When Law Enforcement Isn't Funny

55 comments

• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  njscfan, Prohibition worked! NOT! Some just never learn from the past.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi clubber, Unfortunately, I think the case can reasonably be made that Prohibition did work. Probably a good portion of DEA officers think they're doing something wonderful and productive. I would love to say they're just morons or ignorant zealots because I loathe the governments' Wars.
• Dudester

  •

  16 years ago

  I've always been a radical, but for the life of me I simply don't understand why states other than Nevada don't legalize bordellos. Not only would they bring in tons of tax money and boost local economies, but the populace would become more docile. Europe vs. US For millenia, Europe had one war after another-some for absolutely silly reasons. During WW2, the US leveled euro cities and the europeans took from it the lesson that war is silly. Since WW2, most countries in Europe avoided war while it seems that the US has been in one war after another. During this same period, the US made it harder and harder to get laid while Europe became permissive. Therefore, I strongly believe that the US has violent movies and lives in a state of war because it's sexually frustrated. Europe on the other hand, believes in never ending diplomacy. Have you ever seen a guy who gets laid everyday picking fights?
• quimby

  •

  16 years ago

  Dudester - You make some good points, but I have always had the nagging feeling that if prostitution was legalized, it would soon constitute about 5% of GDP... Most of this country already makes a living w/o making or growing anything; this would just inch our standard of living down a little more ??
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Probably way too simplistic, but democracy? I mean there are a lot of people who believe the government should be making choices for you. Even the people who want the government off their backs when it comes to sex may love omnipotent government in most other areas. A complete alcoholic may be an ardent supporter of the governments' War on Drugs as long as that war doesn't include the booze he drinks. An avid hunter who believes he has a right to hunt with a "hunting rifle" that cannot be infringed upon by the government may be a strong supporter of banning "Saturday Night Specials." Basically, I think there is a very strong majority in this country that wants the government to use as much force as necessary to impose "good views" and "good behaviours" on others. Remember the constant mantra that there is "a shortage of prison cells;" double or triple the number of prison cells and there would probably still be "a shortage." ,
• casualguy

  •

  16 years ago

  Yep, in the US, arranging paid sex between two consenting adults could put you away for a long time. Sex is dangerous, you could be spawning the next Hillary or Bill Clinton or George Bush and end up killing many people or creating a new dangerous society. Yep, I don't blame the US for having a law trying to stop that dangerous practice. The next step might be restricting that act among married people if you supported the losing party that didn't make it into office. Obviously if they supported the losing party they must be a bunch of retards breeding and that should be eliminated don't you agree? Ok, sarcasm off. I was demonstrating how stupid I think these laws are and could become with politicians pushing for more and more restrictive laws that don't do much to protect society.
• casualguy

  •

  16 years ago

  My comment about co-ed dorm rooms, playing strip poker, snowball fights with thousands of college students disappeared into limbo. I was really surprised to hear there are now 12 colleges with co-ed dorm rooms (yeah, not just a suite or building but a male and female sharing the same room). I didn't even have co-ed rooms when I was growing up. It was all boys in one room and all girls in the other.
• Dudester

  •

  16 years ago

  It is illegal to pay for sex in the US, however, It is not illegal to barter for sex. In other words, if you paint their house, put in a fence, fix their car, or provide some other service, then the sex isn't illegal.
• casualguy

  •

  16 years ago

  Rumour is that murder was involved. Obviously if that is true, then that would be hidden information or someone would be trying to hide it. I can easily imagine a number of powerful people who could be involved but I don't know. [view link]
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Section 13A-12-120: Prostitution defined For the purpose of this division, the term "prostitution" shall mean the commission by a person of any natural or unnatural sexual act, deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value." [view link]
• alexsa

  •

  16 years ago

  Jablake, your prior post is scarily true. Most of my good friends are conservatives who "want the government off there backs" but only in the very narrow range of issues that they care about.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  Well, I'm for legalizing prostitution, but it doesn't seem to have had the "bring in tons of tax money and boost local economies" effect in RI since the 1980s, when they basically made prostitution legal indoors.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi alexsa, My conservative friends are that way in the extreme. I hate to admit it, but I'm a conservative. In a federal case the judge actually instructed the jurors NOT to put themselves in the shoes of the defendant. I found that disgusting and sickening. The judge also refused the jury's request for a transcript of the defendant's testimony--supposedly it would take too much time. Yes, the man is facing 30 years or more and it takes too much time to get a transcript. Brilliant. , **************************************************************** I've had more than one police officer tell me that around 15 to 20 percent of the people behind bars are innocent and they thought that was much better than the alternative in that one criminal can commit a lot of crime. Over at Angels (THE STRIP CLUB) there was a stabbing around December 28, 2008. I've heard different accounts of what happened. The lady bartender claimed that the dancer was naked on stage and a pregnant lady in street clothes walked-in. Immediately the dancer jumps off the stage and tries to give the terrified woman an abortion! I say where did she get the knife from? Bartender says the crazy bitch whipped it out of her hair and then showed the knife strokes the dancer allegedly used. Anyway that is neither here nor there in what I'm trying to convey. It just, I hope, made good reading. :) The important point is the police failed to seize the taped evidence of the attacks and thus an innocent young woman may be doing some serious prison time. I've heard conflicting stories on the taped evidence. One story is that immediately after the police left it was destroyed. Another story is that the evidence is safe and sound and will if absolutely necessary be available for trial. The dancer who claims she is innocent says her only hope is the tape. I said you're assuming the attack was caught on tape. She says NO, I KNOW it was caught on tape. I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to get involved with the courts even if it meant an innocent person does serious jail time. Anyway, it is difficult to understand why the police as a matter of routine wouldn't seize tapes especially in this day and age. A relative who is a social worker says the big problem is that there isn't a demand that the police do a better job; the prisons need to be filled. ,
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  alexsa, Conservatives want the government to follow the Constitution! It isn't and never has been a "breathing document". You want a good understanding of a conservative, read Walter Williams.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  If the Constitution isn't a living document, then why can it be amended? Ever hear of the Elastic Clause? We don't need more Rush Limbaugh/GOP talking points thanx... I completety agree with alexsa about so-called "conservatives"...they are a joke...
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  MG, Of course it can be amended, but there is a Constitutional process for doing so. And, it is not some jerk judiciary making "law" that will not pass Constitutional muster. Just for grins, I would bet that you are 40 or less and so is Alexsa.
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  Oh, and I forgot your "elastic Clause" comment. Of course I have heard of it, but the question should be, have you read and understood what it says? I think not. Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." The operative words, "...powers vested by this Constitution...". There are VERY few powers given the government by the Constitution, VERY few.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi clubber, The text of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I'm curious do you believe the First Amendment applies to the States? If yes, then what is your rationale?
• Book Guy

  •

  16 years ago

  Yeah, that whole question is a biggie. The "establishment" and the "states' rights" issues ... Important point about DC Madam's suicide: behind her mother's trailer in Tarpon Springs. If y'all haven't seen Tarpon Springs you just don't know what yer missin' ... I mean, it's sad and all. And evidently prison had been very difficult for her (as it well could be for any of us -- though, there are times when all I want is a quiet cell and a book and a pencil, so I think some people are more wedded to the material world than others). She had said she'd never go back to jail, she'd kill herself first. I've been observing court proceedings lately, as part of my pre-law-school volunteering and training. I guess the first thing that jumps out at me is, that there are a lot of dumb butts out there, and most of them are getting caught with something naughty-naughty and major-league-wrong (like a zillion grams of crack) because they acted like dumb butts. Another thing that jumps out at me, is that there is a cultural system, by which "class" markers often determine your status. The officers sometimes don't know how to bridge the gap; but the judges and attorneys do. If you stand up straight, look the judge in the eye, speak when spoken to, wear clean decent non-ghetto clothing, speak articulately, answer in a direct manner with complete, grammatical, compound-complex sentences, and have a conservative hairstyle, then you are unlikely to end up on the wrong side of the law for most petty and minor (but criminal) offenses. If you end up on the wrong side of the law for some kind of criminal offense (such as carrying around a pile of crack, in the middle of the night, on a major highway, walking between prostitutes, while dodging away from police cars) then (a.) you're probably a dumb butt and (b.) you aren't displaying many of those cultural class-markers that would have put you on the OTHER side of the law. It's really kinda sad. The first sad thing, is how nice the officers are to me at the courthouse. I wear a tie and blazer, or a suit, and I'm a conservative-looking WHITE GUY (which probably has a lot to do with it); so, they treat me special. Then after me comes in some dude in a big white t-shirt, jeans drooping about his ankles, some sideways baseball cap, and he's making rapper gestures and can't get his chained-up wallet unconnected from his dredlocks to put it through the metal detector, and yes, he's black. Guess what? The officers at the front-door security check in certainly don't treat him as well as they treated me! So I first of all feel kinda bad that "the system" gives me an advantage I perhaps don't deserve. I'm not an attorney. But I get treated nice, like as if I were one, because I dress and look and act like one. But I second kinda feel bad, that some people don't know how to act nice like an attorney. Don't they know basic politeness? If you're going to show up for your own arraignment on a minor drug possession charge, are you going to wear your "best" New Orleans Hornets bright blue hoop-neck shirt, a matching cap turned sideways, jeans that don't fit, and bling-bling cowboy boots so you can flirt with the honeys who work the clerk's office? Are you going to say, "No yahonnah see wadditis, IZ, ya see ... word up." Or, duh, are you going to wear a dark colored somber suit and speak in schoolbook English? Duh duh duh duh ...
• Book Guy

  •

  16 years ago

  Oh yeah, and about the conservatives thing. I agree with most of the Goldwater camp, in that I prefer less government over more government. But I disagree with many current adherents to the Republican party, in that I feel they have two things egregiously out of order with that Goldwater concept. First, they INCREASE rather than decrease government invasion of private life, largely by means of religious oppression and the imposition of "social conservative" values (such as opposition to prostitution, strip clubs, homosexuality). Though they may or may not be RIGHT about that social conservatism being good for everyone, for society as a whole, or just for themselves and their children as they say they want (their accuracy is a different issue), their claim that the government ought to get off people's backs is directly contradicted by their concurrent claims that government has a right to impose that social agenda. The second thing I dislike about much of the current Republican party is their financial and economic policy of tending toward the laissez-faire and privatization. I prefer Canada's system. I realize this is, in some minds, related to the "right to choice," and that many people believe free-market capitalism is part and parcel of the American idea. It is not. The US constitution has very little to say about financial, banking, monetary, and market policies. I found "choice" to be greater in Britain, Germany, and Canada, than I ever saw in the USA -- choice of career, choice of training, choice of television channels, choice of breakfast cereals at the supermarket. The corporate-controlled environment we have now (which is often called a "free market" but probably isn't) has been demonstrated to tend toward conglomeration and major-single-entity market dominance. Microsoft (with a little teeny Apple fighting to stay afloat) and no other major software competitors; Cingular-ATT (ONE entity) versus one, maybe two, other major carriers, and no other major cell-phone competitors. The un-American laissez-faire lie bears little relation to either common sense, or the best interests of the people, or economic reality, as best I can tell. But I DO agree with the Goldwater point of view about government regulation. It's ridiculous to need a zillion certificates to fix your drain pipe. It's nuts that a private contractor can't really go out and start a small airline company without so much red tape he'd go out of business before he ever started. It's crazy that I can't burn my autumn leaves in my own back yard and just ... be sensible about it. I also think do-do-brains ought to have the right to ride motorcycles while wearing no helmet. As long as said do-do-brains also don't get extra special free funding for life if the risks they choose to take impact their own lives negatively. I personally wear a helmet at speeds above 25 ... but don't really feel I morally should impose that choice of mine on others. Yeah, I'm a smoker. No, I don't oppose public-smoking bans. So live with it.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  I think it is states' power that is at issue and not states' rights.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Also, to those conservatives who believe the Supreme Court is basically just ignoring the Constitution then are the lower courts any better? And, if these judges are basically just legislating from the bench how exactly are people's rights protected?
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  jablake, The only way the Constitution applies to the states is how mostly law works, imho. As I understand it, law works downward. Federal before state, state, before county, county before city and however far one wishes to take it.
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  jablake, Only we can truly protect our rights. We elect those that nominate and approve those judges. THAT to me is the most important job a president has, other that national defense, of course. Problem is, seems most these days have no idea how the government is suppose to work, or not.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi clubber, I brought up the First Amendment because originally it ONLY limited *Congress*. The Fourteenth Amendment *according to the Supreme Court* effectively applied those limitations against the States and their political subdivisons. Some people, probably the vast majority, may feel that this is wonderful because it means that in theory States are now limited in the same way Congress is by the First Amendment. If Congress wasn't permitted to abridge your freedom of speech, then a State sure as hell shouldn't be allowed that power!!! Right??? Or, are you in favor of judicial activism when it *seems* to bestow greater protection in the form of limiting the States' power to limit speech, relgion, assembly, etc.?
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Also, who sits on the Supreme Court is pretty much irrelevant to my freedoms in the sense that a local judge could pretty much do whatever he wishes against me and the chance the Supreme Court would intervene, timely or not, is essentially less none. A solider may squawk about fighting for my freedoms, but that is just so far from reality: It is like he is part of a cult.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  "Just for grins, I would bet that you are 40 or less and so is Alexsa." And if that were true, what would it mean "wise old man"? All you appear to know is what Rush & the GOP tell you. The judiciary interprets the laws, and if you don't like they way that they are interpreted, then you can change the law. What is so difficult to grasp about that concept?? "States right"...another joke of a "conservative" issue. The phrase states rights (and all variants of the words & the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments, period. In the U.S. Constitution, the Commerce Clause, the Elastic Clause ("The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"), and the Supremacy Clause (the Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system...state judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it) make this issue a moot point. We don't live under the Articles of Confederation anymore. How'd that Civil War/slavery thing and the opposition to Civil Rights/pro-segregation thing work out for ya'll down there? LOL...
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  The States' rights propaganda seemed like a conspiracy. :)
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Scalia, merely interprets the laws? :)
• Book Guy

  •

  16 years ago

  Jablake makes an excellent point. Initially, the First Amendment (prohibits restrictions on speech, religion, etc.) applied only to the US Federal level. As late as 1820 there were "official" state religions in Massachusetts (thank goodness for the spell checker!) and Pennsylvania, though each state was also famous for religious tolerance of the so-called "outcast" religions -- Islam and Judaism. I dunno how they were with Buddhists ... Then, Amendment Fourteen (plus subsequent interpretations) by means of the "equal protection" clause basically extended Amendment One (and any other Federal law) to everyone everywhere. It does make sense -- and I think it's part and parcel of an ever-shrinking world, that the USA basically HAS TO apply constitutional restrictions on laws to all USA's jurisdictions equally; we can't have a Quaker Pennsylvania where Jews can't do business, and also an internet and open phone lines to the downtrodden Jews there, can we? The Wikipedia articles on 1st, 14th, Equal Protection, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually Plessy v. Ferguson (I grew up in NOLa, I know children of both sides of that case!) are all pretty clear and well written and non-partisan. Speaking partisanly: personally I'd like a greater restriction on religion in the USA. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, and no governmental body or economic system shall allow organized religion of any form to impose moral codes or to inform legal decisions. People who want to impose their own religious and moral interpretations onto other people, as based on certain cult-worship rites such as Christianity, Raelianism, Shinto, or Baghwan-shree-Rajneesh, shall be burned at the stake."
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Another example of Scalia's inconsistency is when he recently 'debated' issues with ACLU President Nadine Strosser where he argued on one hand that he is deciding issues based on the written U.S. Constitution, not 'common law' or international law, and shouldn't be concerned with arguments based on writings or laws from foreign countries. He proceeds then to argue that the Supreme Court has the right to rule on prohibitions to sexual behavior, even between consenting adults in private, because 'every society in history has regulated such behavior', or words to that effect. No Constitutional argument there." --- [view link] --- ,
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," actually translates into "[Neither] Congress [nor any State] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . . "? :) It might be well intentioned to extend the Constitutional prohibition that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," to the States. If the State of Florida wants to pass a law banning hate speech or flag burning how would that deny equal protections of the laws?
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he doesn't see anything in the Constitution that prohibits the torture of detainees for the purpose of getting information. Scalia told a BBC interviewer that torture would be unconstitutional if it were inflicted as a punishment." ---- [view link] ----
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  That's why judges like Scalia, Thomas, and their ilk aren't worth their weight as real judges IMO. You really can't get into the minds of people that lived over 2 centuries ago and try and interpret things exactly the way they would have. The Founding Fathers would look at a lot of the things that go on in our day-to-day world and not have any idea how to explain them...maybe they'd start trying to burn people at the stake for being witches instead! One of the greatest testiments to our main founding document, the U.S. Constitution, is that it's a living document that can grow and change as our society (hopefully) evolves. We really can grow from a country that originally calls certain people as only three fifths of a person or not a person at all based on their race or gender.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  So Scalia is just attempting to interpret the Constitution to the best of his ability? :) I especially like how the government has the lawful power to torture people as long as it isn't for the purpose of "punishment." :) Yep, good old Scalia just another honest hardworking judge.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "The damage caused by the Supreme Court as the result of its palace coup is incalculable and in all likelihood irreparable. The legal "reasoning" used by the Court in Bush v. Gore was, to anyone familiar with constitutional law and, indeed, to anyone who understands American democracy, astonishingly dishonest. (As far as Scalia's call during the 60 Minutes interview for honesty is concerned, the Justice claimed that the decision was 7-2, when it was actually 5-4.)" ---- [view link] ---- When I heard Scalia state it was a 7-2 decision, my immediate thought was WTF! Could Scalia acually be correct??? At the time I thought the decision was closer to 5-4, but it was difficult to tell since some of the decisions were so poorly written----notably Souter's if I recall correctly.
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  MG, The age thing deals with a lack of education. Many younger people these days are woefully ignorant of history and and civics. That is how the liberals intended it and have succeeded very well, to this point. The judiciary should interprets the laws, yes, but according to the Constitution! Nothing is "difficult to grasp" other than the courts disregard for the Constitution, which they SWORE to uphold. Maybe their word just means nothing to them! ""States right"...another joke of a "conservative" issue. The phrase states rights (and all variants of the words & the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments...", nor does abortion or freedom FROM religion! States rights are those rights NOT granted to the federal government. Sometime, when you get the chance, read the Federalist Papers. A much great understanding of the Constitution will be obtained by yourself. "We don't live under the Articles of Confederation anymore." Maybe that is my problem Florida never surrendered! LOL Other than preventing something that was authorized (and still is), by the Constitution, succession, it just killed a lot of good people on both sides. Always the slavery thing! Ignorance must be bliss. I will leave you to your lack of comprehension, as I have given you the chance to educate yourself. If you refuse to do so, well, my friend, continue your misguided ways. Many have died to give you that freedom! Take care.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  "That is how the liberals intended it and have succeeded very well, to this point." Ah, conspiracy theories...priceless...lol... "nor does abortion or freedom FROM religion" And now we get to the nub of the issue at hand...you want the govt. off your back, but it's OK if the govt. forces religion & laws based solely on dogma on the rest of us...the double standard of a lot of so-called "conservatives" in this country, which is *exactly* what we were talking about in the first place. Thanx for proving my point! Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept which was written of by Thomas Jefferson...look it up. There is NO religious test as a condition for holding public office (that's in the Constitution as well)! The freaking Soviet Union legalized abortion before we did for cripes sake! So, we don't have a right to privacy in the USA eh? Try again... Just about everytime the baloney issue of "states rights" comes up, it eventually goes down in defeat and with good reason. Between the Commerce Clause, the Elastic Clause, and the Supremacy Clause, the federal govt. has a HUGE amount of power over the states. We don't live under a weak federal system like the Articles of Confederation had in it...it failed as well BTW. It's really unbelieveable that in this day & age there are still people in the South that won't fess up to what the Civil War was all about. It was NOT "The War of Northern Agression". You have your head stuck so far up your ass that I'm surprised that you can stand the smell. Ah, if only you Southerners could own slaves, subjugate your women, and legally ban all other religions but your own...lol... You lost, period...do yourself a favor & get over it you old fool...
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  The war wasn't about Northern Imperalism and corrupt war profiteering? And, Lincoln wasn't a bloody thirsty mad dog even reviled by most yankees theyselves? Slavery? Yeah, enslaving soldiers to do his killing and stealing for him and his cronies. Apparently, you learned a very different history than that which I was taught. Of course, your'n has to be the correct one cause the victors write the history for the de most part. Gambling stripper even be reminding me the South lost the war! As if I tweren't aware of that. But, does that mean the Union is going to endure for even the next fifty years?
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  jablake, likely an older fellow. As I understand it, modern history books in schools have a single mention of George Washington. If true, ludicrous!
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi clubber, Well that does sound too extreme, but it wouldn't surprise me greatly if it was true. The local government school from what I can see based on the neighbor kids' homework is big on indoctrination and discourages thinking. I try and show them different viewpoints, and then explain why I think I'm correct. :) They say, but, the teacher wont like that . . . yes, so give the teacher whatever answer she be looking for then and just keep in your own mind that there are other viewpoints and that just cause its in writing don't make it true.
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  Just how my son got his degree. Tell them what they want to hear, but learn what you want.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  The paper can be all important, which is depressing if your culture is more straight forward. Whatever the children want to believe is fine with me, but I expect them to question even the "obvious" at least in their own minds.
• Book Guy

  •

  16 years ago

  I like the line I recently saw on a bumper sticker: There can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Really, that sums it up for me. If I have one main hot-button issue, it's the fact that OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGIONS have too much impact on my choices. And I therefore tend to object to the "Christian right" or "social conservative" agenda and vote Democrat. More out of cantankerousness than anything else. :) Just to be friendly to the Republicans in the crowd: I really DO agree with the Goldwater / Libertarian theory, that we should have less government. And I TEND to agree with the laissez-faire economic understanding that a little entrepreneurship goes a long way (though, as I've said, I want a universal social safety net of services such as public education, good public transportation, and free decent universal health care) and that therefore the Democrat "socialist" agenda is kinda warped. I'm not very good at economics -- I keep just yelling at the professor "But it doesn't ACTUALLY WORK THAT WAY IN REALITY! THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!" so I'm seldom swayed by traditional economists' arguments.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Hi Book Guy, I'm not sure if it works that way in reality or not. One fatal assumption of economics is that people are supposed to act rationally. It is just supposed to be about the money, which just isn't true and it doesn't even seem rational to claim that should be the case, imo. A buddy screwed himself because he didn't want to sell to blacks (in this case it *may* have been about the money--in some convoluted way). He understood that he was screwing himself and yet he would rather take a financial beating on that one deal than to sell to a black. Sometimes "when it doesn't really work that way in reality!" it actually does work, but you need to dig a little deeper to try and understand the "irrationality" may be very rational. Getting back to my buddy who turned down an offer that he would have jumped at aggressively if made by a white buyer perhaps his refusal wasn't as "irrational" as it seemed at first glance. I was disgusted with him not because he didn't want to deal with blacks (in a free country that should *generally* be his right, imo), but because he didn't tell me beforehand that a black would be subject to a super high penalty if he wanted to buy the property. How could it possibly be financially rational? Well, it seems like my buddy doesn't view a property sale as a one time event, but as a link to future opportunities. Because he feels uncomfortable with blacks, he is unlikely to be able to do future business with them, in his opinion. Worse, he feels he might be tainted by doing business with them. So a white person offers him less and his brain may be thinking yes I can establish a rapport with this person and make money in the future. I will make less money today, but there are other opportunities if the deal is smooth and friendly. Happily sold to the white buyer at a far lesser price than to the black buyer who was willing to pay a good amount more. Doesn't seem fair. Well, if fairness is important then the first places to bulldoze are the governments' courts.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  "a universal social safety net of services such as public education, good public transportation, and free decent universal health care" Ummmm, this IS the current Democratic agenda...lol...
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Well, I had NO interest in this election and haven't voted in at least 10 years or 20 years or whatever that I can recall. A dancer buddy offered a BJ for an Obama vote and that sounds like a hell of a good deal. So, like I told her unless there is a better offer it is a vote for Obama for United States President. A McCain vote would require 3 BJs or better consideration. Sort of a miracle in that this might be my first vote ever that is worth something. :)
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming. I have heard about a democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it. How Long Do We Have? About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years" "During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. from bondage to spiritual faith; 2. from spiritual faith to great courage; 3. from courage to liberty; 4. from liberty to abundance; 5. from abundance to complacency; 6. from complacency to apathy; 7. from apathy to dependence; 8. from dependence back into bondage" Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29 Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Yes, I know, "Nothing to do with strip clubs", and for that, I am sorry.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani said Friday that illegal immigration is not a crime, prompting immediate criticism from his presidential rivals on an incendiary issue for Republican voters. Giuliani made the comments during a CNN interview with host Glenn Beck on Headline News, saying that violations of the nation's immigration laws are civil violations, not criminal infractions. 'I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime,' Giuiani said, adding later that 'I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.'" --- [view link] ---- The "law" is generally a crime, and the fact is former U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York may be correct that "it's not a federal crime." Or, it may be a federal crime. :)
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Unauthorized Immigration is NOT a Criminal Offense [view link] Illegal Immigration is a Crime [view link] "Legal Implications: Living in the United States illegally -- either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa -- is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code. However, illegal immigrants can be incarcerated as part of the deportation process. Sneaking across the border is currently a criminal misdemeanor that can result in six months in prison. Immigration legislation passed by the U.S. House in December would make it a felony to live in the United States without authorization." --- [view link] ---- The truth is even the top lawyers and top judges may not know if "illegal immigrants" are truly illegal. Yep, I know that is difficult for most people to believe, but that is the way the system works or fails to work. Do we have a right to bear arms? I think the answer is a definite HELL NO! Will the Supreme Court make a decision or will it be more corruption? I'd have to believe more corruption, but I hope they give a clear decision one way or the other.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  "A discrimination lawsuit filed by African-American employees against the Secret Service has dragged on for more than eight years, prompting the plaintiffs to accuse the government's lawyers of dragging their feet." ---- [view link] ---- My little case, which was about as simple as a case could be drug on for years and years. No jury trial allowed due to the court scam of "summary judgment." Eight years? I think if the average Joe looked at the discrimination case, supra, he would be thinking 6 months would be a long time and in my little case a week would be considered a long time. And, yet people still believe that their freedoms are being protected or that if a law is clear and simple then a judge will obey it; the judge may or may not; generally the highest value judges seem to hold is getting $400 per hour and much higher fees for their fellow lawyers, imo. Why blame a stripper for being a little dishonest or even a lot dishonest? When in America do as the Americans do . . . or perhaps strippers should be held to higher standards?
• FONDL

  •

  16 years ago

  Clubber, I have seen that entire thing before (in an email someone sent me about a year ago) and was told it's a hoax, that most of it isn't true. Don't know if that's the case or not, but be careful what you believe and circulate as truth. A lot of stuff that circualtes is pure fabrication on someone's part.
• jablake

  •

  16 years ago

  Well, I checked it out on [view link] and here is the link: [view link]
• Clubber

  •

  16 years ago

  FONDL, Understood, but from what I found out, it was said to be partly truthful. If not, it sure seems that we are following the "path", anyway.
• MisterGuy

  •

  16 years ago

  "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." Tell that to the Athenians, the Iroquois Confederacy, the Swiss Confederation, the Bushmen of southern Africa, and, I dare say at this point, most of the rest of the world's governments. Ah, the number of states, square miles of land, and counties won by the GOP in 2000...if only we elected the President by these metrics (or based on who had the loweest "murder rate per 100,000 residents") eh? But we don't, and we likely never will! The fact is that the very same people that these idiots voted for (and who actually *lost* that 2000 election...thanx U.S. Supreme Court) have done a hell of a lot to run down our democracy, the rule of law, checks & balances, our fiscal situation, etc., etc., etc....but, of course, the facts don't matter...