Slashdot Mirror

"Whites split their vote evenly" is another strawman of yours. I never said that.

You inferred it by challenging me to prove the opposite.

What the government calls people" should be reflected in the census data. And like I explained even if 9 out of 10 Hispanics on this list were misclassified as white...

I'll deal with this later.

If they make up 20% of the population you should expect to find about 5000 on the list. Not 60, not even 600. This won't happen by chance, even with the help of Diego Delgado.

Figures lie and you're lying with figures. If we were talking about a random sampling of society, you'd be correct. We're not talking about a random sampling. We're talking about a list of people believed to be ex-cons. In case you haven't noticed, the ratio of the various ethnicities in free society isn't mirrored in the populations of our prisons.

Since we're talking about felons (or possible felons) I use the federal bureau of prisons as my source. I picked the name Jesus Ruiz because it is obviously a latino name. Guess what? The federal bureau of prisons classifies all 12 of them as white.

Same result of Jesus Ortiz, all 24 of of them are considered white. Jesus Rodriguez, 82 out of 84 are considered white.

It's obvious that the government misclassifies MANY latinos as white. You can't get accurate statistics if yuo're starting with inaccurate numbers.

So out of 119 people who are obviously Latino. 117 of them are classified as white and 2 of them are classified as black. The ratio of latinos misclassified by the government is even greater than 9 out of 10 when it comes to prison inmates.

LK

"Whites split their vote evenly" is another strawman of yours. I never said that.

You inferred it by challenging me to prove the opposite.

What the government calls people" should be reflected in the census data. And like I explained even if 9 out of 10 Hispanics on this list were misclassified as white...

I'll deal with this later.

If they make up 20% of the population you should expect to find about 5000 on the list. Not 60, not even 600. This won't happen by chance, even with the help of Diego Delgado.

Figures lie and you're lying with figures. If we were talking about a random sampling of society, you'd be correct. We're not talking about a random sampling. We're talking about a list of people believed to be ex-cons. In case you haven't noticed, the ratio of the various ethnicities in free society isn't mirrored in the populations of our prisons.

Since we're talking about felons (or possible felons) I use the federal bureau of prisons as my source. I picked the name Jesus Ruiz because it is obviously a latino name. Guess what? The federal bureau of prisons classifies all 12 of them as white.

Same result of Jesus Ortiz, all 24 of of them are considered white. Jesus Rodriguez, 82 out of 84 are considered white.

It's obvious that the government misclassifies MANY latinos as white. You can't get accurate statistics if yuo're starting with inaccurate numbers.

So out of 119 people who are obviously Latino. 117 of them are classified as white and 2 of them are classified as black. The ratio of latinos misclassified by the government is even greater than 9 out of 10 when it comes to prison inmates.

LK

It's perfectly valid to evaluate an attack on minority voting demographic as a partisan maneuver, even if it involves what look like stereotypes when applied at an individual level.

Why is it that those on the "progressive" side are assuming that criminals who happen to be black were going to vote Democrat?

Interesting too, from a statistical viewpoint, is how 22,000 Democratic-leaning blacks but only 61 Republican-leaning Hispanics were among the 48,000 people on the 2000 felons list.

So what you're saying, by not actually saying it, is that about 26,000 of those people were white.

More than half of the people on the list that you refer to are not black.

Assuming that the numbers are accurate and that someone hasn't "cooked the books" so to speak. It still proves nothing. Let us not forget the numbers of hispanics who are counted as white.

Before you try to say that it doesn't happen...Have you ever seen the movie Blow? The very ethnic Diego Delgado is catagorized as "White" by the government.

So let's summarize your points. Less than half of those the Republicans tried to remove from the rolls are black. A government that routinely classifies latinos as "white" only lists a handfull of "hispanics" on the list of those that the Republicans tried to remove from the rolls.

Anything else?

Quit pretending to be stupid. Everyone can see what is going on here.

Yes we can. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill so you can have an excuse if your guy loses.

LK

I agree that there is value in prioritizing your platform. That said, issues such as drug legalization go straight to the heart of libertarian philosophy. The idea of individual freedom, in all cases where no one else is directly harmed, is central. As all harm (except to the user) of drugs is caused by prohibition, the current drug war regime is completely incompatible with libertarian thought. While you may not be personally affected by drug legalization in the sense that you're not a drug user, the issue has far-reaching societal implications. Look at our prisons. They're full of non-violent offenders. 54% of all inmates are "serving" for drug-related convictions. You and I are paying serious tax dollars to lock up (for whatever reason, disproportionately black) people for trading in psychoactive chemicals. Due to prohibition and high demand, drugs are an extremely lucrative trade. Which in turn supplies vital cash flow to organized crime - and in some cases, violent militias (like the AUC and FARC in Columbia and warlords in Afghanistan).

But yeah, I'd like to see whether Badnarik is more concerned with social deregulation or economic deregulation - the LP platform seems to equate the two.

Not when the vast majority of them are for pot,

Currently, just over 1/2 (54.7%-2002) in prison for all drug offenses, and declining from a high of 61.3% in 1994.

The BOP has lots of stats on this.

At Enron, Glisan was convicted and is in the pen. (He's inmate #20293-179 at FDC Houston.) Fastow has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing, which comes after he has "cooperated". He's cooperating. Skilling, the former CEO, has been indicted. Ken Lay is still unindicted, but that may yet happen.

At Worldcom, Sullivan just pled guilty, and Ebbers, the former CEO, has just been indicted.

It takes a while. But there is some justice left. Let's wait and see what happens with SCO.

Whoever is in charge of SCO's public relations department should never have another job anywhere. Ever.

From the Federal Bureau of Prisons (PDF, 4.8 MB), median sentences in months for various classes of offenses.

207. Continuing criminal enterprise

135. Homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping

121. Robbery (use of violence or the threat of violence to deprive another of property)

92. Sex offenses

85. Drug offenses

76. Weapons, explosives, arson

67. Burglary, larceny, property offenses

51. National security

38. Immigration

30. Courts or corrections

27. Extortion, fraud, bribery

19. Banking and insurance, counterfeit, embezzlement offenses

Noting that these figures are for federal prisons only (YMMV locally), it seems to suggest that drug offenses are usually punished relatively harshly. If the guy was running a meth lab, and the prosecution actually had a strong case, he would face a significant prison sentence. Possession of 5 grams (about a sixth of an ounce) of methamphetamine carries a federally mandated minimum five-year prison sentence--if it is his first offense. Quite frankly, any prosecutor that has to resort to "weapons of mass destruction" claims to incarcerate a guy running a meth lab for a significant period of time is either lazy or incompetent.

From the Federal Bureau of Prisons (PDF, 4.8 MB), median sentences in months for various classes of offenses.

207. Continuing criminal enterprise

135. Homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping

121. Robbery (use of violence or the threat of violence to deprive another of property)

92. Sex offenses

85. Drug offenses

76. Weapons, explosives, arson

67. Burglary, larceny, property offenses

51. National security

38. Immigration

30. Courts or corrections

27. Extortion, fraud, bribery

19. Banking and insurance, counterfeit, embezzlement offenses

Noting that these figures are for federal prisons only (YMMV locally), it seems to suggest that drug offenses are usually punished relatively harshly. If the guy was running a meth lab, and the prosecution actually had a strong case, he would face a significant prison sentence. Possession of 5 grams (about a sixth of an ounce) of methamphetamine carries a federally mandated minimum five-year prison sentence--if it is his first offense. Quite frankly, any prosecutor that has to resort to "weapons of mass destruction" claims to incarcerate a guy running a meth lab for a significant period of time is either lazy or incompetent.

This is kind of funny, the parallels between the spam wars and the so-called drug wars. I call say this because it is more appropriately labeled "war on some drugs." But that's another rant.

But isn't it interesting that they (meaning AOL et al) are going after the big offenders and not, say, THEMSELVES? After all, they are analagous to the street-level pushers of the spam. The big spammers ("kingpins") are the ones who create the spam and are the nexus for it's origin. The product is then filtered down until it reaches the local ISP of the client/user and finally handed to the target -- the customer.

You might object and say, "the difference between drugs and spam at this level is quite sharp because drug users want the drug. Spam receiptients do not." Well SOMEONE is buying. Spammers don't spam because they think their literature amounts to avant garde exercises in promotional haiku. They spam because someone pays them to. And someone pays them to because someone is buying. In other words, every nickel they spend on spam comes back to them dressed up as a dime. It's as simple as that. The only real difference between the two analogies when you consider it is that spam is less visible because of the inherant privacy and legality of spam. That's all. You still have a product, you still have a buyer and you still have a larger community that must deal with the fallout of that activity.

However, this is the point at which the analogy breaks.

The community normally goes after the street-level dealers and the users. Of course the dealers have little to lose because they're poor to begin with and there will always be someone to deal. Always. And users/buyers are always going to use/buy. So go after the source, right? This makes sense, right?

So why are over half (55%) of all federal prisoners drug offenders?

This would be like Microsoft and AOL suing themselves half to death and prosecuting the recipients of the email when they purchased wares sold by spam. Never mind the fact that buying after seeing a spam isn't illegal. That's not the point. The point is that even if it were, it is an obviously flawed and ineffective model. It just doesn't work.

Can you imagine the effect that would have on our society and future generations if you did in fact lock up or put all males between 15 and 30 under survellience for suspicion to commit a violent act.

Can you imagine the effect that would have on our society and future generations if you did in fact lock up or put all males between 15 and 30 under survellience for suspicion to commit a violent act.

You think that they'd be embarassed to have this Web site up. Did you notice...

- The "mock-up" phone on their front page is actually just a peice of Photoshop handiwork?

- The bogus Time article. While I don't doubt that they made Time (it's amazing what $$ can buy you), their fake "page curl" effect that shows their product on page 3 is a bit much.

- I love how, in the article, they credit the Hop-On CEO as the "inventor". Inventor of what? I'm sure he's hardly the first to think of a disposable cell phone. The technology is obviously not his, nor is it Hop-On's. What did he invent?

- Is that Scooby-Doo rip-off kangaroo thing missing her lower jaw? Or is she just as dazed as the investors? Her joey looks pretty stunned by the whole mess.

- Check out this page. Look at the "models" on the bottom left. It looks like they Photoshop'ed the phones into their hands.

- I couldn't help but think, the "Our Future" link at the top should have lead to here.

The Nevada Secretary of State Corporation Search gives us.

• President:MAURICE O'BANNON
• 
  Address: PO BOX 27103
  LAS VEGAS NV 89126

• vx2 (VX52-DOM)
• 
  po box 27103
  Las Vegas, NV 89126
  US

  Domain Name: VX2.CC

  212 255 1008 fax: 123 123 1234

"Maurice O'Bannon" is mentioned in several legal documents related to the J.K. Publications scam. In that case, O'Bannon was on paper an officer or director of several dummy Nevada corporations which were fronting for a multimillion dollar phony credit card billing scam operated by Kenneth Taves of Malibu, CA. (Mr. Taves is currently Inmate #12289-112 at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center). O'Bannon, though, appears to be some guy in Nevada who just signed whatever was put in front of him. In the judge's words [large .PDF] "Maurice O'Bannon had an informal agreement with Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc., an incorporator, to act as a nominee for their client-corporations and sign whatever documents Nevada Corp wanted him to sign." The judge was bothered by O'Bannon's actions, but the FTC didn't have enough evidence that he had control of or profited from the scam to put him away.

The J.K. publications scam involved obtaining a database of 3.6 million valid credit card numbers and charging them small amounts each, supposedly for use of a porno site. The mess involved offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Vanatu, but much of the money has been recovered. Company names involved were JK Publications, Inc., MJD Service Corp., Netfill, N-Bill, Webtel, Billing On Line, Fun On Line, and Discreet Bill.

We're not at the bottom of this yet, but it looks very suspicious.

when the entire point of prison is to punish criminals

Says who?

It's obviously different around the world, but read the introduction to the US federal prison website for example. The word "punish" isn't used.