I agree. The idea that the recklessness of youth can be legislated away is naive and pernicious. I'm completely comfortable with the fact that somewhere out there, someone is eating a tide pod (no sarcasm intended). People really need to calm down.
On AE5 I read some related click bait earlier in the week.
I'm with McCardle on the franchise stuff. To the extent I see any of it I find myself hopelessly bored and wishing the villains would win. Even the praised Logan wasn't nearly as good as original fare that covered similar ground like Hanna.
This exactly. It's bad journalism plain and simple and it's bad for media overall. I get that its Holland where racial politics are different for obvious reasons but it's like these pieces can't help but go down identitarian rabbit holes. All manner of stupid or crazy law enforcement policy is A-OK as long as it is evenly applied across demographics.
This is technically true but Chevron and its progeny and the fuzzy distinction between administrative penalties and sanctions makes relief from an Article III judge a pretty tall order. Yea there's a safety valve for extreme cases but in practice we've removed a hell of a lot of government action from constitutional processes.
Its an issue at the state level too. Ask the guy whose license was suspended unfairly by the MVA if he thinks he was punished now that he can't get to work to feed his kids. And good luck trying to appeal something like that through the state courts.
There are exceptions but generally and in the aggregate criminal defendants are some combination of poor, stupid, and unlucky. This is even more pronounced in indigent defense. I don't know of its like this everywhere but here tend to treat socio-economic problems with the criminal justice system. It doesn't work.
Maryland's office of the public defender is treated as an executive agency. I've found them to be pretty good when it counts but also overburdened in the big counties and Baltimore. They outsource cases at volume rates. I did several of them for the small firm I worked at. The incentives in those situations can be pretty bad and the firms that end up taking a lot of the cases aren't very reputable. The one I worked at was a total mess.
An entrepreneurial society such as ours will always have more than its fair share of bullshit artists, charlatans, and confident idiots. Now they have the internet at their disposal.
I'm in house so don't deal with discovery much. To the extent I've struggled with it I tend to blame technology. More records mean more junk to sift through and more flashpoints for someone to create an issue where there isn't one. I hated it when I was in private practice.
And IMHO there are some very serious constitutional issues with how we let administrative judges and magistrates function. Sadly mine isn't one that matters.
That's what I recall as well. My civ pro I prof did a class where we kind of looked at it. He was a veteran litigator and painted the inquisitorial system in a very negative light. The idea of judge as investigator is really foreign to me but I try try to keep an open mind.
But yea I also think you're right about the Law and Order crap. People assume there's always a level of moral and evidentiary clarity that rarely exists in practice, and thats if they think about it at all. There's a guy I'm friends with who comments 'why can't we just hang them' (or something similar) on every news report about crime that makes its way around facebook. I suspect his philosophy is the norm.
But at a less cynical level, the justice system relies upon the adversarial process to arrive at truth.
Just a quibble but this isn't really accurate. The idea behind the adversarial system is to protect rights and interests. 'Truth' only comes into play to the extent it implicates those things. My understanding is that the inquisitorial model they have in much of Europe is more interested in uncovering 'truth' but thats not the basis of our system. This misunderstanding I think contributes to a lot of laypersons inability to comprehend the legal system.
I've been meaning to see your top 2 (I'm hoping next weekend I can get to the Shape of Water but it may need to wait for on demand).
It didn't get much attention but I thought Trainspotting 2 was pretty good. Not a classic like the original, and it would have been better if Kelly MacDonald got more than a cameo. Still there were some interesting meditations on aging and grappling with the past even as it gets further and further in the distance.
Don't want to speak for the OP but I think the intent is a corrective to a popular narrative (not sure how prevalent it is here but I see the author is UK based). Like you, I think most people versed in the subject understand that Hitler got really, really lucky in Western Europe, at first anyway.
That is a really, really hard call. But that's why enforcement has to be part of the pill. If we were in a place where the tide had stemmed and we were convinced places that traditionally hire illegal labor had been properly incentivized to stop...
As long as those parents had no felonies or outstanding warrants I'd be inclined to tell them they're bad bad bad bad people, make them get their taxes in order, pay a small fine, and put them in the back of the line of the green card process.
I think we're talking passed each other. I never said I think immigration needs to be banned I said it needs to be controlled. My ideal would be a merit based system like what other first world countries do. If that needs to be supplemented with a guest worker program with some path to citizenship for low skilled labor so be it. The point is it needs to go through the legislative process where these things can be debated with the interests of the citizenry in mind.
You make it sound like regulating immigration is as futile as banning whiskey. A severely broken system isn't in itself evidence that there is no better one.
I think the people who passed the law probably are mostly well intentioned. As I said to Slade, most of those who favor it I think do so because they want to protect people they think are vulnerable. That doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional or that it's good policy. Also remember the last round of this activity at the state level was decidedly anti-immigrant. This isn't the way to solve the problem.
On sanctuary cities I think it's their prerogative as to whether or not they want their police to cooperate with the feds on something outside their jurisdiction. I only mentioned them because I think their rise in prominence is unhelpful and not really a solution that can be applied nationally.
I've never said I oppose DACA in principle, as a policy. I have quibbles about the process, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. Above I said Dreamers are the easiest cases and I don't think it's right to deport them.
My issue is that I want a policy (preferably merit based but leaving birth right in tact per the constitution). I dont want to use the bad situation we've created as an excuse for perpetuating it. This is especially so when it's easy fodder for reactionaries who want to do all sorts of other things I disagree with.
Any business who hires people not eligible to work in the US is doing so for their own bottom line. They are not doing it the benefit of poor foreigners. If people want to come here for low skilled labor that's fine but there needs to be a controlled process established that takes into consideration the interests of citizens of this country. The fact that our federal government has failed to handle basic responsibilities doesn't automatically give everyone else clean hands.
And this is what I mean when I say the policy is essentially open borders. It's like those illegal immigrants are just popping up out of thin air.
The Obama administration understood, or seemed to anyway, that part of actually fixing this involves enforcement. Otherwise history will repeat, with cycles of relatively unchecked illegal immigration followed by amnesty once the population reaches critical mass. By failing to do something to stop and deter the flow you are ensuring that businesses which exploit illegal labor will have a massive supply of it. Businesses need to be afraid to hire them and they need to understand there will be no work for them here if they come illegally. Only once you've done that can you find a humane way to handle the people here, which for most, means some kind of permanent status.
If we wanted stability we'd ally with Assad or get out of his way (preferably the later). The SAA is the only force both capable of defeating ISIS and commanded by actors capable of governing the territory.
This hits on why I think the apparent position the Democratic party is taking is so crazy. I get that the activists and identity politics people think they're defending a vulnerable population. In practice they're taking the side of businesses exploiting illegal labor.
I get what you're saying in theory but I still don't think it's helping the debate on what is and always will be a national problem. Any credit they deserve for limiting abuse by ICE is in my opinion outweighed by these other issues.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Poison By the Pod”
I agree. The idea that the recklessness of youth can be legislated away is naive and pernicious. I'm completely comfortable with the fact that somewhere out there, someone is eating a tide pod (no sarcasm intended). People really need to calm down.
On “Morning Ed: Arts & Entertainment {2018.02.08.Th}”
On AE5 I read some related click bait earlier in the week.
I'm with McCardle on the franchise stuff. To the extent I see any of it I find myself hopelessly bored and wishing the villains would win. Even the praised Logan wasn't nearly as good as original fare that covered similar ground like Hanna.
On “The Winter in Black and White”
This was a good read, despite the sadness of the subject matter. Thanks for sharing.
On “Morning Ed: Law & Order {2018.02.01.Th}”
This exactly. It's bad journalism plain and simple and it's bad for media overall. I get that its Holland where racial politics are different for obvious reasons but it's like these pieces can't help but go down identitarian rabbit holes. All manner of stupid or crazy law enforcement policy is A-OK as long as it is evenly applied across demographics.
On “Whose Side Is A Lawyer On?”
This is technically true but Chevron and its progeny and the fuzzy distinction between administrative penalties and sanctions makes relief from an Article III judge a pretty tall order. Yea there's a safety valve for extreme cases but in practice we've removed a hell of a lot of government action from constitutional processes.
Its an issue at the state level too. Ask the guy whose license was suspended unfairly by the MVA if he thinks he was punished now that he can't get to work to feed his kids. And good luck trying to appeal something like that through the state courts.
"
There are exceptions but generally and in the aggregate criminal defendants are some combination of poor, stupid, and unlucky. This is even more pronounced in indigent defense. I don't know of its like this everywhere but here tend to treat socio-economic problems with the criminal justice system. It doesn't work.
"
Maryland's office of the public defender is treated as an executive agency. I've found them to be pretty good when it counts but also overburdened in the big counties and Baltimore. They outsource cases at volume rates. I did several of them for the small firm I worked at. The incentives in those situations can be pretty bad and the firms that end up taking a lot of the cases aren't very reputable. The one I worked at was a total mess.
"
An entrepreneurial society such as ours will always have more than its fair share of bullshit artists, charlatans, and confident idiots. Now they have the internet at their disposal.
I'm in house so don't deal with discovery much. To the extent I've struggled with it I tend to blame technology. More records mean more junk to sift through and more flashpoints for someone to create an issue where there isn't one. I hated it when I was in private practice.
"
And IMHO there are some very serious constitutional issues with how we let administrative judges and magistrates function. Sadly mine isn't one that matters.
"
That's what I recall as well. My civ pro I prof did a class where we kind of looked at it. He was a veteran litigator and painted the inquisitorial system in a very negative light. The idea of judge as investigator is really foreign to me but I try try to keep an open mind.
But yea I also think you're right about the Law and Order crap. People assume there's always a level of moral and evidentiary clarity that rarely exists in practice, and thats if they think about it at all. There's a guy I'm friends with who comments 'why can't we just hang them' (or something similar) on every news report about crime that makes its way around facebook. I suspect his philosophy is the norm.
"
Just a quibble but this isn't really accurate. The idea behind the adversarial system is to protect rights and interests. 'Truth' only comes into play to the extent it implicates those things. My understanding is that the inquisitorial model they have in much of Europe is more interested in uncovering 'truth' but thats not the basis of our system. This misunderstanding I think contributes to a lot of laypersons inability to comprehend the legal system.
On “Top 10 Films of 2017”
I've been meaning to see your top 2 (I'm hoping next weekend I can get to the Shape of Water but it may need to wait for on demand).
It didn't get much attention but I thought Trainspotting 2 was pretty good. Not a classic like the original, and it would have been better if Kelly MacDonald got more than a cameo. Still there were some interesting meditations on aging and grappling with the past even as it gets further and further in the distance.
On “The Blitzkrieg Myth”
Don't want to speak for the OP but I think the intent is a corrective to a popular narrative (not sure how prevalent it is here but I see the author is UK based). Like you, I think most people versed in the subject understand that Hitler got really, really lucky in Western Europe, at first anyway.
On “When Democrats Go States’ Rights”
@maribou
A bunch of my responses seem to be stuck in moderation. When you have a moment could you assist? Please and thank you!
"
That is a really, really hard call. But that's why enforcement has to be part of the pill. If we were in a place where the tide had stemmed and we were convinced places that traditionally hire illegal labor had been properly incentivized to stop...
As long as those parents had no felonies or outstanding warrants I'd be inclined to tell them they're bad bad bad bad people, make them get their taxes in order, pay a small fine, and put them in the back of the line of the green card process.
"
I think we're talking passed each other. I never said I think immigration needs to be banned I said it needs to be controlled. My ideal would be a merit based system like what other first world countries do. If that needs to be supplemented with a guest worker program with some path to citizenship for low skilled labor so be it. The point is it needs to go through the legislative process where these things can be debated with the interests of the citizenry in mind.
You make it sound like regulating immigration is as futile as banning whiskey. A severely broken system isn't in itself evidence that there is no better one.
"
@maribou
I think the people who passed the law probably are mostly well intentioned. As I said to Slade, most of those who favor it I think do so because they want to protect people they think are vulnerable. That doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional or that it's good policy. Also remember the last round of this activity at the state level was decidedly anti-immigrant. This isn't the way to solve the problem.
On sanctuary cities I think it's their prerogative as to whether or not they want their police to cooperate with the feds on something outside their jurisdiction. I only mentioned them because I think their rise in prominence is unhelpful and not really a solution that can be applied nationally.
"
I've never said I oppose DACA in principle, as a policy. I have quibbles about the process, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. Above I said Dreamers are the easiest cases and I don't think it's right to deport them.
My issue is that I want a policy (preferably merit based but leaving birth right in tact per the constitution). I dont want to use the bad situation we've created as an excuse for perpetuating it. This is especially so when it's easy fodder for reactionaries who want to do all sorts of other things I disagree with.
"
Any business who hires people not eligible to work in the US is doing so for their own bottom line. They are not doing it the benefit of poor foreigners. If people want to come here for low skilled labor that's fine but there needs to be a controlled process established that takes into consideration the interests of citizens of this country. The fact that our federal government has failed to handle basic responsibilities doesn't automatically give everyone else clean hands.
"
And this is what I mean when I say the policy is essentially open borders. It's like those illegal immigrants are just popping up out of thin air.
The Obama administration understood, or seemed to anyway, that part of actually fixing this involves enforcement. Otherwise history will repeat, with cycles of relatively unchecked illegal immigration followed by amnesty once the population reaches critical mass. By failing to do something to stop and deter the flow you are ensuring that businesses which exploit illegal labor will have a massive supply of it. Businesses need to be afraid to hire them and they need to understand there will be no work for them here if they come illegally. Only once you've done that can you find a humane way to handle the people here, which for most, means some kind of permanent status.
On “What The Heck Are We Doing In Syria”
If we wanted stability we'd ally with Assad or get out of his way (preferably the later). The SAA is the only force both capable of defeating ISIS and commanded by actors capable of governing the territory.
"
I think it's unclear which parts of Pakistan are actually defended by nukes. Islamabad and Karachi are. NWFP apparently isn't.
"
This. If we really believed that we wouldn't be in the business of overthrowing governments (or at least we'd be way more circumspect about it).
On “When Democrats Go States’ Rights”
This hits on why I think the apparent position the Democratic party is taking is so crazy. I get that the activists and identity politics people think they're defending a vulnerable population. In practice they're taking the side of businesses exploiting illegal labor.
"
I get what you're saying in theory but I still don't think it's helping the debate on what is and always will be a national problem. Any credit they deserve for limiting abuse by ICE is in my opinion outweighed by these other issues.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.