It's two more than February usually has.
Wait. This isn't a month on some Hindi calendar, is it?
I dunno. After reading the NYer article, I think that might be an ok number of days. (Assuming he's not deported and shit.)
I find no outrage in me about the sentence. Is this what we fight about for E. Messily.
Yeah, I do kind of think that's right, also based on the NYer article.
I think I argued against him getting 10 years. I'm not sure how I feel about 30 days, but it is better than 10 years.
And a $10k fine. And the judge said he'd recommend deportation.
What Oudemia said. The New Yorker article left me with the impression the guy didn't do anything much other than being an alienating specimen of today's youth.
Sounds appropriate to me. As long as it doesn't lead to deportation for him or relatives.
Deportations for everybody. Miniature American flags for some.
Civil suit to come? I have a little outrage, but then the trial, legal costs, publicity, and penalties associated with the conviction are much more than I could dream of bearing.
I have almost stopped thinking about justice in America, right/wrong, fair/unfair. It's all politics and power.
30 songs, $675,000 upheld on appeal.
Jail time and/or deportation for non-violent crimes, however obnoxious, entitled, privileged or social-media-infuriating the defendant (and that kid seems like a real prick, even for a college student), seems too severe.
I think it's described as a "probationary jail term." I'm not really sure what that means?
(Learning what the judge said about deportation depends on which source you read: the NY Post has what I think is actually a typo. I have no idea what a recommendation from a state judge is worth in these cases -- the USSC decided a deportation case today, 9-0 Kagan, that's harsh enough.)
Deportation is way too much. No jail time for non-violent crimes, though, I can't get behind -- there's a lot of financial stuff that deserves jail time. This guy, eh, I'm not overcome by the injustice of a month in jail: trying to broadcast a roommate's sex life with a webcam is, while not the worst thing ever, pretty bad.
14:When I was nearer the system, Texas used to have something called "shock probation". That 30 days, for instance, would be spent in general pop at Huntsville.
It's interesting. I get the impression folks are generally of the opinion here that deportation would be crazytown. I would have few if any qualms about deportation of this guy. Being here on a green card is a privilege, you are a guest of this fine nation. You want to abuse that privilege by illegally recording and broadcasting your roommate's sex life? You can go home.
And no, that doesn't mean I think every conviction should lead to deportation. But it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if ICE showed this guy the door.
It's interesting. I get the impression folks are generally of the opinion here that deportation would be crazytown. I would have few if any qualms about deportation of this guy. Being here on a green card is a privilege, you are a guest of this fine nation. You want to abuse that privilege by illegally recording and broadcasting your roommate's sex life? You can go home.
And no, that doesn't mean I think every conviction should lead to deportation. But it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if ICE showed this guy the door.
20: "Home"? I think he moved here when he was 2. This is home.
19, 20: But ought the green card to be such an exclusive privilege?
If it wouldn't be just to exile a citizen, then why is it just to deport a non-citizen who grew up here? Or would you recommend a sentence of exile for anyone who committed a similar crime?
21: Bob would perhaps say that children ought to have the rights and responsibilities of adults. So there's no substantive difference between moving here when you're 2 and moving here when you're 52.
19: do you know how long he's been in the country, Di? Does it matter to you?
Do you know how long I've been pwned? Does it matter to you?
Someone on a green card is not a guest, they're a permanent resident.
More generally, deporting people (no matter what their legal status) who have lived in a country virtually their entire lives is immoral.
I have a marginally related question, as opposed to my usual unrelated questions. How can somebody come here at age two and not be a citizen by the time they start college? Does it take that long usually?
23:Bob is an radical open borders guy. No deportation.
OTOH, most people should be able to find somewhere better to live than this pit. But I suppose that's a matter of taste, affordability, inertia, and other factors, and should be a free choice.
16, 19: Having read the Internet for some time, and consequently read a lot of "We need to hang/defenestrate/shoot into the sun..." stuff, I try to keep my will to punish in check, except with respect to cases of sexual assault of minors.
29:see 23
I presume it is not an option for minors, not their own choice, and maybe the clock starts at age of majority?
do you know how long he's been in the country, Di? Does it matter to you?
If he were still a child, that would matter to me. If he had screwed up in some manner that didn't hurt anyone, that would matter to me.
To 28, deporting an undocumented person who had been here his or her whole life solely because the person was undocumented would strike me as immoral. But deporting someone who committed a felony involving moral turpitude? Not committing felonies involving moral turpitude is one of the conditions of permanent residency. I don't see anything immoral about enforcing that condition.
Di's channeling her German side. Me, I think Ravi's an all-American prick.
29 However long it takes your parents to get around to doing the paperwork.
Not committing felonies involving moral turpitude is one of the conditions of permanent residency.
Maybe they should write that on the back of the green card instead of the Starbuck's ad they have now.
I think he got off easy. In the U.S., the traditional punishment for this kind of abusive behavior is the Republican nomination for the presidency.
33 Would you be fine with having any random American exiled out of the country for a low level non-violent crime?
Would it be moral to revoke someone's citizenship and then deport them to a random country, even for a heinous crime?
36 was me. For the record, I'd be okay with deportation if Romney got kicked out of the country too.
Di's channeling her German side.
Or transferring my former German sidekick onto Ravi, perhaps...
29: Nothing requires a permanent resident to seek citizenship.
37, 38: Australia has rules against that now.
37: No. Citizenship isn't contingent on not committing crimes of moral turpitude.
33: Are you in favor of exile as a general punishment for moral turpitude?
Because, as you already know, citizenship is a law of the state, not a law of nature. We could change it if enough people wanted to. We could reduce everyone to the status of conditionally tolerated guests.
Further to 37, I also wouldn't call secretly recording someone having sex without their knowledge or permission "a low-level crime."
44 to 42 as well, and I am disappointed not to have already been pwned.
What is gives legal citizenship so much moral weight? It's just a legal construct, surely whatever moral status it grants comes from the country *being your home*, which could be just as true for someone who is not legally a citizen.
Would you be fine with the government deporting British people from Britain for crimes? After all, they're not citizens, they're subjects.
Nevermind, they're apparently citizens now.
44: I am in favor of enforcing the bargain we currently have in place whilst it is in place. We could amend the Constitution to revoke Constitutional citizenship, and we could amend laws to alter statutory citizenship, but until we do citizens are not, to my knowledge, deportable.
Would you be fine with the government deporting British people from Britain for crimes?
CRIKEY! THAT'S NOT A KNIFE! G'DAY MATE!
45: On a scale from 0 to 10, where literal genocide or nuking a major city is a 9 or 10, where does it go?
49: What makes it a "bargain"? Dharun Ravi didn't consent to being born outside rather than inside the US, and I didn't do anything to deserve being born in the US.
No one here is arguing about whether it would be technically legal to exile a citizen for moral turpitude. The question is whether it would be right and just to do so.
What if they deported him to someplace nice-ish like Canada or Bulgaria?
No one here is arguing about whether it would be technically legal to exile a citizen for moral turpitude. The question is whether it would be right and just to do so.
I read Di as arguing that shifting the discussion to citizens in unhelpful for the same reason that motivate the analogy ban.
45: What if the poor kid hadn't killed himself?
Not my area at all, and I haven't really followed this case, but my understanding is after (I think) 1996 deportation (now known as "removal") has been mandatory after certain crimes, of this may well be one, whenever the Feds wish to pursue it. Not a discretionary matter.
As I've said before, it's amazing how much time in Federal court here is spent on reentry after removal cases -- I know I mentioned this before but I was amazed at a fairly recent trip to the courthouse to see the government spend an enormous amount of time argue for an 8 year vs 2 year sentence for a woman whose crime was coming back intothe US from Mexico to attend a (state court ordered) child custody mediation. At the end of the prison sentence, she was being forcibly sent back to Mexico no matter what -- the only question was how long she'd stay in federal prison before we deported her. These are prosecutorial tax dollars, and prison time, that's not going towards financial fraud.
Spent a little while googling, and someone can, on their own, only apply for naturalization at 18. It then takes two years.
If both of your parents, or one custody parent etc, are citizens, a minor child is automatically a citizen, without applying although there might be a little paperwork.
It may be more complicated or children of parents with green cards.
So to 23: not two years old, I have always said discrimination should have varying levels of scrutiny, but a ten year old? Sure, they could choose to apply for citizenship against the will of their parents. And ask to stay if their parents choose to leave, or get deported, etc.
What makes it a "bargain"? Dharun Ravi didn't consent to being born outside rather than inside the US, and I didn't do anything to deserve being born in the US.
He consented to living in the US under the conditions of doing so as a permanent resident alien. That's the bargain.
No one here is arguing about whether it would be technically legal to exile a citizen for moral turpitude. The question is whether it would be right and just to do so.
I am arguing that what is technically legal colors what is right and just in these circumstances.
I am arguing that what is technically legal colors what is right and just in these circumstances.
This is going to get contentious.
54: I don't think it's the suicide that made this a serious offense. I think the seriousness of the offense certainly contributed to the suicide. Videotaping, without consent, a person's sexual activities is on the same continuum as a rape, in my mind. You are violating a person intimately.
This is going to get contentious.
Haven't been around much -- I have lost time to make up for.
He consented to living in the US under the conditions of doing so as a permanent resident alien. That's the bargain.
I don't think he did in any meaningful sense -- his parents brought him here without his consent when he was two, and he had no control over his legal status until he hit 18. He didn't choose the benefits of living in the US subject to the conditions of doing so as a permanent resident, he just grew up in his parents house in NJ.
Videotaping, without consent, a person's sexual activities
This didn't happen.
Note also that aggressive deportation/removal can have a strange internationalizing effect on street crime. We've had deported Salvadorean gang members from LA keep their gangs going in El Salvador, and now people get killed on the streets of LA to control neighborhoods in San Salvador, an people get killed in San Salvador to control streets in LA. Some of that would have happened without aggressive deportation/removal, but from what I've read it's made it worse.
57: He consented to living in the US under the conditions of doing so as a permanent resident alien. That's the bargain.
Any kind of coercion could be justified using the exact same logic. After all, if they don't consent, they have the option to suffer the consequences of disobedience. Therefore it's a bargain.
There are some circumstances where it's reasonable to argue that what the law is affects what is and isn't moral. I think there's a strong argument to be made that morally neutral but practical laws can make immoral behavior that would otherwise be perfectly moral. (Driving on the left side of the street being the obvious example.) But when you're discussing whether the law itself is moral and just, the fact that it's the law can't possibly affect the question of its morality and justice. I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
62: Have I misread the story completely? Or are you distinguishing recording with webcam and videotaping?
Videotaping, without consent, a person's sexual activities is on the same continuum as a rape
I think the key word here is continuum.
67: There was no recording. There was seeing, apparently very briefly. What he did was super shitty and vile, but he didn't record anyone having sex.
This article indicates an actual recording. The distinction does definitely affect the seriousness.
Or how about this article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dharun-ravi-sentenced-20120521,0,4642695.story
Or how about this article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-dharun-ravi-sentenced-20120521,0,4642695.story
You know what, I clearly just am too out of practice at this "commenting" business.
I have to say that if you're going to pick an area where what's legal informs what's just, immigration law is probably your worst example. Again, not my field at all but holy shit does that area of law seem evil and screwed up.
66: the fact that it's the law can't possibly affect the question of its morality and justice.
??!!?? What is this morality and justice of which you speak?
Fwiw, I'd rather be taped having sex against my will than be deported. Getting deported is a seriously awful thing under the best of circumstances.
The NYer article says he set Skype to auto-answer and turned the sound off. I'm not going back to look up the precise time logs, but two things happened: 1. Clementi noticed the camera light come on and turned the computer around 2. the "viewing party" apparently shut down their first call pretty quickly.
Yeah, that's just sloppy writing in the LA Times.
This is all in the cause of distracting E. Messily.
77: What modifies what in that sentence? It kind of makes a big important difference.
64: The logic was that, if he didn't want to agree to the conditions of permanent residence, he could choose to live in the nation of his citizenship, move somewhere else entirely, or apply for U.S. citizenship. But LB makes the very solid point that he wasn't really old enough to have made those choices at the time of his conduct.
81: It could, but not in this case, as either way is still way better than being deported.
Videotaping, without consent, a person's sexual activities is on the same continuum as a rape, in my mind. You are violating a person intimately.
The setting apart of sexual activities as radically qualitatively different than other activities, is well, something I think about.
This would increase penalties for videotaping w/o consent in general rather than decrease them for particular kinds etc. But then we are in a mess, at tourist sites and news events, aren't we?
But there is something about saying our only expectations of privacy and autonomy are connected to sexuality, or moving that direction, that bothers me a ton, although I am not yet prepared to explain my misgivings.
CBC suggests no recording "Ravi went to a friend's room and turned on his webcam remotely, and they saw Clementi and his guest kissing. They told others about it through instant messages and tweets.
When Clementi asked for privacy again two days later, Ravi agreed -- then told friends how they could access his webcam. But this time, the webcam was not on when the guest came over. "
from http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/05/21/rutgers-gay-student-spying-trial.html
Well, maybe that's a little extreme. Being raped on film could in some circumstances be worse than the less awful forms of deportation. YMMV.
Distinction like "recording" vs. "watching" and "reading" vs. "copying" break down in the digital setting.
India's not the worst place to be deported to, at least they still speak English and aren't run by an evil dictator. We're not talking about Syria, Iraq, or Sudan. Depending on what your job is, being deported to Canada might not be worse than a 25K fine.
I think "recording" is important in this context to the extent of whether the images and audio can be viewed at a later time by additional people, effectively re-violating the victim of the recording.
ffeJ, I'd probably rather be burglarized than spend six months in jail for burglary. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
88: If I got deported, it would be to the US, where I speak the language, have family and friends, some connections, etc. I'm relatively young, and have graduate degrees. It would still be an absolute personal and career disaster.
89: There was no copy retained. It was Skype and it was not on Ravi's computer later. It Go read the NYer article, which has much, much more detail and nuance than brief news recaps.
I realize I am way out in the wackadoodle fringes when it comes to privacy, but 30 days does not seem unreasonable to me given the offense. Deportation is a big deal, but I lived my teenage years knowing full well that doing shit teenagers routinely do could get me deported and somehow managed to live with the restriction, so I'm not really all that sympathetic.
90: Making the point that the severity of deportation as a punishment may not be appropriately understood by all present, in my opinion.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to Di's argument, though -- in theory, deportation/removal should be a remedy against immigrants who commit violent or serious crimes. In practice, though, the system seems to have become sonrigid and so mismanaged that it's working some pretty horrible injustices on a daily basis. This reminds me that my first "client" (as a nonattorney law student) was a guy who'd grown up in the US since he was 6 and had committed some mid-range drug crime (holding up a dealer, no violent results, and then dealing, IIRC). He was naturalized but had never gotten citizenship, and wanted to know if there was any way he could avoid being deported to Haiti after he finished his 15 year term. Our advice was "no there is no way, sorry". The majesty of the law at work.
92: Yeah, get it, got it. I just wanted to clarify why having understood there to have been a recording made this more serious in my mind.
Locations and crimes changed somewhat in 96.
Part of the problem with deportation as a punishment is that how much of a punishment it is varies wildly based on someone's personal and professional situation.
The only real situations I can think of where deportation might be appropriate is organized crime. If you can't actually pin life sentences on a mob boss, or if you're worried that it'll be too easy for them to continue running their operations out of jails in your country, then deportation seems reasonable.
For something like murder, either what they did deserves a life sentence, or else when they get out they should be allowed to go home.
96: I don't disagree at all as far as the system being a sordid, mismanaged mess. I don't think removal is a knee jerk remedy for "low-level" crimes by any stretch. I am plainly on the opposite end of the spectrum from ffeJ in terms or how serious I would consider being recorded w/out my knowledge having sex. I also apparently had many of the facts of the original story wrong, but knowing actual facts is passe...
Incidentally, my first case was challenging a removal, too. Some day when I don't have to worry about paying bills, I'd love to do more of that work.
It's a very nearby possible world where Ravi does all the same things, Clementi pulls a nasty prank in return, they find new roommates, and they reminisce about it at their fifteenth.
Stripping him of his permanent residency to me seems to be more severe than is warranted for what he actually did (though "moral turpitude" is sufficiently flexible that if someone wants to pursue it, they probably can. But absent the suicide, and Ravi wasn't tried for that, I doubt anyone would be calling the cops or ICE.)
I'd be fine with deportation in this case if Ravi were some guy who had come to the US to attend college. But with someone who has been here since the age of two, I don't see any moral difference between that and deporting someone like myself who happened to be born a year after my parents arrived rather than two years later (and who at Ravi's age was probably a lot less of a 'real' American than Ravi is)
100: I am plainly on the opposite end of the spectrum from ffeJ in terms or how serious I would consider being recorded w/out my knowledge having sex.
No, that was not my point at all, and I never said anything about how serious a violation I find being recorded having sex without knowledge of it. For the record, I find it very serious. My point was that deportation is also very serious, and a terrible thing to do to someone.
99, see my comment above. Organized crime is one of the worst situations for deportation, because you internationalize the crime.
One problem is that the prison system is so bad at rehabilitation. A noncitizen violent gang member who goes to prison is likely (actually more likely) to come out a violent gang member as when he went in. If not, it's usually because he's gotten old. So I can see an argument for sending people back to their country of origin instead of staying on our streets even after their time is up -- in theory, we may have less obligation to give second chances at a successful life in the US to noncitizens vs. citizens, and the ex-con is likely to either reoffend or need public assistance. But in practice as I say the system is so screwed up I migh just eliminate criminal deportation completely.
(Factual question, the links above suggest that not only wasn't he recorded having sex, he wasn't even having sex. The article I was looking at said it was just "kissing.")
In general, immigration is an area where I find policy beliefs conflicting with personal morality. I don't think open borders makes sense as a policy matter (because it makes it nearly impossible to run the quasi-socialist welfare state of my dreams) but every time I've been faced with an actually existing immigrant I've hated the system that would keep them from staying here and being treated as a full and ordinary human being. It's a tension. Maybe the way to get around it is that in th US as currenty configured I support something close to open borders.
29 and the like: Here's an article about one of the latest cases to hit the news in which an adoptive parent didn't file change-of-citizenship paperwork (though in this case meant to or started to and then died) for an adoptive child, who was then arrested for something fairly minor later and is now going to be deported. There are not a ton of these cases, but they hit the news every month or so.
Also huge right now and likely to get worse is what to do about the kids of parents who are being deported, some of whom are US citizens and many of whom are trapped in foster care on the adoption pipeline for that reason. I have a friend who stepped up in a situation like this where she knew the parents and her state is not doing much of anything toward reunification even though the kids were not being abused or neglected.
As mentioned previously, Justice Kagan's opinion today illustrates how inflexible immigration law can be.
What's the rule on stateless non citizen permanent residents? For example my dad was stripped of his citizenship when he was kicked out of Poland and was stateless until he got naturalized five years later. Where would you deport someone like him?
107: we're a pretty vicious country, aren't we?
Also, when you mix up deportation and the justice system, it makes things like witness intimidation among immigrants a lot easier. For example, people who might have come forward as witnesses to human trafficking are more hesitant to do so when they know their involvement in some lesser crime (like, say, harboring illegal immigrants) could get them deported.
Di's channeling her German side.
German immigration law is in some ways more humane than Di. There is an immigration status known as "toleration" (Duldung), which the authorities can resort to when there is no legal grounds for granting leave to remain, but it would be patently unjust to deport. It would generally be applied in cases like the one Thorn mentions in 107.
105: As I understand it, that's correct. The pair saw some kissing and disconnected. And then, I believe, tried to reconnect again and TC had turned the computer around or otherwise blocked the camera on his desktop.
I am very surprised at Di's sentiments. Oh well.
Should I be concerned that the German word for "toleration" contains the word "dung"?
119. Nope. But if you're ever doing online dating in Germany, avoid any women who talk about their love of caviar.
113: I'd like to see a system that gave at minimum clean slate status if not an automatic green card to illegal immigrants who testify in court or even just provide leads to investigators. It would completely invert the power dynamics of human trafficking as well as making a dent in organized crime generally. And a pony, plz.
120 I thought Germans were famous for their love of caviar.
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/the_2002_political_climate/
I'd like to see a system that gave at minimum clean slate status if not an automatic green card to illegal immigrants who testify in court or even just provide leads to investigators.
There are 10,000 U visas a year available to crime victims who cooperate with authorities (even in cases where there is no arrest), plus additional T visas for victims of trafficking, plus VAWA visas for victims of domestic violence.
The system is by no means perfect, but the Obama administration deserves major kudos for having gotten the rulemaking and procedures in place so that the 10,000 visas are actually getting used each year.
Regarding long-term permanent residents getting deported, it happens to thousands upon thousands of people every year. A 1996 change in the law meant many people are subject to AUTOMATIC deportation (judge has no discretion) for certain crimes known as "aggravated felonies," an extremely broad category. During the first ten years of the law (1997-2006), at least 156,000 people were in deportation proceedings due to aggravated felonies.
The law was being applied retroactively for a time, although it may no longer be (I'm not sure). So you could have pled guilty to a shoplifting offense in 1974 and then get deported when you tried to renew your green card in 1997, after the change in the law.
There has been some state-level advocacy to either redefine felonies or redefine sentencing guidelines so people aren't getting deported for traffic violations and the like. NY just did this.
The issue of longtime (sometimes almost lifelong) residents of the US getting deported is particularly acute in some ethnic communities. This video about Cambodian deportees highlights the similarities between "exiled Americans" and those who are still here.
Why people do or do not become naturalized citizens is a topic hotly debated. Common reasons include:
1. Ignorance (people think they automatically become a citizen after a certain period of time, or think they became a citizen when their parents did)
2. Illiteracy (a particular issue in Liberian, Cambodian, and other communities where home-country literacy rates were low)
3. Desire to hold on to home-country benefits (e.g. the right to own property in your home country, the right to run for elected office, the ability to travel on a passport other than the US one).
4. Tax benefits (although this works the other way too)
5. Deep emotional attachment to home country (the US naturalization oath requires you to "renounce and abjure" your allegiance to any other countries -- although the US informally recognizes dual citizenship now, A LOT of people find saying those words to be an enormous stumbling block)
Less-common reasons that many Americans *think* are common are cost (it is about $680 to apply, although there are fee waivers available for poor people and others who are statutorily eligible) and lack of commitment to the US.
Catching up on the thread...sorry for the serial posts.
What's the rule on stateless non citizen permanent residents?
I don't know what the law is, but in practice I can tell you that typically one of two things happens: In the absence of the US government having a nation-state to deport the person to, the person is put on electronic monitoring (wearing an ankle bracelet), or the person is kept in immigration prison, sometimes for years.
And it's not just an issue for people like Palestinians or others who are formally stateless at the United Nations level -- but also for people who are sort of "informally stateless" because they were born in a country that does not have birthright citizenship, to immigrant parents who were unable to register their birth with their own home governments. E.g. Haitians born in the Dominican Republic or the Bahamas.
44
Because, as you already know, citizenship is a law of the state, not a law of nature. We could change it if enough people wanted to. We could reduce everyone to the status of conditionally tolerated guests.
The point of citizenship is that it is advantageous to be a citizen. I think the laws of the United States should reflect the interests of the citizens of the United States and that it is not in the interests of American citizens to allow non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to remain here.
The majesty of the law at work.
Wait, was this motherfucker eating stolen bread under a bridge? Because fuck him.
Oh, Connie Chung. First, Maury Povich, now this.
it is not in the interests of American citizens to allow non-citizens convicted of serious crimes to remain here.
It's like you don't even read my links.
I have been chewed out on fb by someone who thinks I'm not sufficiently outraged by the sentence given to Dharun Ravi. He keeps referring to him as "Ratty."
I never say anything on facebook except to wish people a happy birthday.
I say every goddamn thing that comes into my mind on facebook.
That might cause some issues if I did it, but it would probably work better than when I said "happy birthday" to somebody's status update about their upcoming divorce following twenty years of marriage.
The point of citizenship is that all citizens are equal under the law, with the same rights, privileges and immunities as other citizens. Or something quaint like that.
I agree with 101. Deporting someone who has been living in the country since the age of two would be a very severe punishment. Doing it as a penalty for the electronic equivalent of, essentially, peeking through someone's window and seeing them kissing someone else is hideous. Not only is it a low-level, non-violent crime, it's barely even a crime at all. (Di seems to be talking about some completely different and imaginary case here.) The New Yorker account of the trial is particularly distressing - it sounds like a complete circus.
139
... Not only is it a low-level, non-violent crime, it's barely even a crime at all. ...
That's your opinion but the legislature decided otherwise.
No, Shearer, they agreed with me. Fourth degree invasion of privacy - the lowest possible level.
(Di seems to be talking about some completely different and imaginary case here.)
Thank you. I conceded that after Oud pointed out that I was relying on crap reporting. But I was beginning to think no one noticed...
duldung = a bit like "exceptional leave to remain" in the UK.
141
No, Shearer, they agreed with me. Fourth degree invasion of privacy - the lowest possible level
Ravi was convicted on 15 counts including:
Most significant, guilty of bias intimidation, a second-degree felony indicating Ravi targeted Clementi because he was gay and knew his actions would hurt him.
142: ah, I missed that. Sorry.
It's depressing, though, that this guy will probably serve more time in prison than George Zimmerman...
The guy who was calling D. Ravi "Ratty" is now comparing the general manager of the Metropolitan Opera to Hitler. Stop the internet! I want off!
145: Hey, I was just happy that you understood I was talking about a different case. And man I hope you are wrong about GZ -- that would indeed be depressing.
130: I think the laws of the United States should reflect the interests of the citizens of the United States
Why? What makes that a natural group to favor? If you're going to be selfish about it, why not just say that they should reflect your own personal interests. And if you're interested in fairness, why should that stop at the border? Why shouldn't our laws try to maximize global well-being?
145: Zimmerman is going to walk because the only crime that can be pinned on him is accosting Martin, which isn't a crime at all AFAIK. The evidence available so far is consistent with Zimmerman's account which makes him look like a dick but does not involve any actual crimes unless the accosting itself can somehow be painted as a bias crime. That's going to be hard given Zimmerman's history which shows him getting along just fine with people of all races.
Why shouldn't our laws try to maximize global well-being?
And ponies! Let's maximize ponies!
Pragmatically, the citizens of the United States voted for the people who write the laws of the United States, so it's fairly natural for the laws to be geared toward the people who vote for the lawmakers. Of course, that's not exactly how it works given that the elections are largely manipulated by monied interests, so in reality the laws are likely to be drafted to maximize the interests of the monied and we are all more or less doomed. And ponyless.
(Not sure why I've adopted this thread as the one in which to be a sullen, irritable cynic. But there it is.)
If only Zimmerman had spied on Trayvon Martin kissing a girl! It'd be the Big House for you then, George!
This is going to get contentious.
Much appreciated!
I think the Internet consistently overestimates the fun potential of the average pony. A pony that lived in a little corral near the Flip-Pater in that notorious patch of Flavor Country [inhales, gazes into distance, exhales curling, draconic smoke], western Massachusetts, seemed never to move an inch, rain or shine, except insofar as he felt it necessary to grow a shaggier mane for winter.
When I was little, we had a pony named Tarzan. He would only let you ride if you gave him an Orea first (or a Hydrox as he wasn't so much a slave to marketing).
Ore@ if you wish to be gender neutral. Not to be confused with orge@, an almond syrup used in Mai Tais.
When Buck was five, his parents had had to move back in with his greatgrandmother to take care of her after his greatgrandfather died, and they were feeling guilty about it being hard on the kids. That Christmas, he and his big sister both got ponies, and it was the best Christmas ever.
(Of course, 153 does make a good point. The ponies weren't terribly well trained. Buck's kicked him in the head once, and they had to get rid of them about a year later.)
157: This pony was really old and could have been named by a Johnny Weissmuller fan.
148 Never understood that argument. Should Chinese policy makers really place an equal emphasis on income growth in NYC and Beijing? Should NYC authorities place an equal emphasis on the welfare of people in Nassau and Brooklyn?
Did you know that Tarzana was named after Tarzan?
In unrelated news, I have always been somewhat unnerved that "Tarzan" means "White Skin." Really, Edgar? Really?
Unfogged Pastiche Challenge: Rewrite Tarzan of the Apes or another Tarzan novel of your choice, substituting for the ape-dude a character whose name means "White Privilege."
163: I've never read Tarzan stories myself, but I gather he actually owned slaves in the original stories. They were written while White Man's Burden was still a popular term, remember.
I've only read a couple of them, but I don't think he quite owned slaves. He had a tribe of African 'natives' who were ferociously personally loyal to him because of his compelling compellingness, but he hadn't bought them or anything, they were just kind of spontaneously obedient. Not that the books weren't horrific generally, of course.
And everyone should read at least the first one, which is spectacularly bizarre. He teaches himself to be literate in English by finding a children's alphabet book in the hut where his dead parents lived before he was found and adopted by the apes, and then communicates with Jane and her family when they show up by leaving hostile notes.
I don't think he quite owned slaves.
It's a good thing no one on the Internet ever takes anything out of context.
they had to get rid of them about a year later
Your household seems to have been a pretty good placement.
162: Mrs. K-sky's parents favor a little restaurant right near this celebratory mosaic.
Oops, 148 was me.
150: I understand why the people of the US on average have the incentive to prefer laws favoring the US. But considering only the average hides some relevant complicating factors:
Factions within the US can sometimes seize and use power to serve their interests at the expense of the interests of their fellow citizens. I don't understand why people who want to maximize global well-being oughtn't be able to form such a faction and on occasion prevail.
People often vote to express affiliation with nice-sounding sentiments or an ideology they favor, rather than their rational self-interest, narrowly defined. Poor people who vote against government spending on them, for example. Rich people who vote for a stronger safety net and higher taxes. Why should this stop at the border? Since a vote against one's narrowly considered self-interest is basically costless, we should try to encourage people to vote for the greatest-good policies.
Political actors often have some freedom as to which policies to adopt. If this weren't true, money in politics wouldn't be a problem, as the voting public would essentially exercise complete control over politicians' decisions. Since politicians (and regulators and judges and other instruments of the state) have this power, we should ask them to use it for good.
161: Yes, they ought to.
I don't remember that from my childhood, but that was before Whole Foods anyway.
170
Factions within the US can sometimes seize and use power to serve their interests at the expense of the interests of their fellow citizens. I don't understand why people who want to maximize global well-being oughtn't be able to form such a faction and on occasion prevail.
Because the United States is a democracy and most Americans don't believe foreigners are as important as Americans. But nothing is stopping you from running for President on your America last platform.
172 is right about this. For example, the US constituency for maximizing global well-being by moving jobs from the US to the Philippines has always been quite small, not that this has any effect on anything since everyone in the government is on the globalization team.
170
Another problem with a global well being faction is that in the real world it is apt to be co-opted by a militaristic, imperialistic, hubristic, America knows best faction with an obvious potential for bad consequences.
172: One doesn't need to be president to achieve some policy goals.
I think 174 agrees with me. You don't need a majority to get things done. All you need is good organization, and caring about issues that don't map perfectly onto the standard partisan axis.