Stay classy Tea Party

[Inquartata]

Your sarcasm in the comment I quoted said it very clearly.

Oh! You are an interpreter of tone!

Is that a superpower or something?

But seriously...no. Just no...to both of your interpretations.

Listen, actually I expect that I know better than you how often individuals in authority do wrong. So no, it's not "never", as you somehow divined that I meant. It's also not so often that it warrants people assuming that it must have happened in any given case simply because some aggrieved party alleges it. And that's really what I was addressing: That in this case, if I am understanding this correctly, ILS seems to have concluded that X true because person A claims that it is true, and because person B is "an authority", and therefore likely to be a villain. Or likelier to be a villain than A. And he defends this conclusion as being perfectly natural and acceptable, on the grounds that...well, I guess on the grounds that he has to conclude something. Suspending judgement because of a dearth of facts apparently isn't an option...

[Gav]

I really want to know whether Sarah Palin has had a boob job.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/10/palin_job/

[Inquartata]

I miss the little arrows you could click to expand the text field.

Yeah.

You can get a slightly larger one by clicking "Go advanced", but that's about it.

Appealing to extremes. What you say here is not nearly the same as a news agency reporting on an event.

No, of course it isn't.

But---are you saying that you believe everything you read from "a news agency"?

Actually, that's a very good example of the price of inaction.

Really?

So, drilling is inaction? What would NOT drilling have been, then?

Maybe not in theory, but in practice if you are expecting someone to be able to produce it (as it "isn't unusual" to ask for it) then you are, of course, expecting someone to carry it.

And we still don't actually know that's what happened. We only know that a guy claimed it happened, and some agency employee, somewhere, may have said that it's not unheard of in some context. We aren't actually given a quote, or a policy, just a brief assurance by a journalist that someone said something...

And of course, we both know that news stories are always 100% accurate in all details.

I am simply saying that racism exists and has manifested itself in law enforcement in the past.

Of course it does. As I noted to PhillipMJ, I suspect that I know that better than most on the board.

However, people who have somehow run afoul of the law lying to portray themselves as innocent victims also exists, and is a LOT more common than racism or abuse of authority.

Now, I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, because I have no more facts than you do. My question is: Why are you so ready to leap to a conclusion?

The current attitudes against immigration are feeding that fire and giving it legitimacy where it deserves none.

Only in the minds of those who were already all too willing to see it. Objectively, though, I see no reason to accept that disapproving of illegal immigration and its effects equal "giving legitimacy" to some people's pre-existing attitudes.

But this situation, where it seems to me that the man who was detained satisfied the officers request to identify himself, it seems at least partially racially motivated.

Or he says he did. Or he thinks he did.

Why are you so yare to skip over the possibility that he is wrong or lying? Why so prepared to take his word in its entirety, with no proof whatsoever?

As for "racially motivated", I don't see any evidence of that, either. Plenty of assumptions, but no evidence. But let's say that it was. Let's say that he was NOT selected at random, or because something about his truck, or his load, sent up a red flag. Let's say that the agent wasn't himself Hispanic---which we also aren't told, you will note---or that if he was he might still be prejudiced against Hispanics. Let's say all that.

Now: Where does that get us, if we look at it without expecting racism, and looking to find it?

I stand by my assertion that had he not been of Mexican decent, the officer would have been satisfied at least with the SS # coupled with the CDL.

You can believe it until your face turns blue, but if you have zero facts to support that belief. what does that say? You're basing conclusions about what happened in a real case on speculation about what might have happened in an imaginary one?

I'm using "racism" in the rawest sense of the word: treating someone differently due to race. Call it racial profiling if you will...

How exactly would that be useful, in a world where (a) so much smuggling is deliberately done using white drivers, and (b) where it's often impossible to tell what the driver of a vehicle looks like from outside it?

First of all, the assertion that it was tattered is pure guessing, let's remember that.

EXACTLY!

And so is virtually everything else either of us thinks we know about this incident.

Now, doesn't that make you just a little uneasy about arriving at a conclusion?

Secondly, he coupled that with his SS #.

He says.

And as we all know, criminals never lie. Still less do people trying to justify their case for a news camera ever lie.

This is the crux of the matter: You're erecting a logical edifice on a foundation of insubstantial allegations, imaginings and expectations. And still there's no doubt at all in your mind about what happened and why?

But coupled with a CDL, this should be at least minimally convincing.

For that matter, we don't know it was a CDL. I put that into your head. The guy just said "driver's licence". Maybe he wasn't even driving a commercial truck. Maybe it was a delivery truck---a pickup, who knows? Maybe he isn't even a commercial driver. He doesn't say, and our intrepid reporter---newsreader, rather---says that he is, but given that they don't even have his last name, can we be confident that they bothered to find out for sure?

You see how easy it is to make supposition look like confirmation? To fill in missing details from our own expectations?

But it still all boils down to the fact that, even after all of this, the expectation for him (especially as an out of state driver) to be able to provide his birth certificate is asinine.

More of the same. We aren't told that he's "an out-of-state driver". We're told he was born in California; we aren't told he lives there, was coming from there or going there, or in fact any trip details. For all we know he lives in Arizona...or Mexico. The only information we have is that his wife brought him his birth certificate. We aren't told from where, or how long it took. An hour? Six hours? Three days? Pretty thin reeds to hang a theory on, IMO...

What do you suggest? Yeah, they could be fake. Do you think that we should run a background check on ever Tom, Dick.... I mean.... every Jose, Jesus, and Jaime we see?

Maybe just the ones which their protocols dictate be checked. I'm cool with that.

What do YOU suggest? That they just take everyone's word that they're totally on the up and up? Disband Customs and Immigration, because it isn't necessary and is just going to racially profile and violate everyone's rights?

See? I can do the old straw man thing, too.

What would satisfy you? 3 forms of ID? 4? 5? When have we reached "reasonable"?

It's not up to me---or you. It's up to the duly appointed authorities whose job it is to determine such things. I don't know what the standards are...and neither do you. I don't know what would be ideal, or work best...and neither do you...

Inq, it's got nothing to do with whether or not I believe him

Clearly, it does---and you do...

I'm still trying to get at the why of that.

Yes, even after these checks he could still be lying.

You're still not getting it. He "could be lying" all the way through. About everything, or anything. We don't know, but you assume otherwise. Why?

But we are a free society, and innocence is presumed, whether you like it or not.

In court, not anywhere else.

And I think you are being naive because it fits your worldview.

The funny thing is, what you put here is the opposite of trusting, it's cynicism!

Cynicism is a wide-spectrum drug. It doesn't work well when you choose to be suspicious of one "side", and give the other a pass..."because it suits your world view". ( smily )

See, I really haven't formed an opinion on what actually happened, much less on why it happened. It may look that way, because I'm having to work so hard on dragging you off of your essentially unfounded opinion. I'm stepping on one side of the scale in an attempt to get it back to a balance, because you've sat yourself firmly down on the other side. But the facts in evidence don't prove that the guy's story is 100% correct, 100% false or anywhere in between. They don't prove anything. That's the whole problem here.

Transparency regulation. Use of nuclear power. Economic stimulus.

Hmm, I don't recall any of those arguments...

[phillipmj]

Oh! You are an interpreter of tone!

Is that a superpower or something?

Yes. Yes, it is.

[lindajdunn]

Sharron Angle

Among other statements: Fluoridation is a communist plot. Require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer. Eliminate the EPA, Social Security, the Departments of Education and Energy, the National Endowment for the Arts. The oil industry needs more de-regulation. Outlaw alcohol.

I imagine that last one will be the most problematic for her campaign.

but as one of her supporters put it: She's a godly woman. She has all the attributes of Jesus.

[migopod]

All the attributes? Is being nailed to a piece of wood considered an attribute or is it a method? It's important to document these things.

// attribute:
try{
Jesus sharronAngle= new Jesus();
if(sharronAngle.nailedToPieceOfWood == true){
System.out.println("Yup!");
}

//method
Jesus sharronAngle= new Jesus();
sharonAngle.nailToPieceOfWood();
} catch(EntityExistenceException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}

[jeff]

Sharron Angle

Among other statements: Fluoridation is a communist plot. Require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer. Eliminate the EPA, Social Security, the Departments of Education and Energy, the National Endowment for the Arts. The oil industry needs more de-regulation. Outlaw alcohol.

I imagine that last one will be the most problematic for her campaign.

but as one of her supporters put it: She's a godly woman. She has all the attributes of Jesus.

They'll pry my beer can out of my cold, dead, hands! What a wacko. Not that that necessarily will keep her from being elected.

Hey, migopod, how come you use "if(sharronAngle.nailedToPieceOfWood == true)" when "if(sharronAngle.nailedToPieceOfWood)" should suffice?

[Gav]

Sharron Angle

...

but as one of her supporters put it: She's a godly woman. She has all the attributes of Jesus.

She's: from the middle east, born in a manger, wears sandals, has a beard, performs the occasional miracle, been nailed to a cross - alledgedly died then resurrected - and is one third of a divine being?

Gosh that's some resumé. Sounds perfect for Nevada. Glad I don't live there.

[migopod]

'cause I should probably have checked what the type was before assuming it was boolean.

(actually to be honest, it's largely because I'm transitioning from python and ruby style languages to java, and I'm really used to being able to evaluate a variable in such a way that Null == 0 == False == "" == [] =={} etc. pretty much interchangeably, and I'm currently forcing myself to evaluate variables much more explicitly so I don't end up with something like:

String pants=null;
if (!pants){ System.out.println("Ha! No pants!"); }

and expect it to work like I'm used to.)

[Inquartata]

Yes. Yes, it is.

Cool.

But remember: No capes. Capes kill.

Sharron Angle

Among other statements: Fluoridation is a communist plot. Require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer. Eliminate the EPA, Social Security, the Departments of Education and Energy, the National Endowment for the Arts. The oil industry needs more de-regulation. Outlaw alcohol.

Yeah. I am not sure what it is about Libertarianism which leads to loopy positions. That's why my interest in Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy was short-lived, too.

She's: from the middle east, born in a manger, wears sandals, has a beard, performs the occasional miracle, been nailed to a cross - alledgedly died then resurrected - and is one third of a divine being?

SIR, are you alleging that she is a homasecshul, SIR?!

[Hauptman]

Yeah. I am not sure what it is about Libertarianism which leads to loopy positions. That's why my interest in Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy was short-lived, too.

Is she a Libertarian? Outlawing alcohol (or anything else for that matter) seems very anti-Libertarian to me.

[I_luv_saber]

Most Libertarians I've dealt with are anti-Libertarian.

[Inquartata]

Antidisestablishmentlibertarians?

[erik_blank]

Antidisestablishmentlibertarians?

Reportedly cured by this person:

[kalivor]

And as we all know, criminals never lie. Still less do people trying to justify their case for a news camera ever lie.

Whoa! If there's one thing we know, it's that he was released. If he was ever held, anyways. Seems unlikely to be a criminal.

Could quite well be a liar with an agenda, but there's no reason to consider him a criminal.

we are a free society, and innocence is presumed, whether you like it or not.

This, I think, is actually the core of Inq's arguments. The driver claims to have been unreasonably detained.

HE is the one making an accusation. We have no record, and the article makes plain that no fact checking has occurred -- the article's author is very careful to make clear that he is reporting the man's accusations, rather than facts.

With no facts, if we are to assume innocence, we must assume the state trooper innocent until the story is revealed. Yes?

[Philistine]

This, I think, is actually the core of Inq's arguments. The driver claims to have been unreasonably detained.

HE is the one making an accusation. We have no record, and the article makes plain that no fact checking has occurred -- the article's author is very careful to make clear that he is reporting the man's accusations, rather than facts.

With no facts, if we are to assume innocence, we must assume the state trooper innocent until the story is revealed. Yes?

As you note above--he was unreasonably detained. According to the story, An ICE spokesperson, after doing some investigation determined this was standard procedure. A US citizen was detained in order to determine whether he was a US citizen.

My guess is that there was something else going on -- suspicion of either drugs or some sort of Homeland Security issue (most likely drugs), and the "immigration" nature of the detention was a ruse to gain time to conduct a search of his truck or other investigation--but that's just a WAG.

Whole situation feels a little off.

I'd be interested to see what, exactly, the "reasonable suspicion" was that he was not a US citizen, assuming this is really what it was.

--Philistine

[kalivor]

As you note above--he was unreasonably detained. According to the story, An ICE spokesperson, after doing some investigation determined this was standard procedure. A US citizen was detained in order to determine whether he was a US citizen.

My guess is that there was something else going on -- suspicion of either drugs or some sort of Homeland Security issue (most likely drugs), and the "immigration" nature of the detention was a ruse to gain time to conduct a search of his truck or other investigation--but that's just a WAG.

Whole situation feels a little off.

I'd be interested to see what, exactly, the "reasonable suspicion" was that he was not a US citizen, assuming this is really what it was.

--Philistine

The problem is that it cannot be fact-checked. The guy refuses to give a last name, making fact-checking by the reporter or a response from the authorities somewhere between difficult and impossible.

So we have someone who claims he was detained unreasonably. If his story stands up as true, everything ILS has been saying is 100% valid. But he is also making his accusation in a manner that cannot be substantiated. Why give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance?

[I_luv_saber]

The problem is that it cannot be fact-checked. The guy refuses to give a last name, making fact-checking by the reporter or a response from the authorities somewhere between difficult and impossible.

So we have someone who claims he was detained unreasonably. If his story stands up as true, everything ILS has been saying is 100% valid. But he is also making his accusation in a manner that cannot be substantiated. Why give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance?

Well, as the article states, they contacted an ICE official who said her research of the incident showed standard operating procedure. So, I would be a little surprised that she didn't say anything about the incident being fabricated or facts being wrong at the time...

[Inquartata]

Whoa! If there's one thing we know, it's that he was released. If he was ever held, anyways. Seems unlikely to be a criminal.

Well, fair enough.

HE is the one making an accusation. We have no record, and the article makes plain that no fact checking has occurred -- the article's author is very careful to make clear that he is reporting the man's accusations, rather than facts.

With no facts, if we are to assume innocence, we must assume the state trooper innocent until the story is revealed. Yes?

In essence.

As you note above--he was unreasonably detained.

We don't know this, unless we are each going to provide our own definitions of "unreasonable". I suspect that the legal standard is not so idiosyncratic---and until we know what it is, we cannot know whether his detention was reasonable or not. If it was within agency protocols, which presumably have passed legal review, then it would have been reasonable...

According to the story, An ICE spokesperson, after doing some investigation determined this was standard procedure.

Except that we don't know what was actually said; whether the spokesperson was qualified and knowledgeable on the specific matter in question, or even with the right department; whether the inquiries were clear and wholly understood; whether the responses were accurately and completely understood; and whether they were correctly summarized in the news story. ( Clearly there was no claim that they were being quoted verbatim, nor was the spokesperson identified. )

How many stages were there in this game of "Telephone"? The spokesman to, probably, a fact-checker/researcher, to the writing reporter, to the anchor...that at a minimum, I think. And over how long a time?

My guess is that there was something else going on -- suspicion of either drugs or some sort of Homeland Security issue (most likely drugs), and the "immigration" nature of the detention was a ruse to gain time to conduct a search of his truck or other investigation--but that's just a WAG.

Or else they were puzzled as to why a grown man claiming to have been born in the US had such a heavy accent. That would have aroused my suspicions.

I have Hispanic neighbors who scarcely speak any English. Their children---the youngest about 5 or 6---speak Spanish with their parents, but at need speak almost unaccented English.

Maybe the guy was home-schooled. Maybe he was born in Fresno and then his family moved to Mexico for the next 20 years. There are reasonable explanations. But on its face it might well raise red flags. Combine that with an aged aged or damaged driver's license, an indistinct or very different photo on it or an inaccurate physical description, a nervous manner, who knows what...

That's the problem: We even don't know what we don't know.

[I_luv_saber]

Except that we don't know what was actually said; whether the spokesperson was qualified and knowledgeable on the specific matter in question, or even with the right department; whether the inquiries were clear and wholly understood; whether the responses were accurately and completely understood; and whether they were correctly summarized in the news story. ( Clearly there was no claim that they were being quoted verbatim, nor was the spokesperson identified. )

Honestly Inq, I could make the argument that the bloody moon isn't made of cheese and you would take issue with the evidence supporting it.