My political memory goes back to the Nixon years, and this just wasn't true in any circles any normal person cared about. Except when it was. Some candidates were or are, in fact, corrupt, anti-Semitic, racist, authoritarian, or profoundly stupid, and properly so called. You can make your own list. I doubt it would include, for example, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Robert Dole, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and several others. Sure, some on-line bozos referred to "Mittler," but they never got any traction. It probably carried less weight among voters than his treatment of his dog..
While there is room for creative work targeting organized shoplifting rings, I'm not convinced that there is much of a law enforcement solution to, if you'll pardon the expression, "retail" misdemeanor shoplifting, annoying as it is. (Kevin Drum has a recent post on the problems with figuring out just what's going on with shoplifting.) Law enforcement can't do much to prevent shoplifting because you can't post cops in or near stores on a regular basis. (When I read more law and economics than I do now, there were suggestions that sporadic and unsustainable flood the zone enforcement efforts might have some modest deterrent effect, but they are, by definition, unsustainable, and the cops temporarily diverted to shoplifting would eventually have to go back to murder, rape, and robbery.)
If you can't really prevent shoplifting by law enforcement, then what? You can punish shoplifters. But first you have to catch them, and the odds that a cop is close enough to catch the miscreant are slim. Then you have to prosecute them. But in every jurisdiction I know anything about, most shoplifting is petty larceny, a misdemeanor. And petty larceny is a misdemeanor for excellent reasons. (Shops with items that would, if stolen, amount to grand larceny, have far more security in the first instance. Compare a jewelry store with a grocery store. We accept a lot more inconvenience in shopping at Tiffany's than we would shopping at Safeway.) Is any busy DA's office going to devote heavy resources to trying misdemeanor petty larceny cases. (Maybe law students could be deputized to do them so they can learn how to stand up on their hind legs, and I'd support that, but that's more education policy than law enforcement policy.)
Then there's the problem of witnesses. Maybe a Target or a Wal-Mart would let employees off to testify in a case where somebody stole something valued in the double digits, but can Danny's bodega really spare its one non-owner employee for that? Then we really have a problem of one law for the rich and one for the poor, just a different variation.
And if we do take people off murder and robbery and rape cases to bring shoplifters to trial, then what? We get a misdemeanor conviction. In what rational prosecutor's office is that a good use of scarce trial resources? It will, instead, get pleaded out, and the opening offer will have to be less than the modest sentence you'd get after winning a trial. Repeat offenders (repeat convicted offenders) may face more exposure, but, again, petty larceny is a petty crime for a reason, and how tough can the sentences be?
Who would support the taxes necessary to fund any serious program of shoplifter investigation and prosecution? I know who wouldn't -- most of the people screaming about shoplifting.
They do that all the time, and don't mean it any more than anyone else does. Not that it would make much difference if they did mean it. Reality has a way of intruding on extravagant promises.
Nobody does, or can, prosecute everything all the time, however much that appeals to barstool blowhards. Some things are too big and complicated, and often as a result, get treated with things like fines and plea agreements. Some things are too small to put the scarce resources of a DA's office into taking them to trial (especially where witnesses don't want to take the day off from their job at the bodega to testify against someone who faces a misdemeanor rap for stealing something valued in the double digits) and get pleaded out, off of what would have been a short sentence at best. These are cold facts about the world that defy partisan spin and won't respond to righteous hyperventilating.
Showing a distinct lack of solidarity with the masses of people who do eat at McDonald's and would rightly resent some elitist telling them there's no reason they should.
I had a classmate who thought he was the illegitimate son of Arnold Palmer, who belonged to the same golf club as his parents. I can't say from personal observation whether he shared his putative father's endowment.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
You must be new around here.
"
Obedience in advance.
On “From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement”
That's one vote.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
That article certainly hasn't aged well. And, after all, the "hyperbole" was, and remains, true. Truth isn't always symmetrical.
"
Yes. And yes.
"
My political memory goes back to the Nixon years, and this just wasn't true in any circles any normal person cared about. Except when it was. Some candidates were or are, in fact, corrupt, anti-Semitic, racist, authoritarian, or profoundly stupid, and properly so called. You can make your own list. I doubt it would include, for example, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Robert Dole, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and several others. Sure, some on-line bozos referred to "Mittler," but they never got any traction. It probably carried less weight among voters than his treatment of his dog..
"
I assume he means nine convictions, not nine arrests. At least I hope so.
"
Cut-and-paste:
Obviously the answer is to compare them to shoplifters and wonder why more people aren’t calling for their arrests.
"
You have to be able to catch them first. Is there a problem, specifically, with the cops not arresting shoplifters that they do catch?
On “From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president”
It is, he can, and the rest of us can react as we please. Or is there an actual point?
"
No it doesn't.
"
Doesn't this qualify as "other"?
On “From The Atlantic: Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’”
If he wins, the federal trials are toast and the state proceedings (sentencing in NY and the Georgia case) will be on hold anyway.
"
Sounds like a good reason to remind people of this old story.
On “From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president”
As A.J. Liebling (great name for a journalist) once said, freedom of the press is for those who own one.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
Barri Weiss on line 2. If you count her as an "academic" because he was targeting faculty at her college.
On “From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president”
We don't usually yell at you, JB, we usually laugh. . . . Oh, you meant someone else?
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
Eric?
"
While there is room for creative work targeting organized shoplifting rings, I'm not convinced that there is much of a law enforcement solution to, if you'll pardon the expression, "retail" misdemeanor shoplifting, annoying as it is. (Kevin Drum has a recent post on the problems with figuring out just what's going on with shoplifting.) Law enforcement can't do much to prevent shoplifting because you can't post cops in or near stores on a regular basis. (When I read more law and economics than I do now, there were suggestions that sporadic and unsustainable flood the zone enforcement efforts might have some modest deterrent effect, but they are, by definition, unsustainable, and the cops temporarily diverted to shoplifting would eventually have to go back to murder, rape, and robbery.)
If you can't really prevent shoplifting by law enforcement, then what? You can punish shoplifters. But first you have to catch them, and the odds that a cop is close enough to catch the miscreant are slim. Then you have to prosecute them. But in every jurisdiction I know anything about, most shoplifting is petty larceny, a misdemeanor. And petty larceny is a misdemeanor for excellent reasons. (Shops with items that would, if stolen, amount to grand larceny, have far more security in the first instance. Compare a jewelry store with a grocery store. We accept a lot more inconvenience in shopping at Tiffany's than we would shopping at Safeway.) Is any busy DA's office going to devote heavy resources to trying misdemeanor petty larceny cases. (Maybe law students could be deputized to do them so they can learn how to stand up on their hind legs, and I'd support that, but that's more education policy than law enforcement policy.)
Then there's the problem of witnesses. Maybe a Target or a Wal-Mart would let employees off to testify in a case where somebody stole something valued in the double digits, but can Danny's bodega really spare its one non-owner employee for that? Then we really have a problem of one law for the rich and one for the poor, just a different variation.
And if we do take people off murder and robbery and rape cases to bring shoplifters to trial, then what? We get a misdemeanor conviction. In what rational prosecutor's office is that a good use of scarce trial resources? It will, instead, get pleaded out, and the opening offer will have to be less than the modest sentence you'd get after winning a trial. Repeat offenders (repeat convicted offenders) may face more exposure, but, again, petty larceny is a petty crime for a reason, and how tough can the sentences be?
Who would support the taxes necessary to fund any serious program of shoplifter investigation and prosecution? I know who wouldn't -- most of the people screaming about shoplifting.
"
They do that all the time, and don't mean it any more than anyone else does. Not that it would make much difference if they did mean it. Reality has a way of intruding on extravagant promises.
"
Indeed it is. But don't let that stop anyone from ranting.
"
Nobody does, or can, prosecute everything all the time, however much that appeals to barstool blowhards. Some things are too big and complicated, and often as a result, get treated with things like fines and plea agreements. Some things are too small to put the scarce resources of a DA's office into taking them to trial (especially where witnesses don't want to take the day off from their job at the bodega to testify against someone who faces a misdemeanor rap for stealing something valued in the double digits) and get pleaded out, off of what would have been a short sentence at best. These are cold facts about the world that defy partisan spin and won't respond to righteous hyperventilating.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/14/2024”
Showing a distinct lack of solidarity with the masses of people who do eat at McDonald's and would rightly resent some elitist telling them there's no reason they should.
On “Lone Star Rising”
I had a classmate who thought he was the illegitimate son of Arnold Palmer, who belonged to the same golf club as his parents. I can't say from personal observation whether he shared his putative father's endowment.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/14/2024”
That was my question: who is this "we?"
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.