What Libertarians don’t understand

There’s lots of things our government does that I disagree with. So I try to elect people who will pass laws that I agree with. Sometimes I lose and a bunch of laws are passed I don’t like.

I don’t claim then that those laws are “forced” against me and that my rights are being violated.all-cats-are-libertarians-mary-fanning

And that’s the reason why many of us just can’t debate some libertarians, because they have this double standard: If they like the law personally, it’s fine but if they don’t like it, they are being forced to obey it and that’s just evil!

I don’t think laws I don’t like are evil. They were passed through our democratic process and I can try to get that changed. I don’t always get my way. That’s what democracy is all about. Sometimes your side loses.

If libertarians said, “Well, we lost, but we’ll try to win next time” then we can discuss the merits of libertarian philosophy. But instead we often get “You people who won are taking away my right to not obey the laws I don’t feel like obeying!”

Well, suck it up. We all have laws we don’t like that we have to obey. That’s what being in a democratic society is all about.

The main problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that they see programs where we ask everyone to pitch in a little to help everyone a lot as “theft” and then complain that they are “forced at gunpoint” to pay taxes to support this stuff.

That’s where they lose me. Every society in the history of this planet has asked its members to support it in some way. Even the most basic society made you pick berries for the good of the tribe.

We can disagree on how much we should do — that’s a legitimate debate. We can discuss how to make taxation fairer.

But when libertarians say any program is a violation of their rights and all taxation is theft, then instead of looking principled, they just look, well, selfish.

Pick some berries, guys.

Editorial cartoon: Acme tactics

roge160128

Rob Rogers

Driving While Black

Let me tell you about a recent case I had.

My client is a young black kid in college.  He’s never been in trouble before in his life. His dad is a successful businessman.

Being a good kid, he was allowed to borrow Dad’s expensive car to hang out with his friends. He did.

On the way home, he gets pulled over by a cop, who cites as the reason an “obscured license plate,” meaning it was covered in mud or something and the officer couldn’t read it. They’re allowed to stop to make sure it isn’t a false plate or something. (Actually, these days, cops can pull you over for just about anything, but that’s a topic for another day.)

My client is cooperative and polite.police car

The officer then says to my client that he wants to search the car. Thanks to a recent decision by a Republican-run Pennsylvania Supreme Court,*  you have no privacy rights in your car and the police can pretty much search whenever they want to. So my client, not wanting to cause a fuss, agrees. The officer finds a small amount of marijuana, left there by one of my client’s friends.

It should be noted that the officer detected no sign that my client was under the influence of marijuana — because he wasn’t. My client says he never smokes, and I have no reason to doubt that. Officers look for things like the smell of burnt marijuana, glassy eyes, and you know, the kind of way stoned people act. Had the officer thought there was any sign of that he would have taken my client in for a blood test and then, if there was a positive result, charged him with Driving Under the Influence.

So my client gets charged with Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana.

He continues on his way home.

As he nears home, he gets pulled over again. This time, this new officer says he’s pulling him over because the windows were too harshly tinted. Same thing happens — he doesn’t suspect my client of having committed any crime but demands a search anyway, and finds a grinder that the first cop missed. Now my client gets charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of Marijuana (for the few seeds found in the grinder).

Notice that the first cop never mentioned tinted windows and the second cop never mentioned an obscured license plate. Note as well that my client was never charged with the supposed reasons for the stops.

Now, for all my white friends: How often has this happened to you? How often are you pulled over for tinted windows or an obscured license plate or something else that is solely based on the officer’s opinion? A light out is an objective thing that makes sense for a traffic stop; how much tint is too much? How much mud is too much? Those kinds of things are judgment calls.

In my job as a defense attorney, I see those kinds of stops all the time, and almost always for young, dark-skinned men in expensive cars. In fact, as I have written about before, my Office Manager’s husband — a dark-skinned Hispanic businessman — gets pulled over probably once every two or three months for these kinds of reasons. He stands by and waits while the officer searches his car and always finds nothing and then he either gets a warning or a minor ticket that is hardly worth fighting over.

And many of my clients have similar stories, the worst of which are when the police find money and no other sign of criminal activity but keep the money because “it must have come from drugs!” Often, the cost of hiring an attorney to fight to get the money back is more than the amount of money taken, so ca-ching! Free money for the police fund. (That’s where a lot of those police tanks and other military gear comes from, you know.)

Now, are all police profiling black drivers? Oh, of course not. But when you see it happen as often as those of us in the criminal justice system see, you realize that there’s something going on here.

Once I was discussing a case in chambers with a judge who said that the police clearly knew what they were doing since she sees so many cases where drugs have been found during these searches. “That’s because you never hear about the stops where nothing is found,” I countered. “It looks like 100% of all searches are successful to you, because those are the only cases that come before you.” To her credit, she nodded, as if she had never considered that fact before.

And I think that’s where a lot of white people are — they don’t personally see it, so they think it doesn’t happen.

Now back to my case: There were two different DAs assigned to this case because they happened in two different jurisdictions, but I got them to talk to each other. They saw what was going on agreed to give my client probation without a verdict — he doesn’t plead guilty, and as long as he stays out of trouble and doesn’t test positive for any drugs (not a problem for him) the matter will eventually be dismissed and wiped from his record.

And boy, has he learned not to let those particular friends ride in his car any more.

 

*The good news is that thanks to some of these judges now being forced to resign due to various scandals, including one judge who is now in jail, a bunch of Democrats were elected to replace them. So this policy may change in the future.

Editorial cartoon: Separate but unequal

Mike Luckovich

Fact against you? Just deny them!

Carly Fiorino and the other GOP candidates have railed about for months over a faked video that claimed that Planned Parenthood was harvesting baby parts. It’s been discredited by everyone, and the guy who made it admitted it was fake, but that hasn’t stopped them from repeating the lie.

ppfa-tornoe-final

cartoon by Rob Tornoe

They even managed to get a Grand Jury to investigate this supposed terrible crime. Yesterday, the Grand Jury came back and exonerated Planned Parenthood and instead indicted the guys who made the fake video.

So all the Republicans finally admitted they were wrong.

Ha ha! Just kidding! They instead doubled down on the falsehood, insisting that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they were still right.

Is anyone at all surprised by this? This is the party that regularly denies facts that are inconvenient to their ideology. They refuse to accept climate change and evolution. They insist that trickle down economics work. They claim Obamacare has killed jobs, that gun control doesn’t reduce gun deaths, that “voter fraud” is a major problem, that Obama has raised the deficit, that a majority of Americans are against gay marriage, and that some sort of conspiracy happened in Benghazi (I still haven’t quite figured out exactly what they are talking about there).

And they are easily proven wrong every single time.

While this mindset is not limited to Republicans, one does not see it at the top levels of the Democratic party in the same way you see Republican leaders spout out untruths like that.

I can kind of understand the people at the top repeating these lies as a way to give them more power. Evil leaders have done that forever. But are there no honest people any more in the Republican party? No one who will say, “Hey, that’s not true. We shouldn’t be saying that.”

Apparently not.

 

Editorial cartoon: Lady and the Trump

lady

Glenn McCoy

Cancer Cure Conspiracy Nonsense

I’ve never quite understood how my liberal friends can laugh at those who claim there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are lying about climate change while at the same time embracing their own conspiracy theories about vaccines or cancer cures.

cancer_cures1

What if I told you this was bullshit?

Seriously?  I mean, I don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry either, but to hold that they are all conspiring to prevent a cure for cancer because it’s more profitable to treat patients than cure them? You honestly and sincerely believe that?

Let’s look at why such a belief is nonsense:

  1. This is a very American way of looking at it, as if no other country was researching a cure. Health care may be profit-generating here in this country, but we are the only advanced country where that is the case — where your health depends on your income. Other countries are not that way, and in fact, if they could find a cure, it would greatly reduce the costs for their national health care policy. In the rest of the world, finding a cure is the way to have more money.
  2. A lot of research happens in colleges where profit-making is not the goal, or with non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society. It’s not all about making money even here.
  3. The medical providers may make more money treating someone than curing them, but who pays that money? Most of the time, it’s the insurance companies. Insurance companies in America really run things, and there’s nothing they’d love more than finding a cure that will save them all that money.
  4. The person or organization that cures cancer will be heroes. They will win Nobel prizes and be praised everywhere. The incentive for finding a cure vastly outweighs whatever benefits may be given to individuals for not finding the cure.
  5. Researchers have family and friends too. They’ve watched loved ones die from cancer. You really think they don’t care? You really think they’re all mustachioed Snidley Whiplash types going “Nyah ha ha! I am on the brink of saving my wife from cancer but I will keep that secret so I can keep making lots of money”? Further, let’s not forget that even CEOs of pharmaceutical groups (and their family members) have died from cancer — you think they weren’t trying to find a cure?
  6. Cures have been found. Great strides have been made against cancer. There are lots of different kinds of cancer as well, so there’s not going to be one cure that solves them all anyway. If this conspiracy theory were true, none of these cures would have been found, right?
  7. There are lots of companies making various treatments for cancer, and they’re all in competition. The one that finds the cure will have a monopoly on that cure, and will make much more money selling that cure at that point.

While it is important to be a skeptic, you need to be a skeptic about everything or else you’re being hypocritical. Treat your own personal beliefs with the same skepticism you give other beliefs and you may be surprised at how many of your own beliefs will also fall.

Editorial cartoon: Is this thing on?

Darrin Bell

Thoughts on last night’s Democratic debate

It’s clear that the Democratic establishment is for Hillary, since they keep scheduling the debates on weekends when the audience will be the smallest. When you’re ahead in the polls, you want less debates — that’s just normal. Why risk anything?

Overall, the debates always help the challengers and hurt the front-runner. I think Bernie and O’Malley did well and probably improved their chances.  (Ha ha! I implied that O’Malley had a chance!)GTY_Martin_omalley_Hillary_Clinton_Bernie_Sanders1_ml_151012_16x9_992

Bernie was a bit too much like a politician in that he had his talking points he wanted to get out and he was going to work them in whenever possible. He also demanded to respond to comments made by Hillary a few times but instead of responding, he made new points. Not impressive there.

Hillary was quite good in some places and really dishonest in others, such as implying that Bernie was against Obamacare when he was one of the Senators writing the damn thing. “He wants to get rid of Obamacare!” she said. No, Hillary, Bernie wants to replace Obamacare with Medicare for All, a much better plan.

Hillary also argued that we need to be brave and fight for what is right while at the same time saying that we can’t fight for Medicare for All because it just wouldn’t pass. “Vote for me and together, we can accomplish mediocre things!”

So much politics is about personality. If Sanders were 20 years younger and looked and talked like George Clooney, he’d be way ahead in the polls.

When asked how they would bring the country together, Hillary’s answer wasn’t too convincing. “The Republicans have hated me since the 90s but they’ll work with me once I am President. Honest.”

“Democrats: We actually believe in science!” – Martin O’Malley.  Now there’s a good campaign slogan.

This is a major difference between the Democratic debate and the Republican debate: None of the Democrats think a good foreign policy is “bomb them all until they glow.”

Overall, it was a much more boring debate than the Republican ones, partially because these guys basically like each other and agree 90% of the time. No matter who gets the nominations, the others will support him or her. Plus they are sane.

 

Editorial cartoon: Wrong

telnaes

Ann Telnaes