they represented 20% of the total British population. I do not understand why the Colonies were never offered comparable representation in Parliament. Had this been offered, the history of the last 250 years would have been very different.
Dale S,
So do you teach history, or is its study just a hobby?
OK_Max, #173811
You wrote: "There was also the expense of continuing to station British troops in the colonies for security, which many colonists thought unnecessary."
.
Yes, they did. And while the British government was responsible for the expense of transporting, equipping, and paying their soldiers, the Americans were supposed to be responsible for lodging them. Parliament justified the Stamp Act as defraying the costs of stationing soldiers, but what were the soldiers *for*? There was no nation on earth likely to assault the English colonies even in war, given that they were populous (for a colony), armed, and not nearly as lucrative as the much-easier-to-capture sugar islands in the Caribbean. Soldiers stationed in seaboard cities also served no purpose to either deter or punish Indian raids, those would continue to be handled by local militia, either formally or ad hoc. So what was the utility of stationing soldiers answering only to the Crown, not to any local authority? Where were they stationed? I found this at the following site:
https://www.britishbattles.com/war-of-the-revolution-1775-to-1783/
—
In 1775, Major General Gage (a veteran of Braddock’s campaign) was the Commander-in-Chief in Boston. He commanded eleven battalions of foot in Boston, one in New York and six others spread through North America; 7,000 men in all.
—
The majority of his troops were stationed in *one* city. That city would be the chief city of the state targetted by the coercive acts. They had their charter annulled and their local governments altered and restricted, power transferred to the royal governor. The troops enforced the closing of the port and seized gunpowder. On the day of Lexington and Concord British regulars were intending to seize prominent patriots and also caches of weapons and gunpowder.
.
I don't think the colonists were blowing smoke when they see this as tyranny. And I don't think parliament, when passing the coercive acts to punish Massachusetts, were under any illusions about what message they were telling to the other colonies — this can happen to you, and *will* happen to you if you don't toe the line. They just miscalculated on what the reaction would be.
—
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
—
Dale S (Comment #173824)
Dale, thank you for sparking my interest in the causes of the American Revolution. I hadn't given it much thought before the conversations began here.
I look forward to reading your post on taxes as a cause later today when I have time.
Dale S,
Two superb comments.
I have a couple of quibbles. The Seven Years War did provide a benefit to the colonials and many of them advocated for action against the French prior to the war. The reason was that the French started to build a line of forts from the Great Lakes to New Orleans. That would have precluded the colonials ambitions to expand westward.
Also, although the Stamp Act might have little impact on many colonials, it would have hit the professional classes very hard.
>>Two superb comments
I agree. I may shush for awhile because the conversation is interesting [to read]- don't take my lack of participation for lack of interest.
OK_Max #173811,
"What is or is not tyrannical is in the eyes of the beholder, but I don’t see King George III or British Parliament as being tyrannical for insisting colonists pay their fair share of taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the King attempted an end-run around Parliament like Trump plans to do around Congress on the Wall, which in the eyes of some would be a tyrannical act."
This is an interesting comparison. The British Parliament, with the approval of George III, unilaterally changed the government of Massachusetts, suppressing the *only* elected representatives in that colony. Now it's perfectly true that Massachusetts representatives were not cooperative in British attempts to make them "pay their fair share of taxes". It's even fair to say that the colony was defiant of the central government. Do you see their actions as an appropriate response, not an "end-around" to get around inconvenient local self-government? Was the use of armed forces answering only to the Crown justified?
.
And if you say yes, and that this was no tyranny, would you say the same if (to make up a purely hypothetical example) some state were to defy federal law and offer sanctuary to those violating it?
.
I'm appalled by the use of the emergency route to "build the wall", but I'm *most* appalled by the fact that Trump is doing this end-around explicitly on the basis of powers *expressly* granted to the executive branch by the legislative branch. The legislative branch *voluntarily* gave the executive the power to declare an emergency at a President's whim and has exercised absolutely no oversight of the many times it's been used. They voluntarily gave the executive the power to redirect certain funds. Oh, and they authorized construction of an extensive border barrier too, though without actually coughing up the money for it. The separation of powers is *absolutely* a check against tyranny, and an ever-more-powerful executive branch is an existential threat to the liberty of Americans. I am *completely* in favor of the legislative branch scaling down the executive branch. And of all the things Trump could be praised for, I am most pleased (and surprised) by all the unilateral actions he has taken to trim down the executive branch. Though it's depressing that certain judges will prevent him from *ending* unilateral power grabs enacted by his predecessor, as if power can be freely seized but never surrendered.
.
Now whether this particular action of Trump's, using power he should have never been given, actually infringes on the rights of citizens is a separate question — I think not.
Mike M #173833,
I agree that French forts (and French claims) were an impediment to colonial expansion, and that colonists could see benefits for themselves arising out of the Seven Years War — what I object is the claim that the 7YW was fought *for that purpose*, and further that the colonists were the primary beneficiaries — in the event, the French forts and French claims were replaced with British forts and the Proclamation of 1763, so as a *practical* matter it's not clear they came out ahead at all in regards to expansion. French claims on the region weren't recognized by the colonies, and in the long run I don't think the French presence was strong enough to keep English colonists out. Not getting what they wanted after a war with the French wasn't a new experience for the colonists. They were disgusted when the peace treaty after Queen Anne's war returned the fortress of Louisburg to France, as its capture was likely the greatest feat of pre-revolutionary colonial arms.
.
I hadn't considered the disparate impact of the Stamp Act, though I don't think it affects my larger argument about the level of taxes being a motivation for rebellion.
SteveF #173830,
I just study history for fun. History is fascinating, though it's not a science — we can make our theories about the past, but can't effectively test them. And the need for novelty in academia drives a never-ending cycle of revisionism. Still, I feel blessed to live in an age where so much information is freely available and relatively easy to find, especially original documents allowing us to form our own conclusions–that's as true about climate science as it is about history.
OK_Max (#173811)
One last comment I just can't pass by, though you're just the messenger in this case:
"Prince Charles in a 2012 interview named King George III as his most respected monarch, saying he was a good man who was misunderstood." Now I can see the latter statement as fairly defensible, and I'm sure it's been said about any remotely controversial sovereign (e.g. Richard III). But *most* respected? Seriously? I couldn't see putting him in my top ten.
.
Reading the link it's clear that Charles' defense has more to do with what he was remembered for (insanity, losing America) in contrast to the things he did well, and doesn't actually include any comparison between George III and any other (more successful) monarchs. I can understand the sentiment, Charles himself is more likely to be remembered for the daft things he said and losing his wife than for all the good things he's done in his life, whatever those were. (I kid — I think criticizing modern architecture is a worthy task for the Prince of Wales.) On the other hand, this is another item to add to the list of daft things…
.
On the subject of comparing English kings, I've always been struck that out of all the successful warrior kings in England's history, the appelation "The Great" has been appended only to Alfred, most famous for making peace. I think that speaks well of England.
100% of economist agree trade tariffs are bad according to fundamental trade theory they have all been taught. This is probably correct and I agree with it, but there are much harder questions than regurgitating basic academic trade theory.
.
100% of economists would probably also agree that the * benefits * of free trade have been distributed unevenly over the past few decades. If your goal is to (a) maximize the country's GDP then we keep doing what we are doing and try to optimize it. If, instead, your goal is to (b) maximize the welfare of * all * your citizens then we might want to change our approach.
.
A harder question to answer is whether a = b. Over the past 100 years this has mostly been true. I'm not so convinced this is true anymore, or that the balance is correct.
.
For one example, part of academic free trade theory is the free movement of labor. As has been suggested people in depressed economies in fly over country can simply move to where the opportunities are better in the cities. So the theory holds … unless you outsource entire industries to where free labor cannot move. People who might be really skilled at shoe making on an assembly line cannot move to China. In theory they get re-employed in other industries, and that has more or less happened. Unemployment is now 3.8%.
.
The value of low skilled labor seems to have diminished lately, so the cognitively challenged are losers in the knowledge economy. They have opportunities, but very few high compensation opportunities. The economy has gotten more efficient at putting higher skilled people in higher skilled jobs … which also means lower skilled people are getting placed where they belong too.
.
The low skilled people are not impressed by smug people telling them to "read the chalkboard" where trade theory has been written down by people who don't work at McDonald's and don't know a single person who has ever worked at McDonald's.
.
If you don't convincingly pretend you care about this problem then you will lose elections, because voting power is not weighted by cognitive ability.
Dale S,
" I've always been struck that out of all the successful warrior kings in England's history, the appelation "The Great" has been appended only to Alfred, most famous for making peace. I think that speaks well of England."
.
I think the fact they have taken all political power from the royal family speaks even better of England. If they seized all royal assets and demoted the whole rather wacky lot to be nothing more than normal citizens, that would speak even better of England.
Dale S (Comment #173835): "I'm appalled by the use of the emergency route to "build the wall", but I'm *most* appalled by the fact that Trump is doing this end-around explicitly on the basis of powers *expressly* granted to the executive branch by the legislative branch. The legislative branch *voluntarily* gave the executive the power to declare an emergency at a President's whim and has exercised absolutely no oversight of the many times it's been used. They voluntarily gave the executive the power to redirect certain funds."
Frankly, I am more appalled by the necessity of declaring an emergency.
Presidents have claimed emergency powers for a very long time. The 1970s act that Trump used actually *restrained* Presidential power from what had been sometimes previously claimed.
The ability to redirect funds is a normal and necessary part of running the government. Congressional appropriations permit the President to redirect funds within certain limits. Declaration of an emergency somewhat expands those limits. That is routinely done, without controversy, after natural disasters.
The only real problem I see with the law that Trump has invoked it that it should put a firm time limit on an emergency that can only be extended by an act of Congress.
SteveF "If they seized all royal assets and demoted the whole rather wacky lot to be nothing more than normal citizens, that would speak even better of England."
.
I think the Royals work well as figureheads. It's rather refreshing to have your country be ultimately represented by people who still have some dignity not to dance around like idiots and say stupid and idiotic things. Of course, that may soon change.
Dale S (Comment #173824): "The colonies were founded on a charter from the crown and owed allegience to the *monarch* (George III), but legislative bodies derived their sovereignity from the *people*, and the colonial assemblies were elected by the people of colonies, while Parliament was not elected by the people of colonies."
It occurs to me that the view taken by the colonies is essentially what was put into practice with the formation of Canada.
SteveF,
There is no continuing crime for an undocumented alien being in the US.
"For instance, an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States improperly would have committed a crime. However, once that person is here, the simple act of being in the United States unlawfully is not by itself a crime."
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/florida-conference-catholic-bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/
DeWitt, thanks.
DeWitt,
Angels dancing on pinheads. Whether they are arrested and deported for being here unlawfully, or for the crime that happened diring the brief moment they crossed a border unlawfully is splitting hairs at best; they should not be here.
Re Dale S (Comment #173838)
Dale, if you haven't already seen the 1994 movie called The Madness of King George, I recommend seeing it. I can't speak for its historical accuracy, but the production and acting are very good. The movie got a BAFTA Award for Best British Film.
I'm still thinking about your post on taxes as a cause of the revolution.
In the meantime, here's something else I've been thinking about:
High school history classes taught me George Washington and the American revolutionaries were the good guys, and King George III and the Red Coats were the bad guys. I wonder what high schools in Canada teach.
If the British were tyrannical, arbitrary in their use of power, toward the colonists, then maybe the revolutionaries were tyrannical toward their brothers to the North for invading and occupying Canada. It looks like the revolutionaries believed they had a right to self govern but the people in Canada needed to be told what to do.
Max said: "It looks like the revolutionaries believed they had a right to self govern but the people in Canada needed to be told what to do"
Maybe the Canadians lacked critical mass to feel like they could pull off self rule without some kind of protection. Even today they aren't terribly overpopulated.
OK_Max (Comment #173847): "It looks like the revolutionaries believed they had a right to self govern but the people in Canada needed to be told what to do."
Huh? Oh, I guess you are referring to the attack on Quebec. That was not an attempt at conquest. They did not want Quebec in the union. It was an attempt to eliminate a strategic vulnerability by taken a critical choke point.
Re Dale S (Comment #173828)Â
Dale, I will try to answer your questions.
1) What was the "fair share" of the colonists?
I think fair would have been for the colonists to be taxed the same as other British were taxed, maybe more.
2) Why do you think the Seven Years War (of which the French and Indian war was just a part) was "much more" for the benefit of colonists than for people in Britain?
Because the colonists stood more to lose from defeat in the Seven Years war. At worst many could have been killed or driven from their farms and homes, not something the British living across the Atlantic had to fear.
3) How would revolution avoid the higher taxes supposedly motivating the colonists?
The revolution wouldn’t necessarily avoid higher taxes, but some colonists may have thought it would, and others may have thought it would in the long-run. Taxation was an important issue. To quote from the link you gave, “ Taxation policy became a central point of contention, because it tended to threaten both the prosperity and autonomy of colonial society.â€
After independence taxes continued to be an issue some thought was worth taking up arms and fighting over. There was Shays Rebellion in Mass. and the Whisky Rebellion in Pa., cases of citizens exercising their right to use arms against what they considered a tyrannical State or Federal government.
My guess is the war debt worsened the tax burden for the colonies for many years.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173839)
"The value of low skilled labor seems to have diminished lately, so the cognitively challenged are losers in the knowledge economy. They have opportunities, but very few high compensation opportunities. The economy has gotten more efficient at putting higher skilled people in higher skilled jobs … which also means lower skilled people are getting placed where they belong too."
_______
An untrained person can advance up the ladder from an entry level job if he or she is a good worker. With basic ability in the three R's and verbal communication an ambitious young person can acquire high paying skills on the job. Pleasing the boss is key, which unfortunately too many young workers haven't figured out or just don't care enough to try.
Of course in the highest paying fields formal training beyond and well beyond high school is needed just for entry.
OK_Max, #173847
"If the British were tyrannical, arbitrary in their use of power, toward the colonists, then maybe the revolutionaries were tyrannical toward their brothers to the North for invading and occupying Canada. It looks like the revolutionaries believed they had a right to self govern but the people in Canada needed to be told what to do."
.
Let's start with the general and move down to the specific. Has the United States in its history ever used armed force against peoples or nations who did not deserve it? Yes, we have. Have they ever acquired territory from right of conquest? Yes, we have. Have they ever done it for the *purpose* of denying some other people self-government because we know better than they do what they need and they need to be told what to do — yes, we have. I think that description fits a number of Indian wars very well.
.
Does it fit the description of the invasion of Canada in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812? No it doesn't. The Canadians were not self-governed, they were governed by a foreign power we were actually at war with on the time. If, as a result of the war, we had acquired Canadian territory (and I'll not deny that some Americans *hoped* it turned out that way), would that have resulted in their "brothers to the North" beind disenfranchised and ruled over? No, if they could stomach staying they would have been enfranchised and become citizens of the United States, just as post-revolutionary loyalists who stayed in America were. Indeed, American hopes of success in Canada rested in part on the false idea that locals would rise against the British — they were looking for fellow revolutionaries, not future subjects.
.
Applying the word "tyrannical" to military operations taken against *non-subjects* is divorcing it from its usual context. No one in America considered George III a tyrant for waging war against France, Spain, Russia, Austria, and Sweden in the course of the Seven Years War.
OK_Max #173850,
I asked:
"1) What was the "fair share" of the colonists?"
You replied:
"I think fair would have been for the colonists to be taxed the same as other British were taxed, maybe more."
.
We have very different definitions of "fair". For example, I think it's perfectly fair for Puerto Rico to have no income tax, they have no representation in the federal government at all. And I think it's terribly *unfair* that there are laws constricting the trade of Puerto Rico that do not apply to the states. The Jones act does far more economic damage to Puerto Rico than being relieved of income tax helps. Are you of the opinion that not only should the Puerto Ricans be required to pay income tax like we all have to, but that it would be "fair" for them to possibly pay a *higher rate*?
.
The colonists were trade-restricted for the benefit of the mother country — indeed, that's the *point* of colonies in the mercantilist system. And yet you think they should not only pay taxes at the same rate, without representation, but possible should pay *more*? What's your reasoning for thinking they should pay more?
OK_Max #173850,
I asked: "2) Why do you think the Seven Years War (of which the French and Indian war was just a part) was "much more" for the benefit of colonists than for people in Britain?"
You replied:
"Because the colonists stood more to lose from defeat in the Seven Years war. At worst many could have been killed or driven from their farms and homes, not something the British living across the Atlantic had to fear."
.
You have it exactly backwards. The only danger to colonists in their homes was from Indian raids, a threat that preceded the war by hundreds of years and would continue to be a threat after the war. The battles were fought from first to last in French-claimed territory and the French never had the resources, the plan, or the will to invade the English colonies. Invading a large, populous, armed colony wouldn't be a good plan *even if* you had command of the seas, which the opposing side did not. The attractive targets for colonial aggression were the sugar islands in the Caribbean — small, lightly populated, and highly lucrative. You'll notice that in the Revolutionary War we had a tough time getting the French to spend their naval resources on us rather than trying to fight over the sugar islands. The French colonies in Canada were much less populated than the British Colonies, which is why in every colonial war you see New Englanders fighting in Canada rather than the other way around.
.
Meanwhile, in Europe only British naval supremacy prevented invasion of England — if France had sufficient control of the sea to prosecute conquest of British colonies an ocean away, they would have sufficient naval forces to get an army across the little bit of water that protected England from France's superior might on land. France actually *had* a plan to invade England in 1759. They assembled men and flat-bottomed boats to invade, all they lacked was fair weather and their fleets to hold the British off long enough to cross the channel. They got neither. The British Navy did not fail and annihilated one of the French fleets needed to cover the invasion. "Hail Brittania, Brittania rules the waves. Britons never, never, never will be slaves."
.
But the fact remains that the colonists were *never* in danger of invasion during the Seven Years War, and the English homeland *was* in danger of invasion during the Seven Years War. Claiming the English colonists had more to lose in the war is rather like claiming the USA had more to lose than Britain in WW2.
OK_Max #173850,
I wrote:
"3) How would revolution avoid the higher taxes supposedly motivating the colonists?"
You replied:
"The revolution wouldn’t necessarily avoid higher taxes, but some colonists may have thought it would, and others may have thought it would in the long-run. Taxation was an important issue. To quote from the link you gave, “ Taxation policy became a central point of contention, because it tended to threaten both the prosperity and autonomy of colonial society.â€"
.
I can't dispute what "some" colonists "may have thought". I can only go by what colonists wrote, and *certainly* taxation was an important issue, a very important issue. But it was a philosophical issue more than a practical issue. Colonists did not go to war in 1775 because they considered the taxes *too high*, or because there was any *immediate* danger of taxes being dramatically raised. The coercive acts also raised the ante beyond taxes and tariffs.
.
Consider the act that sparked the coercive acts, the Boston Tea Party, in which patriots wantonly destroyed private property. (I think this was wrong, even though the property had been acquired through a government-granted monopoly). Why was the tea tax so hated? As the link said, even with the tax the East India Company tea, sold directly to consumers, was the *cheapest* tea available. Aside from shopkeepers cut out of the loop, no one was *financially* hurt by the tax, and the Sons of Liberty were not exclusively composed of tea-selling middlemen. For parliament, keeping the duty on tea when they repealed the other duties was a matter of principle, saying "we can do what we want to you, when we want." And the patriot response to this non-onerous tax was also a matter of principle. It was not about the Benjamins.
.
"After independence taxes continued to be an issue some thought was worth taking up arms and fighting over. There was Shays Rebellion in Mass. and the Whisky Rebellion in Pa., cases of citizens exercising their right to use arms against what they considered a tyrannical State or Federal government."
And this illustrates the enormous difference between a rebellion against *actual high taxes* (perceived) and a rebellion against taxation without representation. Both were local affairs eventually put down with little loss of life.
.
"My guess is the war debt worsened the tax burden for the colonies for many years."
.
I'd agree — and I'd also claim that the wealthy, educated men who supported revolution were not at all surprised by this turn of events. Even if you win, wars cost money, and also risk destruction of property and loss of life. And there's no guarantee you'll win. I don't think the theory that the American Revolution was sought for financial advantage is plausible.
Dale S,
"I don't think the theory that the American Revolution was sought for financial advantage is plausible."
.
I think you may mean "fought" not "sought".
.
But in any case, yes, the war was fought for some of the same reasons we have a second amendment in the Constitution: tyranny is not acceptable in principle, even if "minor" in scope and not very costly. The present day left simply does not see the tyranny implicit in the multitude of intrusive policies against personal freedoms (as constitutionally prescribed) that they support. I do. It is a fundamental disagreement about the role and scope of government in people's lives, and is why the US electorate is now more politically divided than at any time in my lifetime.
Dale S (Comment #173854)
But the fact remains that the colonists were *never* in danger of invasion during the Seven Years War, and the English homeland *was* in danger of invasion during the Seven Years War.
_______
Dale, our opinions differ. Colonist were not only in danger of being attacked by Indians, they actually were attacked. While England was in danger of an attack by France during the Seven Year War, England was not invaded.
Dale S (Comment #173853)
The colonists were trade-restricted for the benefit of the mother country — indeed, that's the *point* of colonies in the mercantilist system. And yet you think they should not only pay taxes at the same rate, without representation, but possible should pay *more*? What's your reasoning for thinking they should pay more?
________
The colonist got free or inexpensive land under the protection of the Crown. So for what amounted to a subsidy, they should have paid higher taxes than their fellow citizens in England.
You could compare it to the District of Columbia today.
If the Federal Government subsidizes D.C. more per capita than it subsidizes any State, you could argue that it would be fair for IRS to tax D.C. residents at a higher rate, despite the fact they are taxed without representation.
Apollo 11. Wow. I just saw this new documentary in theaters for a short time and it was really good. I don't know where these people dragged up all their footage, but almost the entire film is made up of stuff I had never seen before. Better yet there are no interviews and no narration beyond actual Walter Cronkite commentary at the time and it is almost entirely Mission Control / Crew communications.
.
For example the entire 4 minute+ burn to the lunar surface is shown. Thankfully they also show one of the astronauts praising all the people who built the rockets, the real heroes IMO.
.
Looking at it from 50 years in the future it is almost like it is science fiction, a CG movie of a Flash Gordon fantasy of going to the moon in the 1960's.
On a lighter note:
"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett has been indicted by a grand jury in Chicago on 16 felony counts after allegedly lying to police about being the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime, NBC News confirmed Friday."
.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence against him, he is claiming innocence on all counts. His lawyer is issuing bizarre statements about "prosecutorial over-reach", and investigators corrupting his medical records. Sounds like another OJ style defense on the way. If I had to bet, I would not put his chance of conviction above 33%…. he's such an obvious victim of racism by those bad black police in Chicago.
OK Max,
"The colonist got free or inexpensive land under the protection of the Crown. So for what amounted to a subsidy, they should have paid higher taxes than their fellow citizens in England."
.
I think you mean the colonists stole the land from native Americans, and so should have paid native Americans heavy taxes, if anyone. Of course, the Native American tribes had wars and stole territory from each other all the time, and the actual descendants of earliest Native American groups, most rightfully deserving of the Colonists' tax payments, might be difficult to figure out. Then again, native Americans were really no more "native" than the colonists; they took the land over from native animal species, soooo… logically, the colonists should actually have been paying heavy taxes not to the Crown, but to the living descendants of native animals in North America. The native squirrels would prefer their tax payments in nuts, the dear in corn or alfalfa, the bears in fish, and the wolves in… well… dear meat! And the great thing is: there is no limit to the absurdity as you look back in time. Reparations for all living things… like the living descendants of families in Africa who had a family member sold into slavery hundreds of years ago. Reparations for all of history!
Tom Scharf,
"Looking at it from 50 years in the future it is almost like it is science fiction, a CG movie of a Flash Gordon fantasy of going to the moon in the 1960's."
.
I found the film depressing in that we wasted so much money on little more than PR. Nobody has bothered to go there again… and there is good reason for that.
OK_Max (Comment #173858): "The colonist got free or inexpensive land under the protection of the Crown. So for what amounted to a subsidy, they should have paid higher taxes than their fellow citizens in England."
You are overlooking the detail that the colonial charters were issued three to four centuries ago. It was a very different world.
Re Dale S (Comment #173852)
OK_Max in Comment # 173847: “It looks like the revolutionaries believed they had a right to self govern but the people in Canada needed to be told what to do.â€
Dale S in Comment #173852: “Has the United States in its history ever used armed force against peoples or nations …. because we know better than they do what they need and they need to be told what to do — yes, we have. I think that description fits a number of Indian wars very well.
“Does it fit the description of the invasion of Canada in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812? No it doesn’t.â€
______
Dale, I exaggerated when I said the revolutionaries believed the people in Canada needed to be told what to do. They were trying to export their revolution by persuading Canadians that joining in the rebellion would be in Canada’s best interest as well as the best interest of the 13 colonies to the south. I should have said the revolutionaries believed the people in Canada needed to be told what they should do.
The following quote is from Reflections, Canada and the American Revolution, by Dr. Holly A. Mayer, Chair of the History Department at Duquesne University, whose research is largely focused on civil-military relations during the Revolutionary War. Â
“There were twenty British North American colonies or provinces in 1776, so why did only thirteen of those colonies declare independence that year or confirm it by war and treaty in 1783? The revolutionaries did try to entice and coerce other colonists to reject what they called tyranny, but they found that not all of their neighbors, much less all of the colonies of the British Empire in North America, interpreted ministry or parliamentary acts negatively or were prepared to sustain a rebellion.â€
The quote is part of what IMO is a good concise description of the relationship between Canada and the 13 colonies at the time. For more, see
https://www.amrevmuseum.org/updates/reflections/canada-and-american-revolution
Steve,
I don't know. I like that we went to the moon. I hope we go to Mars. I think it's essentially inevitable that we'll find profit in developing space travel proficiency sooner or later.
*The colonist got free or inexpensive land under the protection of the Crown. So for what amounted to a subsidy, they should have paid higher taxes than their fellow citizens in England.*
Hilarious!
Lucia,
Such nonsense must come from taking the divine right of kings too seriously.
.
The bigger mystery is why people double down on absurd arguments, even after the aburdity is pointed out. But we’ve seen this before…. you might remember a long ago thread where the ephemeral/accounting fantacy nature of the Social Security trust fund was vigorously disputed. Absurdity, I guess, is too often very hard to see.
Mark Bofill,
Sorry, the progressive left is going to do its level best to crush capitalism and the wealth it generates. I very much doubt anyone will go to Mars for many decades…. Not because it is technologically difficult (it clearly is not) but because we won’t have the wealth to do it. It would be horribly expensive with no plausible economic upside. Colonization of Mars, if it happens at all, is likely centuries away.
I found this to be a worthwhile investment of 17 minutes:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
Steve,
>>Sorry, the progressive left is going to do its level best to crush capitalism and the wealth it generates.
.
Yeah. I worry about that too. But I've been worried about that most of my adult life. They might not succeed.
.
>>I very much doubt anyone will go to Mars for many decades…. Not because it is technologically difficult (it clearly is not) but because we won’t have the wealth to do it.
.
Well, Elon Musk wants to. I agree that we're unlikely to see large scale immigration, but a small permanent colony or three isn't utterly out of the question AFAICT.
.
We also don't know what technological advances might do to change the dynamics within the next generation or two. Even pursuing and developing old technologies, like nuclear rockets could make some difference:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/Nuclear_Thermal_Propulsion_Deep_Space_Exploration
.
>>It would be horribly expensive with no plausible economic upside. Colonization of Mars, if it happens at all, is likely centuries away.
.
Again, there's Elon Musk. Maybe the case can be made that he's making a huge business mistake. Maybe so. But it sounds like he really wants to give it a try.
Steve,
Besides, the government could give SpaceX free land and protection on Mars, and that would justify taxing the heck out them. [Edit: now that I think of it, the U.S. probably ought to go ahead and claim the Universe so it'll be ready to parcel it out when the time comes…]
😉
SteveF (#173870):
If people want to read Shellenberger's arguments rather than watch a video, visit https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I only wish that voices like his were around when nuclear energy was opposed in the 70s.
lucia (Comment #173867)
March 10th, 2019 at 7:08 am
*The colonist got free or inexpensive land under the protection of the Crown. So for what amounted to a subsidy, they should have paid higher taxes than their fellow citizens in England.*
Hilarious
_________
I wouldn't have thought it funny had I been living in England at the time and knew my tax dollars were being spent to protect wealthy slave owners who stole Indian land.
I believe England was a tax donor to the colonies, like some States today are tax donors to other States, paying more in Federal taxes than they get back in Federal benefits. If the donor is wealthy State (e.g., Connecticut) and the donee State has lots of poor people (e.g., Kentucky), the transfer does not seem unfair. However, it doesn't look like that was the case with England and the colonies.
Max,
>>If the donor is wealthy State (e.g., Connecticut) and the donee State has lots of poor people (e.g., Kentucky), the transfer does not seem unfair.
.
Why is this fair?
Going to the moon was a monumental accomplishment for humans. Realistically the bulk of the costs and development were for an ICBM program, it's probably impossible to sort it out at this point.
.
A manned mission to Mars is pretty much a waste beyond it being a technology development program for grander things. We have proven it is a dead planet with red rocks. Somebody may eventually find some bacteria under an ice crust or something, but there's more opportunity on moons. It is compelling to do only because it seems like it's necessary in a biological "we must expand our presence" kind of way. We will build nice reservations for all the indigenous bacteria we find and let them build casinos tax free.
.
Robot / drone spacecraft are way cheaper and effective, dragging along a big bag of eating / pooping / breathing biomass you have to keep alive seems pointless unless you plan on staying there.
.
The US doesn't do monumental things anymore, no tallest buildings, no biggest bridges, no manned trips to Mars. I think this is mostly because the US has matured past my d*** is bigger than yours stage. We are plenty comfortable with our size. Asia is definitely in that stage now though, ha ha. We do things that are smarter and less manly, exploring all the planets with spacecraft. NASA has no peers in this regard.
.
Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai all have wow factors a magnitude bigger than a US city. Newer cities look shinier.
I have made a lifetime vow to never watch a TED talk. These are the most pretentious things I have ever seen. I imagine there is some value there but the entire genre of "I have a big idea that uses unproven reductionist thinking to solve a highly complex problem" is tiring.
HaroldW (Comment #173873)
March 10th, 2019 at 10:34 am
SteveF (#173870):
If people want to read Shellenberger's arguments rather than watch a video, visit https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
I only wish that voices like his were around when nuclear energy was opposed in the 70s.
_______
Nuclear energy still is opposed. Rational or not, fears of more disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl can make people question the need for more nuke power plants.
If renewables are as bad and nuclear is as good Shellenberger claims, I don't know why Germany is going ahead with Energiewende and France is begining to phase out nuclear.
>>A manned mission to Mars is pretty much a waste beyond it being a technology development program for grander things.
.
With all due respect, you guys sound like a couple of central planners to me. You see no value in a manned mars mission, therefore there'd be no value. Bah.
I doubt there'd be no value. I think it's possible and not even unlikely there'd be upsides we are not in a position to realize right here and now. Humans are good at finding and exploiting unforeseen upsides in new situations.
mark bofill (Comment #173879): "With all due respect, you guys sound like a couple of central planners to me. You see no value in a manned mars mission, therefore there'd be no value. Bah."
Spot on!
Max,
'Fair' means a lot of things (light skinned, attractive, etc) but in context I think what we're looking for is along the lines of:
.
>>if a situation is fair, everyone is treated equally and in a reasonable way.
.
I don't see how taxing people in Connecticut to benefit people in Kentucky meets that meaning. In particular, I dispute that there is anything inherent[ly] 'fair' about redistributing wealth.
I don't foresee living on Mars being sustainable unless mother Earth keeps shipping supplies. As a species we are living on a single point failure, and our very long term outlook viability increases dramatically if N = 2. If Mars produces that then fine, I'm just not convinced. Otherwise we would look to see if any of the moons look better, and if not then the planet search continues and it's a very long trip to N=2.
.
The cost to Mars is approx. $1T (only 1 Obama stimulus package!). Curiosity cost $2.5B. Mars 2020 Rover is $2.1B. That's a 40x to 50x cost difference. I'm not really against going to Mars, I just think the argument is hard to justify on economic grounds. I'll send my $1T / 330M portion of the cost to NASA tomorrow. Realistically I'd rather send it to SpaceX.
OK Max,
“I don't know why Germany is going ahead with Energiewende and France is begining to phase out nuclear.â€
.
Because they are unbelievably stupid, shallow and (not councidently) dedicated to the left/green agenda….. which is essentially ‘equal poverty for all’. It’s not something unique to Germans or French, just unique to the stupid and shallow left.
Tom,
.
Fair enough, it is pretty expensive. If SpaceX (/ something-a-LITTLE closer-to-a-market-solution) than NASA can't bring the cost down, maybe it's not worth it relative to other priorities, that could certainly be true.
Fukushima was not a disaster, it was an almost, exceedingly close, to a disaster. I'm not even going to get into body counts, you obviously haven't even bothered to get the basic facts here. Europe is going away from nuclear for environmental reasons. They are intentionally increasing their emissions to fight climate change. There is a side benefit of also increasing the costs of energy for all their citizens. It's a win-win.
.
The reasons are the same as the US in the 1970's. It is fanatical anti-nuclear fundamentalism. "Radiation" is scary, and nuclear plants obviously radiate, therefore no nukes. I think I covered the basics.
.
There are legitimate questions about the costs of nuclear power. Parts of this is because of the obscene regulatory regime for nuclear, and the other is that development of nuclear basically ended 40 years ago.
Tom Scharf,
“There are legitimate questions about the costs of nuclear power.â€
.
Sure, the cost is somewhat higher than natural gas. But I note that is mainly due to environmental political opposition and ham-stringing regulations which spring from that political opposition. IMO: 100% irratuonal opposition. Without the political opposition, the cost for nuclear power drops significantly….. and FAR lower than solar/wind.
Tom Scharf,
“There are legitimate questions about the costs of nuclear power.â€
.
Sure, the cost is today somewhat higher than natural gas. But I note that cost is mainly due to environmental political opposition and ham-stringing regulations, which spring from that political opposition. IMO: 100% of oppostion is irration/fear. Without the political opposition, the cost for nuclear power drops significantly….. and would be FAR lower than solar/wind.
mark bofill (Comment #173881): "I don't see how taxing people in Connecticut to benefit people in Kentucky meets that meaning. In particular, I dispute that there is anything inherent[ly] 'fair' about redistributing wealth."
I agree. But I think that it is fair to expect those who are better off to pay a larger share of common expenses, such as national defense and building or maintaining highways. I also think that it is good policy to have a social safety net and the cost of that would be a common expense. Such policies would result in a transfer from Connecticut to Kentucky and could be fair.
But a transfer solely to redistribute income would not be fair.
Mike,
Yeah. I don't have an issue with that. It's been along time but IIRC Adam Smith basically lays it out the way I see it.
.
>>I also think that it is good policy to have a social safety net and the cost of that would be a common expense. Such policies would result in a transfer from Connecticut to Kentucky and could be fair.
.
Yes, I agree. It's not so much that a redistribution can *never* be fair so much as that redistribution isn't fair in and of itself automatically. If we all vote for a social safety net and that net gets used, odds are great it won't be used perfectly equally by everybody. Them's the breaks. I still don't know that I'd say it was *fair* specifically, more along the lines of 'we've decided it's worth it even if it isn't perfectly fair.' or something like that.
Maybe I'm wrong and it *would* be fair. I don't know. Still trying to make up my mind.
A redistribution of money *can* be explicitly fair. If I steal X millions from Bob, the police catch me and the courts rule on it, it'd be explicitly fair for Bob to at least get his money back, in my view.
Sometimes I waffle on progressive taxes. *shrug*
mark bofill (Comment #173875)
March 10th, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Max,
>>If the donor is wealthy State (e.g., Connecticut) and the donee State has lots of poor people (e.g., Kentucky), the transfer does not seem unfair.
.
Why is this fair?
_________________
Noblesse Oblige – the unwritten obligation of the rich to be generous to the poor. Because the obligation is unwritten, however, some rich won't comply, and that's why we have a progressive income tax. In this case we extend the obligation to the middle-class.
Sharing the wealth does benefit the givers in a few ways. If not hungry, the receivers are less likely to turn to crime, and if not ill are less likely spread disease to the givers.
Sharing the wealth through tax credits for dependent children also has encouraged low-income couples to have larger families. The fertility rates of the poor, however, have not been high enough to offset the low rates of the better-off, and if not for immigrants, the U.S. population would be declining.
Population growth is needed if Social Security and Medicare payments are to be sustained at current levels. I believe immigration can be at least a partial solution to the funding problems these entitlements will face as the elderly dependency ratio rises. Legal immigrants would be preferable, but illegal works too.
OK_Max (Comment #173892): "Why is this fair?"
You have actually not given any reason why it is fair.
Policies that have the effect of transferring income might be (and often are) good policy. They might be (and often are) the ethical and/or compassionate thing to do. But taking what I have earned and giving it to someone who has not earned it is not fair in itself.
Max,
Thanks for your answer. I think that's a fairly reasonable answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
This may be an argument that justifies redistribution. It's not clear to me that this makes redistribution *fair*. But I'm still puzzling on the exact extents of fair, so maybe it does make it *fair*. I'm not sure yet.
.
>>Population growth is needed if Social Security and Medicare payments are to be sustained at current levels. I believe immigration can be at least a partial solution to the funding problems these entitlements will face as the elderly dependency ratio rises. Legal immigrants would be preferable, but illegal works too.
.
Good. But illegals need to be paying taxes and such for this to work. I read in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States) that only 50% to 75% of illegals pay taxes. Legals would certainly be preferable from that perspective. Another option of course could be to reduce Social Security and Medicare payment levels.
[Edit: I see Mike beat me to the punch. Yes, my reservations are along the lines of exactly what he said.]
OK Max,
“Population growth is needed if Social Security and Medicare payments are to be sustained at current levels.â€
.
Or greater economic growth, or other options. There are miltiple ‘solutions’ to the current unsustainability of Social Security and Medicare. The obvious solutions (delay retirement a change couple of years, increase the basis for SS and medicare taxes a bit, tie benefits to average wages, not average inflation) are not popular among the insane, of course.
OK Max,
“I don't know why Germany is going ahead with Energiewende and France is begining to phase out nuclear.â€
.
Because they are unbelievably stupid, shallow and (not councidently) dedicated to the left/green agenda
________
I doubt the Germans are stupid about technology and economics. Despite relatively high wages, Germany has been exporting more than it imports. If the German's are "unbelievably stupid," we should be more like them.
I personally would like to be more like the French, who believe life is about food, wine, and romance.
Max,
I think being overly committed to an ideology can make anybody behave stupidly. What I read about Energiewende certainly seems to fit the bill:
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/
FWIW though, blind devotion to ideology is a knife that can cut on both sides of the spectrum of course; it's not just on the Left.
mark bofill (Comment #173894)
Good. But illegals need to be paying taxes and such for this to work. I read in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States) that only 50% to 75% of illegals pay taxes. Legals would certainly be preferable from that perspective.
________
I looked up the report wiki cited, and found the "50% to 75%" refers only to State and Local taxes (see link).
mark, I too thought legals would be preferable, but after going through that wiki piece, I'm not so sure.
Look and you will find references to illegals paying into Social Security but never drawing benefits, an unintended gift to older Americans. Also you will find references to illegals paying more in total taxes than they receive in benefits.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
Max,
.
:/ To go back to our earlier discussion, would you say that *that* is fair?
.
I'm not looking to exploit illegal aliens. Even if there's an upside for legal Americans, I think we should avoid going down that road and stick to what we know is reasonable and fair.
.
What do you think about that?
mark bofill (Comment #173897)
March 10th, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Max,
I think being overly committed to an ideology can make anybody behave stupidly. What I read about Energiewende certainly seems to fit the bill:
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/
______
mark, the Politico piece just says Germany is lagging behind other European countries in achieving its green goals, partly because of its emphasis on diesel rather than electric power for transportation. The article doesn't say the country isn't moving forward. I never understand relying on diesel to meet emission goals.
mark bofill (Comment #173899)
March 10th, 2019 at 3:55 pm
Max,
.
:/ To go back to our earlier discussion, would you say that *that* is fair?
_____
Sorry, mark, but I'm lost. What's the Comment# ?
Must break away for a while, but will try to address your question later.
Max,
>>the Politico piece just says Germany is lagging behind other European countries in achieving its green goals, partly because of its emphasis on diesel rather than electric power for transportation.
.
No. The article says more than that. It says that German emission reductions have been stagnant for the past three years. It says that the cost of power in Germany has more than doubled since the year 2000. It says that missing EU targets could trigger hefty fines from the European Commission.
.
Why did they put themselves in this position? I think it was due to ideological zeal. They have doubled the cost of their electricity for no real gain in emission reductions over the past three years. I have read in other places (here : https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/28/germany-facing-mass-blackouts-because-the-wind-and-sun-wont-cooperate/) that Germans are sometimes maintaining power and avoiding blackouts by the skin of their teeth. And according to the original article, they have put themselves in a position where they may end up paying hefty fines.
.
This is stupid. It's my opinion that they reached this point as a result of too much ideology and too little common sense, but it's debatable of course. I'm not sure how debatable it is though that what they've done to themselves is stupid. We could try debating it if you like. *shrug*
Max, OK, talk later.
Regarding being lost, you said:
"mark, I too thought legals would be preferable, but after going through that wiki piece, I'm not so sure.
Look and you will find references to illegals paying into Social Security but never drawing benefits, an unintended gift to older Americans. Also you will find references to illegals paying more in total taxes than they receive in benefits."
.
and I asked if you thought *that* would be fair. That sounds like exploiting illegals to me, and that doesn't sound like a particularly good idea in my book. That's not a good argument for illegal immigration as far as I'm concerned.
OK Max,
“I doubt the Germans are stupid about technology and economics.â€
.
I rather doubt you have spent any time discussing substantive issues with actual Germans. Just like here in the States, numbnut green leftists often control electoral outcomes. Fortunately for Germans, a lot of the electorate has (finally) concluded that Merkle is bad for Germany. Perhaps more sensible policies will be promulgated when she is finally gone. Closing nuclear plants is four or five sigma dumb; I hope for Germany’s sake they get past this lunacy.
Mark Bofill,
“I'm not sure how debatable it is though that what they've done to themselves is stupid.â€
,
I am quite sure. It’s really, really stupid. Just like the rest of the wacko greens….. they want reductions in CO2 emissions, then refuse to consider the only practical technology to achieve that…. just stupid, stupid, stupid.
Steve,
.
Yep. Pretty much the only way of looking at it I can come up with that suggests it wasn't a stupid move is to speculate that reducing emissions was never actually the goal. Which is what you pointed out in the comment that originally got this ball rolling:
>>(not councidently) dedicated to the left/green agenda….. which is essentially ‘equal poverty for all’.
.
Yup.
HaroldW,
“I only wish that voices like his were around when nuclear energy was opposed in the 70s.â€
.
I think there were, but those vioces were few, faint, and ignored. On the day of the Three Mile Island accident, which was about 85 miles from where I lived, I came home from work to find my ex-wife had loaded our kids (18 months and 3 months) into her car and was preparing to “escape the danger†by driving 300 miles to her parents’ house in Massachusetts. I stopped her, or course, but it all went down hill from there… rational and irrational don’t mix well.
.
The larger point: rational and irrational don’t ever mix well. Irrational, unknowing fear is why nuclear power is resisted; and that is 100% due to the nutcake greens promulating fear among people unable to judge the technology or its risks for themselves. It is like the crazy anti-vaccination lunatics, but with even worse, more damaging consequences.
Re mark bofill (Comment #173902)
mark: "No. The article says more than that. It says that German emission reductions have been stagnant for the past three years. It says that the cost of power in Germany has more than doubled since the year 2000.
me: Yes, the early 2018 article does say "stagnant for the past three years, but it's outdated. In 2018, German greenhouse gas emissions fell sharply, renewable energy generated as much electricity as coal for the first time.
My source, http://www.statista.com,
says the cost of electricity in Germany rose 24% over the 2000-2018, your article says the cost doubled over 2000-2017. Perhaps the 24% reflects an adjustment for inflation, but still that's a big difference.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-archive/2018-a-milestone-for-the-german-energy-transition-but-a-mixed-year-as-a-whole/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418078/electricity-prices-for-households-in-germany/
mark, I was surprised American families in 70 percent of the States have higher electric bills than families in Germany. The Germans pay more per kWh than Americans families, but because they consume much less, electricity is a smaller part of their budget. In 2018, the average monthly energy bill for an average German household consisting of three people with an average annual consumption of 3,500 kWh was 85.5 euros, or about 98 U.S. dollars, a lower amount than average for families in 35 of our 50 States. The burden of Energiewende has been grossly overstated.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/08/24/where-youll-pay-the-most-in-electric-bills/36600427/
mark: have read in other places (here : https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/28/germany-facing-mass-blackouts-because-the-wind-and-sun-wont-cooperate/) that Germans are sometimes maintaining power and avoiding blackouts by the skin of their teeth.
me: the dailycaller picked that from German site but neglected to mention the following part of the story.
“Of course, Vassiliadis, who mainly represents the workers in the conventional power plants, is pursuing an agenda with his portrayal of events. He wants to prevent the demanded by the Greens premature withdrawal from lignite.â€Â
https://rp online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/deutsches-stromnetz-schrammt-am-blackout-vorbei_aid-19315473
In the U.S, we have actually had at least one serious black out since the year 2000. The Germans have had some close calls, but no blackouts I could find. I'll look some more.
SteveF (Comment #173904)
March 10th, 2019 at 5:52 pm
OK Max,
I rather doubt you have spent any time discussing substantive issues with actual Germans.
_____
SteveF, I don't know any Germans, but I just found out American families in 35 States have higher electric bills than families in Germany, so if you know Germans who are complaining, tell 'em they are better off than the Americans.
mark bofill (Comment #173903)
March 10th, 2019 at 4:41 pm
I asked if you thought *that* would be fair. That sounds like exploiting illegals to me, and that doesn't sound like a particularly good idea in my book. That's not a good argument for illegal immigration as far as I'm concerned.
_______
My understanding is a person must contribute to Social Security for a least 10 years (40 quarters) to qualify for old age benefits regardless of who he is. Some illegal aliens return to their home countries before having the minimum quarters of covered employment, and some citizens stop working before reaching the minimum.
If neither illegal aliens or citizens qualify for old age benefits without having at least 40 quarters of covered employment, I believe you would agree both being treated the same is fair
The treatment may not be the same in cases of dependents, disability and death. I don't know. Nor do I know whether an illegal alien with 40 or more quarters would be denied old age benefits because of his illegal status, but it would seem unfair to deny him what he has earned.
US + Europe are at about 30% of global CO2 emissions.
If we take current levels as a baseline of 100, then the rest of the world is at 70.
With a 5% growth rate for the rest of the world, in 20 years you would have 186. If this growth is reduced to 2% a year, it is 104.
80% cut by US+EU with the 5% growth rate for rest of the world is 192 total, vs no cuts in US+EU but constraining foreign growth rate is 134, 30% less emissions, if you keep the developing world's emissions growth rate down.
Max,
Illegals are not eligible for social security and Medicare and such. Has nothing to do with any of what you said.
I'll repeat, exploiting illegals in that way is not a justification for lax immigration enforcement.
I yield on Germany. I think you're wrong, but it's not worth the trouble to try to manually override what looks like your willful blindness on that.
OK Max,
“SteveF, I don't know any Germans, but I just found out American families in 35 States have higher electric bills than families in Germany…â€
Wherever you found that, it is either flat wrong or comparing apples with bananas. Most likely they are not actually comparing electricity rates. The highest US rate is (no surprise) in Hawaii: $0.26 per KWH. Alaska is next at $0.19…. all other states are lower, with the average residential rate for the entire USA at about $0.105 per KWH. The average German residential rate is somewhere over $0.32 per KWH. The residential rate in Germany would be somewhat lower, but residential rates are set very high to subsidize industrial users, who would be at a competative disadvantage with industries outside Germany were they to pay proportionally higher rates (industrial users in the USA do have somewhat lower rates than residential users, but their contracts are usually much more complicated than residential rates, and both total KWH and peak demand enter into the calculation).
Mike N,
Yes, and since nobody is going to convince developing countries to remain poor, it is a virtual certainty global CO2 emissions will increase substantially over the next few decades. A crash program to install nuclear power plants everywhere would bend the curve, but the green lunatics are never going to let that happen. The irony of self-defeating “green†policies is almost too much. There will be continued warming, most likely at about 0.15C per decade throughout this century. Anyone who is concerned about 1.2C additional rise by 2100 (as I am) should support nuclear power in a big way. The green left never will, because their policy preferences are religious dogma…. not based on science, and not based on rational analysis.
Because of tight social control of land use, construction of new houses in Germany is very low, and houses are very expensive. So many people have no choice but to live in relatively small apartments. That is why their electric bills are lower. Given a choice, lots of Germans would prefer to live in houses. They just don’t have that choice. I don’t see how that is a good thing.
SteveF: "the average residential rate for the entire USA [is] about $0.105 per KWH."
I don't know how that figure was obtained, but it may be misleading. I just took a look at my MA bill for the most recent month. There is a charge for $0.1072 per kWh for electricity generation, consistent with the average given. But then there's "delivery" charges, including "distribution" and "transmission", and other charges for "transition", "revenue decoupling", "distributed solar", "renewable energy", and "energy efficiency". Total in that category is $0.10735 per kWh, plus a flat fee of $7.00/month. Bottom line is that the generation charge is only about 45% of this month's bill.
My electric bill in FL comes to less than $0.09 per kWh, but then there are various other taxes and fees (presumably proportional) which add up to approximately $.02 per kWh. Plus a flat fee of about $8.00/month. Much closer to the average you cited.
HaroldW,
Those are the totals. A google search will turn up average net rates per state. I also see a Massachusetts bill with the parts broken out, but if I remember correctly, my total in MA is about $0.16 – $0.17 per KWH. The rate per KWH actually goes up with rising use (I think). In FL my bill (again total) is a bit over $0.12 per KWH, but on a much higher use rate.
The average German house is half the size of the US, 1185 sq feet. They barely use AC at all in Germany and 80% of heating comes from high carbon sources which doesn't show up on electric bills.
.
Perhaps everyone in the US should just move into a house half the size they live in now.
.
All the power used will be paid by somebody and it affects the economy. There is residential power and industrial power. High cost energy markets often have the residential market subsidize the industrial market for fear of losing competitiveness in global markets. Heavy German industry (think cars) pays $0.10 / kwh (residential = $0.33 / kwh) and their cost has barely changed over the past decade. This is yet another entanglement with "free trade" treaties, the effective subsidization of global industry.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/595803/electricity-industry-price-germany/
Energy taxes are yet another way to hide overall taxation of citizens. Go look at your cable or cell phone bill, lots of vague sounding communication taxes. That's on top of spectrum auctions (since the government apparently owns the electromagnetic spectrum), city, county, state gas taxes, endless fees, corporate taxes and on and on and on. It's not just income, sales, and property taxes.
.
What matters is the overall tax burden, not how any particular state chooses to construct their Rube Goldberg tax machinery. This seems incredibly complex to measure, and most people don't. The usual blue suspects are at the top of the list for basic taxes and it is likely a good assumption they also bilk harder on everything else.
.
Outside of income taxes, everything else can vaguely be seen as a consumption tax (good news immigrant opponents, nobody gets away from these). It is an incredibly complicated VAT. I'm no fan of a VAT but perhaps at least it is more transparent than death by a million tiny taxes.
Tom Scharf,
It is difficult to measure total tax burden, especially when "mandates" to do things the government wants adds to business costs but do not show up as taxes…. even though they are effectively the same.
.
At the state and local level, the total per capita direct expenditures are available: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-general-expenditures-capita
Except for Alaska (which has some giant unspecified expenditures), a plot of % democrat registered voters against per capita expenditures would show a clear correlation. No surprise there. The other interesting outlier is the District of Colombia…. with the nation's highest primary and secondary education expenditures, and *by far* the nation's highest welfare expenditures. I expect most DC expenditures are funded directly by Congress; local property tax rates are less than half the national average.
SteveF,
I suppose a shortcut to the overall tax burden can be measured by:
State budget / # citizens.
If you work for the government then you probably want to live in a high tax state. If you believe in public spaces and so forth then you want to live in a high tax state, assuming you also believe you get what you pay for which is highly debatable. On a lower scale this also applies to HOA's where you can at least easily assess what value you are getting for your community taxes.
SteveF (Comment #173914)
March 11th, 2019 at 5:57 am
OK Max,
“SteveF, I don't know any Germans, but I just found out American families in 35 States have higher electric bills than families in Germany…â€
Wherever you found that, it is either flat wrong or comparing apples with bananas. Most likely they are not actually comparing electricity rates.
__________
SteveF, I wasn't comparing electricity rates, I was comparing monthly electricity bills. If you suspect I erred, please go to my sources and check my work.
In 2018, the average monthly energy bill for an average German household consisting of three people with an average annual consumption of 3,500 kWh was 85.5 euros.
Source:https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
The exchange rate of dollars to euros averaged 1.149608 in 2018, and 85.5 x 1.149608 = $98.29, the average monthly bill expressed in dollar terms.
Source of exchange rate: http://www.ofx.com
In found that in 35 States average monthly electric bills were higher than the $98.29 average for German households. The source was a USATODAY article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/08/24/where-youll-pay-the-most-in-electric-bills/36600427/
Although Americans pay less per kWh for electricity than Germans, they consume more, and consequently can have higher monthly electric bills in States where consumption and/or rates are greater than average.
For example, in South Carolina the cost of electricity was about 13 cents per kWh, just over one-third the 34 cents (29.5 euros) rate in Germany, but average monthly consumption was 1,155 kWh per month, or 13,860 kWh per year, almost four times the 3,500 kWh German average. Consequently, the average monthly electric bill in South Carolina was $146 or about $48 more than the $98 German average bill.
Source of 2018 German electricity rate:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418078/electricity-prices-for-households-in-germany/
SteveF, I have given you my data source and explained my work. I welcome your comments.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173919)
March 11th, 2019 at 9:09 am
The average German house is half the size of the US, 1185 sq feet. They barely use AC at all in Germany and 80% of heating comes from high carbon sources which doesn't show up on electric bills.
.
Perhaps everyone in the US should just move into a house half the size they live in now.
_______
There's something to be said for smaller houses. Smaller means lower price, lower fuel bills, lower maintenance cost, and lower taxes, leaving you with more money to spend on more important things.
And don't forget smaller means less to clean, leaving you with more time for fun.
And another thing, smaller keeps you from accumulating a lot of useless junk you can't decide what to do with.
OK Max,
#173923, yup you are comparing apples with bananas, which is what I suspected. Germans live is relatively small apartments within relatively large buildings (the average number of apartment units in German apartment buildings is >10). If they lived in even smaller apartments (
I made the mistake of putting a 'greater than' symbol in the above comment, so most was lost.
.
If Germans lived in even smaller apartments (like many Japanese), they would spend even less on electricity. But I suspect the Germans would reject this suggestion, just like Americans would reject the suggestion they live in small apartments like Germans do.
OK Max, #173924
That is why so many Americans are abandoning their houses and moving into tiny apartments. Ridiculous.
I'm not a fan of gigantic houses, I've been looking for a while. It's hard to find nice small houses in nice neighborhoods actually. I'm guessing the trend for big houses is going to reverse in the next few decades. Smaller also means less places to look for your lost items.
.
If the Germans and Japanese had the option to live in a twice as large house for the same cost then there will probably be a lot of takers. People live in the suburbs for a reason, people's needs change over time though.
SteveF (Comment #173925)
March 11th, 2019 at 2:49 pm
OK Max,
#173923, yup you are comparing apples with bananas, which is what I suspected.
_____
No, I'm not. I compared electricity bills, apples to apples. I compared electricity rates per kWh, apples to apples. I compared consumption of kWh's, again apples to apples.
Are you sure you read my post?
Smaller houses and migrate to Canada. The bulk of the US is on the same latitude as the Mediterranean area and North Africa.
https://matadornetwork.com/read/mapped-united-states-canada-latitudes-europe/
OK Max,
Ya, I read your posts. They are designed to distract from the reality that solar and wind raise electricity rates. I won’t be bothering to read your future posts.
SteveF (Comment #173931)
March 11th, 2019 at 5:20 pm
OK Max,
Ya, I read your posts. They are designed to distract from the reality that solar and wind raise electricity rates. I won’t be bothering to read your future posts.
______
OK, this post is for anyone to read, except Steve F:
To set the record straight, I do believe solar and wind power raise electricity rates in the short-run, but probably don't in the long-run, even if the cost benefit of reducing pollution isn't taken into account. Recovering costs on new investments takes a while.
I believe the immediate future is solar and wind power supplemented with fast-ramp natural-gas powered generators to take over during times these renewables can't meet demand. Advances in electricity storage and other technologies could eventually make the generators unnecessary, but that's not a given. More nuclear power also is a possibility, but in a permanent addition to renewables rather than a temporary supplement. Coal for energy eventually will be phased out totally or almost totally.
Max,
I was about to write a snarky response, but I've decided instead to try a more civilized and honest one.
.
I don't see your point in making the pronouncement above in 173932. Seriously. If you imagine that your unsupported, arbitrary, run of the mill / we've heard it a thousand times before, green progressive opinion impresses anybody here, you're more detached from reality than I suspected. Maybe you think.. what? I honestly don't know. That it is difficult to refute? It's not. It's *boring* to refute. Tedious. It's not clear to what point anybody would even argue.
.
I don't think anybody here gives two shits if coal is eventually phased out. If anybody here does care, they probably care in the direction of being *glad* coal is eventually being phased out.
.
I like that you post here. I like that you have different views. It makes for interesting conversation and engages people. Honestly, sincerely, I thank you for that. But I don't know what sort of engagement you expect on a remark like the one you posted.
I mean, coal is going to be with us for awhile. I don't cheer this, I don't curse this, I just observe what's happening:
.
https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/while-coal-is-a-dirty-word-to-some-africa-is-relying-on-it-1.728838
.
https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/while-coal-is-a-dirty-word-to-some-africa-is-relying-on-it-1.728838
.
Now instead of room 101 in the Ministry of Love, I have to face you dropping endless verbiage on me to obscure the obvious truth that coal is going to be with us for awhile. No! I don't *care* if you refuse to accept reality. There's a limit to how much time I want to waste walking you through the obvious.
.
Wind and solar. Well, maybe Max. Frankly I don't think so. There are well known issues there. But go ahead and believe that wind and solar is the immediate future all you want to.
OOps, duplicate link
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#5a208da165fa
There.
Thank you mark. SteveF in Comment #173931 said he believed my Comment 173923 was designed to distract from the reality that solar and wind raise electricity rates. He believed that despite the fact I pointed out rates in Germany were much higher than rates in the States.
In my example in Comment 173923, the rate was 34 cents per kWh in Germany compared to 13 cents in South Carolina. Does that comparison distract from German rates being high? REAL QUESTION
Had I wanted to distract from the high electricity rates in Germany, I would have compared it to Connecticut, where the rate was $20.
I had the impression foes of Energiewende like to think that the high electricity rates mean Germans spend more of their household budget on electric bills than Americans do. I found in 35 of our 50 States that simply isn't true. I presented my work and gave my sources. If my conclusion isn't true, can anyone explain why? REAL QUESTION.
SteveF disliked my conclusion because German houses are smaller than American houses, thus requiring less fuel to heat. He said mine was an Apples to Bananas comparison. I don't agree. Comparing what Germans and Americans spend on electricity is a comparison of spending on a like thing, electricity, which is the same regardless of who uses, what it's used for, where it's used, and how it was generated.
OK_Max (Comment #173900)
"I never understand relying on diesel to meet emission goals"?
Diesel generators are used as a backup in South Australia for when blackouts due to a reduction in fossil fuel and an over reliance on solar and wind power has occurred. In essence they are insurance for when the strategy to meet emissions goals breaks down.
Because they can be started up quickly and expensively.
Coal power stations lack speed of response and are horribly cheap.
Max, the point of arguing Germans pay less than 35 states despite having all the renewable energy is presumably that renewable energy isn't so expensive. But a proper look at the German experience suggests that if the US adopted it, people would be paying two to three times as much for energy as they do now.
Yes Max. Wind and solar are a smashing fantastic success in Germany and they are going to sweep the world in the immediate future. Germans pay triple what we do, but because they only use a third as much electricity, somthing. The price of wind and solar is going to come down over time, because we want it to, and what people want instead of physical reality actually controls the world. Maybe a tried and true solution like nuclear will play some role and maybe not. Battery and energy storage technology is likely to take off, again, because we wish it would and that's how it works.
I got it now. Thanks.
Ok. I'm sorry I'm such an irritable person.
Why do you think wind and solar are the immediate future. What specifically do you mean by this.
Thanks.
FWIW, if you really dont understand Steve's argument: because German houses are smaller and require less power to heat than American houses, Steve believes comparing what Germans spend on average to heat their homes to what Americans spend on average to heat their homes is not a 'like to like' comparison.
That's two minutes of my life I'm never getting back..
OK_Max
*If my conclusion isn't true, can anyone explain why? *
People already explained the reason to you. Among them: *Smaller* *houses*.
*He said mine was an Apples to Bananas comparison. I don't agree. *
Well… it's great you like your own argument. But pretty much everyone else agrees with SteveF.
In the *context of this discussion* which is whether solar and wind raise rates, your numbers don't support your narrative of "solar and wind raise rates" because you are comparing heating of a *small house* with an *expensive source* to heating a *big house* with a *cheap source*, and then trying to push out the story that the expensive source is not really expensive. To make sense in context, you need to compare heating of similar sized houses (or just use the actual cost per kilowatt.)
So SteveF is right. Your comparison is apples to bananas.
OK_Max: (Comment #173936): "In my example in Comment 173923, the rate was 34 cents per kWh in Germany compared to 13 cents in South Carolina. Does that comparison distract from German rates being high?"
It certainly was meant as a distraction.
.
This thread started with OK_Max (Comment #173878): "If renewables are as bad and nuclear is as good Shellenberger claims, I don't know why Germany is going ahead with Energiewende and France is begining to phase out nuclear."
When challenged, you replied with the false claim that rates had not risen much in Germany and introduced your irrelevant household bill data.
.
OK_Max (Comment #173936): "I had the impression foes of Energiewende like to think that the high electricity rates mean Germans spend more of their household budget on electric bills than Americans do."
That may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Germans spend much more on electricity now than they used to. If like many people, you don't have a lot of disposable income, it is a big problem to have your bill go from $600/yr to $1200/yr. If we follow Germany's bad example, then people are looking at $1500/year going to $3000/yr or even more.
"Coal for energy eventually will be phased out totally or almost totally … "
.
… only if other energy sources achieve cost and reliability parity. Full stop. Natural gas has done so, but it's entirely possible that the cost of natural gas may rise above coal in the future. Energy markets are like airline tickets, no seeming rationality sometimes.
.
~50% of India does not have access to toilets and they are spending $30B to try to solve an open defecation problem, in 2019. Maybe they should consult with San Francisco, ha ha. These aren't the people who think spending a lot of money in China for expensive unreliable energy is a good idea when they can mine their own coal with their own labor.
.
Future potential emissions increases are from poor countries in China, India, Africa. They would prefer less poop on the streets over moral preening to the West's greens. The perceived morality of an energy source is a 1st world problem.
I just find this hilarious. Every major media outlet has latched onto it.
Study Finds Racial Gap Between Who Causes Air Pollution And Who Breathes It
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/702348935/study-finds-racial-gap-between-who-causes-air-pollution-and-who-breathes-it
.
Captain Obvious in the academy concluded that wealthy people consume more so they are indirectly responsible for more "pollution". Poor people breathe a disproportionate amount of pollution measured by their wealth footprint.
.
Wealth disparities wasn't sexy enough to get media attention of course, so they had to turn it into a race issue. Oh, brother.
One of the crazy things about Germany's solar push is that Berlin 's relative location is approx. 300 miles north of the Canadian border. It gets less than 8 hours of low angle sunlight in December (the opposite occurs in the summer). They get about 8x less solar power in the winter.
https://matadornetwork.com/read/mapped-united-states-canada-latitudes-europe/
Lucia, Mark, Mike M, MikeN,
I refused to waste any more time arguing because it truly *is* a waste of time. Progressives (and worse progressive greens!) always want specific policy outcomes, and rational argument about physical reality or political reality will never change that. Raising/suggesting bonkers arguments ('If Americans would just abandon their big houses and move into small apartments in big apartment buildings, then they could afford more renewable energy.') is typical of the 'progressive' view…. they simply reject that individuals ought to have the right to live their lives they way they want to. They sincerely believe that 'the collective' (AKA 'progressives') should have absolute power over all aspects of individual lives.
.
If people's behavior is in conflict with a desired outcome, then the 'progressive' suggestion is always to force people to do as they are told by their betters (progressives). Too much petroleum used to power cars? Mandate the use of electric cars *whether people want those cars or not*. Too much petroleum used on air travel? Force people to take trains. Too much power being used to run AC systems in big houses? Force people to retrofit their houses, *at enormous cost*, to use less power. Can't pay for all the things progressives want? Raise marginal tax rates to 70%-80%, and confiscate a few % of "excessive wealth" from individuals each year.
.
People doing *anything* progressives don't like? Force them to stop or to change their behavior is always the 'progressive' answer. The operative word is 'force'. As that well known progressive Mao Zedong noted, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", and from this thoughtful progressive philosophy come catastrophes like Venezuela, Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, Cuba, et al.
Tom Scharf,
"One of the crazy things about Germany's solar push is that Berlin 's relative location is approx. 300 miles north of the Canadian border."
.
Crazy doesn't matter. The desire policy outcome (many billions of Euros wasted on economically foolish solar systems) is all that matters to the green left.
Lucia, there are things wrong with my comparison but relative house size isn't one of them if the purpose is to compare the impact of electric bills on household income in the two countries. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that was the purpose.
If you are comparing the burden of electric bills on the residents of two countries, it's the sizes of their bills and incomes that matter, not the sizes of their houses.
I see three things wrong with my comparison.
1. Differences in incomes aren't taken into account. Because on average Germans have lower incomes than Americans, even the same electric bill would take a larger proportion of their income.
2. Although Americans on average earn more than Germans, the income is not as evenly distributed. Relatively, Germany has a larger middle class, the U.S has more rich and more poor, the latter's household income being more vulnerable to the cost of any utilities.
3. Obviously both Germans and Americans heat their homes, but Germans are less likely to heat with electricity and more likely to heat with gas. Consequently, comparisons of their electric bills alone do not give a complete picture of the total cost of heating.
I am not sure how much more effort I will put into this project, since addressing the problems described above would be very time consuming and I am receiving no pay for the work. But it is interesting, so I may play around with it a little more, try a different approach.
I forgot to say my previous post was in reply to lucia's (Comment #173943). Hopefully, it also addresses comments by others.
Mike M. (Comment #173944)
"When challenged, you replied with the false claim that rates had not risen much in Germany and introduced your irrelevant household bill data."
_______
I don't recall saying "rates had not risen much in Germany." Please tell me where (Comment #) I said that?
In Comment 173908 I cited a source that showed rates had risen 24% over the 2000 – 2018 period. I didn't described that increase as "not much."
If you suspect the 24% is a false claim, here again is a link to the source:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418078/electricity-prices-for-households-in-germany/
Tom Scharf (Comment #173947): "One of the crazy things about Germany's solar push is that Berlin 's relative location is approx. 300 miles north of the Canadian border."
Yep. And that far north, electricity use peaks in winter, before and after sunrise. So there is a good anti-correlation between solar availability and the need for power.
Solar could actually be useful to produce a modest chunk of electricity in the southern U.S. But in Germany it is really stupid.
Max,
Two things.
1) Your source appears to show prices from 2010, not 2000.
2) If you are not arguing that prices haven't increased much in Germany, you are certainly implying it. Otherwise what is the point of arguing that prices have increased by 24%?
.
I think it's disingenuous to argue by making a bunch of "random" observations that obviously support a central idea and them complain that you're being misrepresented by your opposition because you never explicitly stated your central idea. Perhaps I am misunderstanding why you cited the statistic though. If it's *not* random, and it's *not* in support of the idea that prices haven't increased that much, then what was your point in citing the statistic?
OK_Max
*Lucia, there are things wrong with my comparison but relative house size isn't one of them if the purpose is to compare the impact of electric bills on household income in the two countries. *
Well, your choice remains out of whack. To determine "impact" of electric bills on household income in Germany, you have to compare German electic bills if they used coal vs solar and so on. You need to do that because that's the "impact" of choice of power source on that country. Then to determine the "impact" on US bills, you do the same for US bills. Then you can compare the two "impacts".
As you have not found the "impact" for either country, you clearly did not succeed in demonstrating the impact.
If you do compare the "impact" on costs, you migth then want to compare the "impact" on lifestyle. For example: most would consider the "impact" of elderly suffering in 55 F homes a negative one even if that kept the bills lower.
*If you are comparing the burden *
Well… "burden" isn't impact. But yes, if people live Tennessee, the burden of bills for heating is lower than in Illinois. This observation is pretty uninformative with respect to determining whether choosing solar, nuclear, wind, or coal makes things more or less burdensome either for those in Tennesee or Illinois. It merely tells you that * no matter what you pick* people pay less for heating in Tennesee because it's warmer in Tennessee. We can proceed to other states.
So if your goal is to spend time discussing a point that has *nothing whatsoever to do * with whether solar, wind, nuclear, gas and so on is a good point, your choice is splendid. But otherwise, it's rather time wasting.
As for you mentioning you are not paid for your "work" in your analysis: I'm pretty sure no one would find the quality of the analysis worth paying for. It's horrible flawed. (Although there is some point you think you are making about somethig.)
mark, you are right, the period for the 24% increase in electricity rates was 2010-2018, not 2000-2018 during which rates doubled or more, an error which obviously would understate the increase. Thank you for pointing out my error. I'm sorry if it seemed like a purposeful misrepresentation.
BTW, in contrast to household rates, industrial electricity rates for large users (20,000 MWH – 70,000 MWH annually) hardly changed during a similar period, 2008 – 2017. To know the overall rate increase, accounting for both would be required.
I'm not sure what you mean by "random observations."
I thought I did state my "central idea" early on, but apparently not well enough.
Max,
>>Thank you for pointing out my error.
You're welcome. I didn't think it was purposeful. I make that sort of mistake constantly, no biggie.
.
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "random observations."
>>I thought I did state my "central idea" early on, but apparently not well enough.
.
Then I apologize. I am not trying to be offensive. I do not understand what your central idea has been or what you have been trying to say. Some of my frustration likely stems from this.
lucia (Comment #173955)
"Well, your choice remains out of whack. To determine "impact" of electric bills on household income in Germany, you have to compare German electic bills if they used coal vs solar and so on."
_____
lucia, I would say limited rather than "out of whack." My purpose was to determine the impact of electric bills not the impact of every possible alternative energy scenario. It would be crazy for me to think I could do anything that big.
___________________________________________
"As for you mentioning you are not paid for your "work" in your analysis: I'm pretty sure no one would find the quality of the analysis worth paying for."
_________
I do better quality work when I'm paid.
mark bofill (Comment #173957)
March 12th, 2019 at 12:19 pm
Max,
"Then I apologize. I am not trying to be offensive. I do not understand what your central idea has been or what you have been trying to say. Some of my frustration likely stems from this."
_____
No apology necessary. My central idea was comparing the electric bills of German households with the bills of American households by State to see whose bills where the highest.
To me the amount of my electric bill is more important than the rate. When I examine the bill, which is rarely, all I look at is the amount I owe. I don't even know the rate.
Actually, my electric bills are automatically debited to my checking account. I usually just throw the bills away without even opening the envelopes. About once every 6 months are so I do review the charges to see if I'm being screwed. No problems, so far.
OK_Max,
* I would say limited rather than "out of whack."* Yes. I know. You like your own analysis. But I still say "out of whack".
*My purpose was to determine the impact of electric bills*
I'm sorry… but the discussion sure looked like it was about the relative merits of solar wind and so on. Obviously, if people don't use electricity, the price of electricity doesn't impact. I don't watch football at the stadium or on tv. So the price of football tickets doesn't impact me. But that would be a totally irrelevant observation if people were discussing the relatively cost of watching the game at the stadium vs on tv. Obviously it's less at the stadium. Introducing an analysis of the "impact" of the cost of watching football on my family budget into that discussion doesn't tells us bupkiss about the topic at hand: which was the relative cost of staduim tickets vs. television.
*To me the amount of my electric bill is more important than the rate.*
Uhmm…. They are both equally important to me. And if we are discussing whether the country should replace coal with nuclear vs. solar, the effect on the RATE is more important to me. Much more important. Also: it's the only rate that is important to the discussion– not my specific bill which I may keep low by discarding my refrigerator and eating all my meals out and replacing my electric lights with candles. It's true I could turn to using candles if rates went through the rough because solar electricity was costly. But then I'd want someone to recognize that my electricity bill was lower than my candle budget because I was now buying candles.
My electricity bill is debitted too. Jim and I look at our bill ever month and compare to past months. We do the same for gas and water. We want to know. And yes, we pay attention to the rates and shop around.
The high level argument is what are the economic impacts of clean energy and is the transition worth it now, and how fast should we go?
.
If you want to argue that we can mitigate higher energy costs by becoming more energy efficient using a large one time cost (AOC says retrofit all buildings, etc.) then … make that argument.
.
If you want to argue that there is no real cost … then make that argument. This one doesn't fly IMO.
.
If you want to argue that we need to wait for technical progress to make the transition less painful, and invest in making that transition less painful … then make that argument. That is my argument.
.
If you want to argue that the costs are admittedly high, but the possible consequences are also very high and we just need to bear the high costs … then … This falls into the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence category and that burden has not been met IMO. I can simultaneously believe the earth is warming and it costs too much to fix it now.
.
Most activists send multiple mixed messages and do a lot of arm waving. At least with the GND it was possible to estimate the actual costs which is one step better than "just write me a blank check". There is is zero chance the US people are going to write a huge blank check because of climate guilt. Zero. Strangely they want to understand what is the fix, how much it will cost, who will pay for it, and how effective it will be.
lucia (Comment #173960)
March 12th, 2019 at 1:50 pm
OK_Max,
* I would say limited rather than "out of whack."* Yes. I know. You like your own analysis. But I still say "out of whack".
*My purpose was to determine the impact of electric bills*
I'm sorry… but the discussion sure looked like it was about the relative merits of solar wind and so on
___
That wasn't what I had in mind. I was looking for an explanation of why the German's weren't up in arms over their high electricity rates, and I found a reason.Their electric bills are lower than the high rates imply because, compared to Americans, they don't use much electricity.
Had I wanted to bring up the relative merits of renewables, I wouldn't need to go as far as Germany.
I would say look at Oklahoma where wind power has been growing well, recently moving up to 25% of the electric power generated, and edging ahead of coal as the second most important power source behind natural gas which generates one-half of the States' power.
Wind power provided new jobs, made Oklahoma air cleaner, and the electricity rates continue to be among the lowest of all States. So to anyone who says wind power will make electricity more expensive, I say *baloney.*
Of course Oklahoma is blessed with lots of wind and natural gas, and little, if any, coal. No need to depend on Wyoming for coal when free wind coming from Canada can do the job,