It is a little different when most of your neighbors and friends sympathize, and "the man" is a three week ocean trip away. And, if I recall correctly, the tea party gang did their bit in disguise so as to prevent reprisals and maintain plausible deniability who were willing to "do the right thing" so long as the right thing didn't tarnish their good name.
I certainly agree that "doing the right thing" is right even when it is not easy, but speaking as a person who has been arrested and charged for leading a protest, even winning a minor beat like a disorderly conduct charge can really toss a wrecking ball through an otherwise orderly life. The six of us involved won the case, but still failed nearly every class that semester just from missing class to be in court all the damn time. Now, instead of class, imagine it was work (supporting your family) and instead of disorderly conduct, it was some serious federal charges. Suddenly, doing the right thing isn't such a "no brainer" that you make it out to be; it's a hard choice I wouldn't expect even very principled people to make very often.
Actually, it can. This is not a logical syllogism situated in the abstract we are talking about, but rather an issue in which Congress no less than Yahoo! (and probably much more) has a role to play. If a Congressman upbraids a corporation for undertaking acts that are morally repugnant, did that Congressman also introduce or vote for legislation that would make such a stance a practical option for that corporation? Did congress rattle sabers over protecting Yahoo! China's executives if they were to defy Chinese law to aid the dissident? Threaten trade sanctions? Place restrictions on how and in what manner Yahoo!'s international subsidiaries can aid foreign governments? Any of those would have aided Yahoo! in making such a choice palatable to its board of directors and its shareholders, and given cover if Yahoo!'s executives wished to do the "moral" thing.
If Congress had in its power the substantive means to encourage Yahoo! to do the moral thing or at least give it legal cover to do so, and failed to so act, Yahoo! can indeed say "you too, asshole" and not be staking out a morally vacuous position. It might also help if Congress wasn't green-lighting retroactive immunity for similar crimes domestically; one might argue from that that Congress has shown it doesn't so much care about the rule of law when it comes to corporations complicit with government orders.
ad hominem tu quoque is not automatically a fallacious argument if the agent so identified is culpable in the very same matter (and not a merely equivalent matter) as the subject.
Very nicely done. But think that only illustrates the point; both can kill, just one's death toll is much larger than the other, even though individual victims of the latter may be more notable.
Likewise, Congress passes laws that affect literally millions of people, many in a negative way, and yet here we have a congressional committee upbraiding a company for ruining one person's life with their policy. It's not that Yahoo!'s actions are qualitatively less repugnant than Congress's...it's just that the relative quantities defy reasonable juxtaposition.
Way to dig two millimeters below the surface; an easy way to have any "suspicions" confirmed.
If you check his voting record, you'd see he's been the most consistent 'no' vote on any federal spending not explicitly authorized or reasonably inferred by constitutional text.
He's for de-federalizing the Abortion issue, which is a much more principled position than his partisan fellow travelers', and which in all likelihood would lead to liberalizing abortion in many liberal states (e.g. Massachusetts, New York). His desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is entirely in keeping with his stated position on Federal and State powers. That he is personally against abortion is simply red meat for the "value voters" (remember what party he's running in!). Heck, I agree with Roe v. Wade being constitutionally absurd, and I'm pro-choice. On this and many issues, R. Paul has consistently voted against government interference even in cases where his personal beliefs would compel him to want to interfere.
He's talked and proposed legislation for reducing the size of the federal government in significant ways, including radically downsizing the budgets and authority of many executive departments and police agencies. That means real reductions in federal power on issues of education, gun rights, and substance use, among others.
He has spoken consistently over the past twenty years on all these issues, as well as consistently against using tax codes as a cudgel against undesirable groups and against using federal carrot/stick money policies to co-opt state policy making. He's against the Drug war. Against corporate welfare and subsidies. Against federal regulation of the Internet or any other media/info medium.
The only policy position that he radically deviates from the libertarian norm on is on immigration and naturalization, and I find that departure unfortunate.
It's fine to disagree with a candidate's positions (and there are more than a few of Paul's that I'm iffy on), but such disagreements should be predicated on more than a five-second look tainted by preconceptions of what you assume you will find. Whatever Paul is, the vast majority (supporters and detractors) can at least agree he is not "more of the same crap."
It really is a sticky wicket in the system; given the fact that the two groups (people with bad tempers versus sociopaths) are so different they shouldn't be treated equivalently, and yet they often are, as there is no solid way to separate the two groups non-arbitrarily.
re: your point about white collar crime, I agree, as with violent crimes you only ever get to harm that person and their closest acquaintances, whereas some types of white-collar crime can ruin literally thousands of people's lives.
I wasn't talking about homicide in the broadest sense, I was talking about murder (which is rather a more narrow subject). Even amongst that classification there are many shades of circumstance that ultimately do not get factored in when determining punishment, and a great many factors that influence the determination that ought not. That was my overarching point. That discretion exists at different levels of the system does not, by and large, indicate how the system ought to operate, or even how it *does* operate in most cases.
I agree with your point that murder being what it is places us into a bind when determining its severity vis a vis other severe crimes such as rape, and the perverse incentives that can be created when other violent crimes are punished more severely than the taking of a life. I myself am honestly conflicted about this issue and staked out a provocative position just to stimulate discussion on the topic.
Which brings me to the bitch slap, where I agree criticism and critique are not of the same character. I wrote that as a sign-post that the post following it was likely to stimulate knee-jerk reactions. However, given the community and its proclivities, and seeing as that I was presenting a position at odds with a great many of them (and a great deal of "received wisdom" besides), I noted that my expectations were middling about the civility and reflection of the ensuing debate, and also my chances of prevailing given my position (slim); I was, objectively, going to be bitch-slapped on the issue. In point of fact, there were one or two trolls, a few platitudinous responses, and a handful of thoughtful responses, which about met my expectations. I don't feel at all like a martyr of any sort; I relish a good discussion, especially when it is productive, and feel no worse for wear for having been "bitchslapped".
On your last point, I cannot disagree more; the fact that "greater minds" have tangled with these issues before is no reason not to question even basic principles. Great minds are as blind to their pet prejudices as any other, and questioning first principles can open up valuable discussion which might otherwise remain unexplored territory. To defer blindly to received wisdom is at best lazy and often foolish as well.
Not as unknown as you might think; by "not caught" I mean in the strict legal sense, i.e. there hasn't been a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction on the merits, or the murderer was not sentenced due to malfeasance of prosecuting or police entities, resulting in an unsalvageable case. Also, besides complete sociopathy, murders transpire due to mostly understandable and predictable motives like jealousy or greed or desperation, or transpire by accident (during robbery the gun went off, etc.); conditions that are ripe for murder are rare and so even a person predisposed towards the behavior is unlikely to have a motivating opportunity to murder again.
Besides all that, it would be easy from a statistical POV to simply check to see whether case closure rates have a correlated effect longitudinally (positive or negative) on murder rates in a jurisdiction compared to other crimes in the same jurisdiction; low recidivism is supported by all permutations except that in which murders over time decreased in correlation with an increase in case closures at a greater rate than other crimes.
Excellent point. In my own brush with the legal system as a defendant, myself and five others were charged with disorderly conduct due to a protest we led. Since none of us could afford our own attorneys, each of us received a court-appointed attorney. It was interesting and sobering to experience, as the lawyers truly did range from excellent to piss-poor; two were on the ball, two were competent but not impressive, one was uninterested in the case (and who demonstrated it through carelessness) and one we all just wanted to kick in the head to get him to shut up. Mine was middle of the road. It showed me viscerally what most people understand intellectually, that if you are poor, then justice is nothing more or less than the luck of the lottery; there is no doubt in my mind that had the cases been severed, two of us would have a criminal conviction and four of us wouldn't, even though there was literally no difference in the actions undertaken. Interestingly, one of the middle-of-the-road ones (not mine) was from the public defender's office. He was a great deal better than I expected.
That aside, the factors that go into sentencing do vary widely; I just wish that the factors that mattered were more substantive and reasonable than many of the real ones you listed.
It is likely for two reasons: One, society cares little for those who have broken its rules. Hence, prisons are not built to be humane or protect the lives of those inside them. Two, the population inside tends to be on average slightly more violent and sociopathic than the general population, and so even if prisons were built with humanitarian concerns in mind, people probably would still be offed at a disturbing rate.
Have you talked to many rape victims? If you had, you may not be so sure. In many cases, the damage there is also irreversible and permanent, and unlike murder, is lingeringly painful both physically and psychologically, and can even in some cases result in death (suicide).
Since most murderers are never caught, your second point seems unlikely. As for the other, I'm not by any means suggesting that recidivism should be the only factor in determining punishment, just a significant one, perhaps as significant as the gravity of the consequences of the act itself.
I did read through his post, and it depends a great deal upon the jurisdiction. In many if not most places, if you are robbing a convenience store and waving a gun around recklessly pursuant to the robbery, and the gun goes off without you intending it to, and the bullet strikes and kills the cashier or a customer...in many places in the US that is murder, not manslaughter. Something that might normally be manslaughter can be murder if it is included with another felony (such as robbery), or if it proceeds from an act that shows significant (depraved) indifference to human life, including but not limited to waving around a loaded gun.
When asked, the defendant proffered his reasoning: "He just needed killin'." There was a murmur of agreement in the court, and the judge nodded approvingly. The DA, desperately trying to remain expressionless, braced himself and stood up; this was going to be a toughie.
I'm sorry, but how the hell did you derive that from what I said? I didn't say one word about justification from *anyone's* point of view, and I certainly don't believe, nor did I indicate, that murder is not a big deal if there is ample cause. And there are many, many people who know me well who would be deeply amused by your assertion that I am in any way a leftist. Ah well, I guess I'm just feeding the trolls.
Very good points. You are right in that I tend to weigh 3 and 4 more heavily, but you are also correct that the actual gravity of the crime should be a major factor in determining the response. It just seems to me that much of the law in this area is predicated on 1, while using 2 as an unconvincing excuse, and that bothers me greatly. By pointing that out I don't mean to suggest that I have an answer to the problem, just that the problem exists and is often papered over. re: recidivism statistics, I'd say that avoiding detection is a very significant factor, considering that a sizable fraction of murders remain unsolved. However, also many murders proceed out of other situations that are unlikely to recur given the circumstances, and that is a significant factor explaining why even though murder case clearance rates are low, murders tend to be a one-time affair per perpetrator.
I disagree with your underlying assumption that many murders are pre-meditated. Many murders are outright accidental (e.g. "I meant to hurt him, not kill him"; "I just wanted to scare him"; etc.) or crimes of passion. I imagine the demarcations might be a little different here (US) than in the UK between murder and manslaughter, and that might add to the confusion.
I'd be surprised if the lengthy sentence actually had much influence on the psychological cost/benefit analysis for those very few who commit pre-meditated murder. You are right in that we don't have many other options, although a few other suggestions have been made, such as the territorial separation that was tried in the past with penal colonies such as Georgia and Australia. Also in some US jurisdictions, civil remedies for restitution exist in cases of murder with "Wrongful Death" statutes being extended to cover homicide. This to me makes a little more sense, since the crime of murder effects surviving family members far more than society's interests in most cases.
...the state have a vested interest in keeping people alive as long as possible.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is one hell of an assumption. I can think of a few half-baked reasons why this might be true, but then again in many ways the state itself doesn't act as if this is so. Is it a matter of resources invested?
You know, this is what drives me crazy about how our justice system deals with murder. On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs. Most murderers are far less of a continuing threat to society than, say, rapists and molesters.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
The dems want their politicians to pretend to be poor, while the republicans don't have to bother? I mean, sure, I get the point you're trying to make, and the numbers are damning, but I don't know many people in my income bracket who could scrape together two-and-a-half gees to throw at a long shot election bid. For the vast majority, both parties are closed at the front door.
It's one thing to joke about politics, it's another to make the politics into a joke.
In doing the later, Colbert was going to take the focus off of the race and put it onto himself.
I hardly give Colbert credit for making politics into a joke. It was that long before he made the scene. The fact that a good portion of the MSM couldn't suss out whether Colbert was actually kidding or not for a while (and Rasmussen actually put a damn poll in the field) should be evidence enough.
Problem is, since many of these agencies are under executive branch control, they do have the power to redact these reports. Obviously, they shouldn't use that power as they have been (and I don't want to "take their fucking word for it" either), but for them to claim that they don't have it would be just factually wrong.
For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain...
I've heard this meme quite a bit, and while I agree that bread and circuses play a significant role in pacifying the public, I think it is quite overselling the point by implying that the middle class standard (2.2 kids, SUV, owned home) is representative of many peoples' condition. On the contrary, the middle class is vanishing, such that of all the things you listed, perhaps only the beer and the TV with football are still affordable for many, many Americans. The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach.
No, they will be replaced by international NGOs who are accountable to nobody and have reach in far more places. After all, as trade in information is internationalized and nation controls become less effective, it seems only natural that that power vacuum will be filled by an agency of equivalent scope.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a little different when most of your neighbors and friends sympathize, and "the man" is a three week ocean trip away. And, if I recall correctly, the tea party gang did their bit in disguise so as to prevent reprisals and maintain plausible deniability who were willing to "do the right thing" so long as the right thing didn't tarnish their good name.
I certainly agree that "doing the right thing" is right even when it is not easy, but speaking as a person who has been arrested and charged for leading a protest, even winning a minor beat like a disorderly conduct charge can really toss a wrecking ball through an otherwise orderly life. The six of us involved won the case, but still failed nearly every class that semester just from missing class to be in court all the damn time. Now, instead of class, imagine it was work (supporting your family) and instead of disorderly conduct, it was some serious federal charges. Suddenly, doing the right thing isn't such a "no brainer" that you make it out to be; it's a hard choice I wouldn't expect even very principled people to make very often.
Actually, it can. This is not a logical syllogism situated in the abstract we are talking about, but rather an issue in which Congress no less than Yahoo! (and probably much more) has a role to play. If a Congressman upbraids a corporation for undertaking acts that are morally repugnant, did that Congressman also introduce or vote for legislation that would make such a stance a practical option for that corporation? Did congress rattle sabers over protecting Yahoo! China's executives if they were to defy Chinese law to aid the dissident? Threaten trade sanctions? Place restrictions on how and in what manner Yahoo!'s international subsidiaries can aid foreign governments? Any of those would have aided Yahoo! in making such a choice palatable to its board of directors and its shareholders, and given cover if Yahoo!'s executives wished to do the "moral" thing.
If Congress had in its power the substantive means to encourage Yahoo! to do the moral thing or at least give it legal cover to do so, and failed to so act, Yahoo! can indeed say "you too, asshole" and not be staking out a morally vacuous position. It might also help if Congress wasn't green-lighting retroactive immunity for similar crimes domestically; one might argue from that that Congress has shown it doesn't so much care about the rule of law when it comes to corporations complicit with government orders.
ad hominem tu quoque is not automatically a fallacious argument if the agent so identified is culpable in the very same matter (and not a merely equivalent matter) as the subject.
Very nicely done. But think that only illustrates the point; both can kill, just one's death toll is much larger than the other, even though individual victims of the latter may be more notable.
Likewise, Congress passes laws that affect literally millions of people, many in a negative way, and yet here we have a congressional committee upbraiding a company for ruining one person's life with their policy. It's not that Yahoo!'s actions are qualitatively less repugnant than Congress's...it's just that the relative quantities defy reasonable juxtaposition.
No, it's more like the howitzer calling the derringer a gun.
Way to dig two millimeters below the surface; an easy way to have any "suspicions" confirmed.
If you check his voting record, you'd see he's been the most consistent 'no' vote on any federal spending not explicitly authorized or reasonably inferred by constitutional text.
He's for de-federalizing the Abortion issue, which is a much more principled position than his partisan fellow travelers', and which in all likelihood would lead to liberalizing abortion in many liberal states (e.g. Massachusetts, New York). His desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is entirely in keeping with his stated position on Federal and State powers. That he is personally against abortion is simply red meat for the "value voters" (remember what party he's running in!). Heck, I agree with Roe v. Wade being constitutionally absurd, and I'm pro-choice. On this and many issues, R. Paul has consistently voted against government interference even in cases where his personal beliefs would compel him to want to interfere.
He's talked and proposed legislation for reducing the size of the federal government in significant ways, including radically downsizing the budgets and authority of many executive departments and police agencies. That means real reductions in federal power on issues of education, gun rights, and substance use, among others.
He has spoken consistently over the past twenty years on all these issues, as well as consistently against using tax codes as a cudgel against undesirable groups and against using federal carrot/stick money policies to co-opt state policy making. He's against the Drug war. Against corporate welfare and subsidies. Against federal regulation of the Internet or any other media/info medium.
The only policy position that he radically deviates from the libertarian norm on is on immigration and naturalization, and I find that departure unfortunate.
It's fine to disagree with a candidate's positions (and there are more than a few of Paul's that I'm iffy on), but such disagreements should be predicated on more than a five-second look tainted by preconceptions of what you assume you will find. Whatever Paul is, the vast majority (supporters and detractors) can at least agree he is not "more of the same crap."
You clearly have been living under a Ron Paul-free rock. Fer goshsakes, visit his site or Google the man.
It really is a sticky wicket in the system; given the fact that the two groups (people with bad tempers versus sociopaths) are so different they shouldn't be treated equivalently, and yet they often are, as there is no solid way to separate the two groups non-arbitrarily.
re: your point about white collar crime, I agree, as with violent crimes you only ever get to harm that person and their closest acquaintances, whereas some types of white-collar crime can ruin literally thousands of people's lives.
I wasn't talking about homicide in the broadest sense, I was talking about murder (which is rather a more narrow subject). Even amongst that classification there are many shades of circumstance that ultimately do not get factored in when determining punishment, and a great many factors that influence the determination that ought not. That was my overarching point. That discretion exists at different levels of the system does not, by and large, indicate how the system ought to operate, or even how it *does* operate in most cases.
I agree with your point that murder being what it is places us into a bind when determining its severity vis a vis other severe crimes such as rape, and the perverse incentives that can be created when other violent crimes are punished more severely than the taking of a life. I myself am honestly conflicted about this issue and staked out a provocative position just to stimulate discussion on the topic.
Which brings me to the bitch slap, where I agree criticism and critique are not of the same character. I wrote that as a sign-post that the post following it was likely to stimulate knee-jerk reactions. However, given the community and its proclivities, and seeing as that I was presenting a position at odds with a great many of them (and a great deal of "received wisdom" besides), I noted that my expectations were middling about the civility and reflection of the ensuing debate, and also my chances of prevailing given my position (slim); I was, objectively, going to be bitch-slapped on the issue. In point of fact, there were one or two trolls, a few platitudinous responses, and a handful of thoughtful responses, which about met my expectations. I don't feel at all like a martyr of any sort; I relish a good discussion, especially when it is productive, and feel no worse for wear for having been "bitchslapped".
On your last point, I cannot disagree more; the fact that "greater minds" have tangled with these issues before is no reason not to question even basic principles. Great minds are as blind to their pet prejudices as any other, and questioning first principles can open up valuable discussion which might otherwise remain unexplored territory. To defer blindly to received wisdom is at best lazy and often foolish as well.
Not as unknown as you might think; by "not caught" I mean in the strict legal sense, i.e. there hasn't been a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction on the merits, or the murderer was not sentenced due to malfeasance of prosecuting or police entities, resulting in an unsalvageable case. Also, besides complete sociopathy, murders transpire due to mostly understandable and predictable motives like jealousy or greed or desperation, or transpire by accident (during robbery the gun went off, etc.); conditions that are ripe for murder are rare and so even a person predisposed towards the behavior is unlikely to have a motivating opportunity to murder again.
Besides all that, it would be easy from a statistical POV to simply check to see whether case closure rates have a correlated effect longitudinally (positive or negative) on murder rates in a jurisdiction compared to other crimes in the same jurisdiction; low recidivism is supported by all permutations except that in which murders over time decreased in correlation with an increase in case closures at a greater rate than other crimes.
Excellent point. In my own brush with the legal system as a defendant, myself and five others were charged with disorderly conduct due to a protest we led. Since none of us could afford our own attorneys, each of us received a court-appointed attorney. It was interesting and sobering to experience, as the lawyers truly did range from excellent to piss-poor; two were on the ball, two were competent but not impressive, one was uninterested in the case (and who demonstrated it through carelessness) and one we all just wanted to kick in the head to get him to shut up. Mine was middle of the road. It showed me viscerally what most people understand intellectually, that if you are poor, then justice is nothing more or less than the luck of the lottery; there is no doubt in my mind that had the cases been severed, two of us would have a criminal conviction and four of us wouldn't, even though there was literally no difference in the actions undertaken. Interestingly, one of the middle-of-the-road ones (not mine) was from the public defender's office. He was a great deal better than I expected.
That aside, the factors that go into sentencing do vary widely; I just wish that the factors that mattered were more substantive and reasonable than many of the real ones you listed.
It is likely for two reasons: One, society cares little for those who have broken its rules. Hence, prisons are not built to be humane or protect the lives of those inside them. Two, the population inside tends to be on average slightly more violent and sociopathic than the general population, and so even if prisons were built with humanitarian concerns in mind, people probably would still be offed at a disturbing rate.
Have you talked to many rape victims? If you had, you may not be so sure. In many cases, the damage there is also irreversible and permanent, and unlike murder, is lingeringly painful both physically and psychologically, and can even in some cases result in death (suicide).
Since most murderers are never caught, your second point seems unlikely. As for the other, I'm not by any means suggesting that recidivism should be the only factor in determining punishment, just a significant one, perhaps as significant as the gravity of the consequences of the act itself.
I did read through his post, and it depends a great deal upon the jurisdiction. In many if not most places, if you are robbing a convenience store and waving a gun around recklessly pursuant to the robbery, and the gun goes off without you intending it to, and the bullet strikes and kills the cashier or a customer...in many places in the US that is murder, not manslaughter. Something that might normally be manslaughter can be murder if it is included with another felony (such as robbery), or if it proceeds from an act that shows significant (depraved) indifference to human life, including but not limited to waving around a loaded gun.
When asked, the defendant proffered his reasoning: "He just needed killin'." There was a murmur of agreement in the court, and the judge nodded approvingly. The DA, desperately trying to remain expressionless, braced himself and stood up; this was going to be a toughie.
Just hope you never get stuck in that other "little" part where it doesn't work so well. Cheers.
I'm sorry, but how the hell did you derive that from what I said? I didn't say one word about justification from *anyone's* point of view, and I certainly don't believe, nor did I indicate, that murder is not a big deal if there is ample cause. And there are many, many people who know me well who would be deeply amused by your assertion that I am in any way a leftist. Ah well, I guess I'm just feeding the trolls.
Very good points. You are right in that I tend to weigh 3 and 4 more heavily, but you are also correct that the actual gravity of the crime should be a major factor in determining the response. It just seems to me that much of the law in this area is predicated on 1, while using 2 as an unconvincing excuse, and that bothers me greatly. By pointing that out I don't mean to suggest that I have an answer to the problem, just that the problem exists and is often papered over. re: recidivism statistics, I'd say that avoiding detection is a very significant factor, considering that a sizable fraction of murders remain unsolved. However, also many murders proceed out of other situations that are unlikely to recur given the circumstances, and that is a significant factor explaining why even though murder case clearance rates are low, murders tend to be a one-time affair per perpetrator.
I disagree with your underlying assumption that many murders are pre-meditated. Many murders are outright accidental (e.g. "I meant to hurt him, not kill him"; "I just wanted to scare him"; etc.) or crimes of passion. I imagine the demarcations might be a little different here (US) than in the UK between murder and manslaughter, and that might add to the confusion.
I'd be surprised if the lengthy sentence actually had much influence on the psychological cost/benefit analysis for those very few who commit pre-meditated murder. You are right in that we don't have many other options, although a few other suggestions have been made, such as the territorial separation that was tried in the past with penal colonies such as Georgia and Australia. Also in some US jurisdictions, civil remedies for restitution exist in cases of murder with "Wrongful Death" statutes being extended to cover homicide. This to me makes a little more sense, since the crime of murder effects surviving family members far more than society's interests in most cases.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is one hell of an assumption. I can think of a few half-baked reasons why this might be true, but then again in many ways the state itself doesn't act as if this is so. Is it a matter of resources invested?
Lay the argument on me, I'm honestly interested.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
You know, this is what drives me crazy about how our justice system deals with murder. On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs. Most murderers are far less of a continuing threat to society than, say, rapists and molesters.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
The dems want their politicians to pretend to be poor, while the republicans don't have to bother? I mean, sure, I get the point you're trying to make, and the numbers are damning, but I don't know many people in my income bracket who could scrape together two-and-a-half gees to throw at a long shot election bid. For the vast majority, both parties are closed at the front door.
It's one thing to joke about politics, it's another to make the politics into a joke. In doing the later, Colbert was going to take the focus off of the race and put it onto himself.
I hardly give Colbert credit for making politics into a joke. It was that long before he made the scene. The fact that a good portion of the MSM couldn't suss out whether Colbert was actually kidding or not for a while (and Rasmussen actually put a damn poll in the field) should be evidence enough.
Problem is, since many of these agencies are under executive branch control, they do have the power to redact these reports. Obviously, they shouldn't use that power as they have been (and I don't want to "take their fucking word for it" either), but for them to claim that they don't have it would be just factually wrong.
For the average American, as long there's beer in the fridge, two new SUV's in the driveway, a white picket fence, bowling on Friday night and Monday Night Football, no one will ever complain...
I've heard this meme quite a bit, and while I agree that bread and circuses play a significant role in pacifying the public, I think it is quite overselling the point by implying that the middle class standard (2.2 kids, SUV, owned home) is representative of many peoples' condition. On the contrary, the middle class is vanishing, such that of all the things you listed, perhaps only the beer and the TV with football are still affordable for many, many Americans. The SUV and the white picket fence are far out of reach.
No, they will be replaced by international NGOs who are accountable to nobody and have reach in far more places. After all, as trade in information is internationalized and nation controls become less effective, it seems only natural that that power vacuum will be filled by an agency of equivalent scope.
Not that I like that idea one bit.