This January, rookie NFL cheerleader Lacy T. kicked things off when she filed a class action lawsuit against the Oakland Raiders, alleging that the team fails to pay its Raiderettes minimum wage, withholds their pay until the end of the season, imposes illegal fines for minor infractions (like gaining 5 pounds), and forces cheerleaders to pay their own business expenses (everything from false eyelashes to monthly salon visits). Within a month, Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Alexa Brenneman had filed a similar suit against her team, claiming that the Ben-Gals are paid just $2.85 an hour for their work on the sidelines. And Tuesday, five former Buffalo Bills cheerleaders filed suit against their own team, alleging that the Buffalo Jills were required to perform unpaid work for the team for about 20 hours a week. Unpaid activities included: submitting to a weekly “jiggle test” (where cheer coaches “scrutinized the women's stomach, arms, legs, hips, and butt while she does jumping jacks”); parading around casinos in bikinis “for the gratification of the predominantly male crowd”; and offering themselves up as prizes at a golf tournament, where they were required to sit on men’s laps on the golf carts, submerge themselves in a dunk tank, and perform backflips for tips (which they did not receive). The Buffalo Jills cheerleaders take home just $105 to $1,800 for an entire season on the job.
Once I got over the shock and horror that cheerleaders had anything to do with gratifying a predominantly male crowd -- I needed two fainting couches, a damp cloth and a powder -- and once again had control of my faculties, this occurred to me: Cheerleaders, if you don't like the pay, why don't you just quit and take your bounteous talents elsewhere?
There’s another reason it’s taken so long for the cheerleaders to speak up: feminism. Professional cheerleaders have always presented a dilemma for the traditional feminist movement. On the one hand, feminism is committed to fighting for fair pay for women in all areas where they are discriminated against because of their gender. On the other hand, this particular kind of labor—one where women, not men, are enlisted to jiggle their assets at the local golf tournament—suggests another kind of gendered exploitation, and one that’s hard for some feminists to rush to defend. (Headlines about the recent spate of cheerleader lawsuits may focus on the scandalous details, but looking sexy for men is a feature of the job, not a bug.) Lately, it seems the feminist movement has caught up to the cause; it’s no longer particularly controversial to stand up for the legal rights of the women who perform work that nevertheless fails to reflect the ideal, gender-equitable society.
Whenever a phrase like "... ideal, gender equitable society" lurks, re-education camps are not far behind.
Here is proof that not all cheerleaders are the falsely conscioused dim bulb tools of the hetero-normative patriarchy that all ideal gender equitable feminists know them to be:
[One] former Raiderettes cheerleader ... thinks these lawsuits are a feminist conspiracy to attempt to end cheerleading for good.
112 comments:
[One] former Raiderettes cheerleader ... thinks these lawsuits are a feminist conspiracy to attempt to end cheerleading for good.
Obviously, a brunette.
Reminds me of the campaign against unpaid internships. Again, why not just not do it? It's the Modern American Left mentality, though - "others should be forced by government to do what is best for me".
I do have a question about legality within you system here.
There is a minimum wage set by law, right? And the cheerleading does look to be an economical activity. So, what exempts this particular business from paying the said mininum wage?
As I understand it, any teenager selling burgers in a fast food is getting better pay than those girls. Why aren't them selling burgers too? There is no shortage of restaurants where their beauty makes them easily employable, right? Rational expectations theory does look be in serious trouble here.
Skipper,
BTW, it is off-topic, but it is about something we discussed here before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Clovis;
I suspect they play games with hours, and I think some occupations are exempted (e.g., waitresses). Also, of course, in any regulated economy regulations will be "flexible" for the right people (e.g., famous NFL people).
I take the opportunity to ask then another related question, this one showing my complete cultural ignorance of the topic: what's the matter about cheerleaders?
It really makes no sense at all to me. You are watching a game and then a bunch of girls take the intervals to make some senseless jumping and shouting. It is just so boring.
Please, don't tell me this is only about seeing nice girls jumping around, there really are better ways to watch that too.
This is a lawsuit, not an appeal to government. We can argue minimum wage laws, but I'm kind of hoping that it hasn't become prevailing conservative orthodoxy that if these girls don't like having their pay withheld, being fined, being offered as first prize at golf tournaments, having to pay all the beauty expenses demanded, being oogled for "jiggle tests" having to sit on the laps of aging rich lounge lizards and being stiffed on tips, the solution is for them to just quit. No harm, no foul, right? Boys will be boys?
If I'm wrong and this is the mainstream thinking on the right, I see a promsing future for the left.
In high school being selected a cheerleader is a status thing. They go out with the football players or in a pinch, the basketball players.
Colleges and universities are so diverse, there's room for many many different cliques and interest levels, so cheerleaders and athletes are only part of the mix.
In professional athletics, the cheerleaders are self-selected. They are part of the pageantry of the games. The prize is getting to meet rich old men and rich young men many of whom succumb to their charms and even marry them.
These girls can be reasonably sure that none of the above would be in their future working for minimum wage at a fast food emporium.
From the article: "...the squad members themselves ... told me they appreciated the opportunity to cheer, regardless of the monetary benefits. ..."
Cheerleading is one of the areas where the participant has the "opportunity" to be watched by thousands or maybe even millions of people. Some people get off (so to speak) on that sort of thing.
What if someone was willing to pay to be a cheerleader on an NFL team? Would that or should that be allowed? If not, why not? If so, why doesn't that fall afoul of minimum wage laws? Should all volunteer work be subject to minimum wage laws? Should the church choir be paid?
One of the problems of the concept of minimum wage, in my opinion, falls along the spectrum of "I would pay to do that" to "No way would I do that unless paid well." There's an awful lot of activities in that gray area.
[Clovis:] There is a minimum wage set by law, right? And the cheerleading does look to be an economical activity. So, what exempts this particular business from paying the said minimum wage?
Yes, but.
It is clear that cheerleading is an activity, but much less so that it is an economical one. After all, a fair number of NFL teams do not have cheerleaders, and still manage to turn a profit. Also, it isn't clear that the teams aren't paying the minimum wage while the cheerleaders are "on the clock". And, to muddy the waters, essentially all college football teams have cheerleaders, none of whom are paid a thing. Yet NFL cheerleaders, who are actually getting paid something, aren't getting paid enough. Keep in mind, college football is just as much as business as the NFL.
Moreover, unless these women really are helpless bimbos, they knew full well what the deal was going in, and eagerly competed for the chance to do it.
Rational expectations theory does look be in serious trouble here.
Only for collectivists, for whom the number of Persuaders (my catch-all term for currencies — no matter what they are called, dollars, loonies, pounds, etc, they all exist for the same reason: to persuade people to give you stuff, or do things for you.) is the only figure of merit.
Others realize that there can be significant non-monetary forms of compensation — motherhood being the singularly outstanding example of an activity that millions women, much to the chagrin of humorless and clueless feminists, willingly engage in at the expense of a bigger pile of persuaders.
[Peter:] This is a lawsuit, not an appeal to government.
How is a lawsuit not an appeal to government? It the plaintiffs win, then the government will step in to enforce damages, and impose its will upon what had been individual choice.
We can argue minimum wage laws, but I'm kind of hoping that it hasn't become prevailing conservative orthodoxy that if these girls don't like having their pay withheld …
I would hope that prevailing conservative orthodoxy is that these women are fully functioning adults, not tender flowers who can't possibly be expected to make their own decisions, and require daddygovernment to protect them from themselves.
After all, it isn't as if the terms weren't already well known.
Perhaps oddly, this points out that minimum wage laws are a very real imposition on freedom. Below some government fixed limit, people are not free to offer, nor employers purchase, their labor.
Instead, they must be unemployed.
Which is what will happen if these lawsuits succeed. NFL cheerleaders, who provide no significant economic benefits to the teams, will no longer be allowed to do what they want to do.
Collectivism on parade.
Skipper:
I would hope that prevailing conservative orthodoxy is that these women are fully functioning adults
Indeed, and I assume the same thing should be said about the owners. The basis of contract law is that both sides are held to the terms of the contract. It would be wise for everybody to hear the evidence, and if it is shown that it was expressly explained to the girls that they would be paid at whim, would have their tips withheld, were expected to do "jiggle" tests and do complimentary lap dances on rich geezers, you may have a point. Wanna bet on that?
I've known two professional cheerleaders and neither were like erp's rather outrageous stereotype. The charge that women are just looking for rich partners is made frequently about a lot of jobs (nurses?), but what has that got to do with anything? Is that a licence to exploit them as toys?
If you have come to see the judicial system as just an arm of government, you badly need to study some constitutional history and theory.
I certainly think Peter's point about contract law is a strong one - if the NFL teams violated the terms of the employment agreement, it's not an appeal to the government to force compliance and compensation for violations.
But, "fails to pay its Raiderettes minimum wage' is not such a claim. I fully support the cheerleaders in any claims that are violations of their employment contract but that as the lead makes me doubtful.
aog wrote: "...but that as the lead makes me doubtful."
Yeah, me too. If it were a contract violation, it would be a straightforward case, I would think, and that detail would be near the top of the article.
Maybe the lesson here is that people get to express too strong opinions before even knowing either the details of the case or their own laws on minimum wage.
Peter, let me guess: The two professional cheerleaders you know were working their way through law school. ;-}
The cheerleaders knew what they were getting into including being raffled off as prizes, etc., so they're hardly being exploited as toys.
Ridiculous charges that nurses and other professional women work to entice rich men are just that ridiculous and the comparison is bogus.
Skipper,
---
[Clovis] Rational expectations theory does look be in serious trouble here.
Only for collectivists, for whom the number of Persuaders [...] is the only figure of merit.
---
That's a pretty unfair accusation to hold for a physicist, for whom "significant non-monetary forms of compensation" is a good part of the job's motivation (it must be, since the salary surely is not).
I was not aware that anyone would bother to be a cheerleader for anything other than money. For purely cultural bias (or ignorance, if you prefer), I can't phantom how someone would do that unless offered quite some pile of Persuaders.
Reading Erp's explanation, I conclude I truly do not understand how your code for social contacts work. There are womem looking for good partners (which include rich partners) in every society, but I guess only in the US they need to through such strange rituals to achieve that.
If I add to that the other apparently US-only phenomena we have just discussed in other thread (beautiful young teachers in need of boys attention), I can only conclude that the males in your society are not fulfulling their roles very well.
Clovis, in your experience where would beautiful girls with no connections meet rich men or be seen by people in show business.
Appearing on television where they are seen by many millions of people seems a dream come true if that is your goal.
… and if it is shown that it was expressly explained to the girls that they would be paid at whim, would have their tips withheld, were expected to do "jiggle" tests and do complimentary lap dances on rich geezers, you may have a point. Wanna bet on that?
Yes, indeed, I do.
These women were not de novo cheerleaders. Unless the teams suddenly and drastically changed the terms of employment — wanna bet on that? — then the women were signing on to a gig that about which they could not possibly be ignorant. Unless, of course, women, particularly ones who can pass jiggle tests, are too simple to grasp the readily apparent. Or, failing that, to simply quit when the readily apparent became inescapably obvious.
If you have come to see the judicial system as just an arm of government, you badly need to study some constitutional history and theory.
I'm not sure what you mean by "just an arm of government", just as I am baffled about what you meant by "this is a lawsuit, not an appeal to government".
(As you well know, I am not a lawyer, so please school me if I get any of this wrong.) By definition, a lawsuit is an appeal by the plaintiff to direct government power upon the defendant. The cheerleaders could have quit, they could have picketed, they could have organized boycotts with the goal of either avoiding an, to them, unacceptable arrangement, or using non-government means to change the behavior of the teams' management.
In contrast, a lawsuit is government all the way down.
The charge that women are just looking for rich partners is made frequently about a lot of jobs (nurses?), but what has that got to do with anything? Is that a licence to exploit them as toys?
By tossing the word "exploit" in there, you have made an implicit, but unexplained, assumption.
IF the women didn't know the deal going in, AND IF they couldn't escape the deal once in, THEN you can use the word "exploit".
However, if either one of those conditions isn't true, particularly the second, then "exploit" is simply wrong. If their basic allegations are correct, then there are any number of jobs the cheerleaders could have gotten that would have paid far more, even at the minimum wage.
If you believe, as I do, that women are fully fledged adults capable of making their own decisions, then this whole thing is a non-starter. On the other hand, if you are a feminist, then certain kinds of women are too addle-brained to function on their own.
[Clovis:] Maybe the lesson here is that people get to express too strong opinions before even knowing either the details of the case or their own laws on minimum wage.
I don't think so. I seriously doubt the terms of employment have changed. This is like a waitress working at Hooters (google [wikipedia hooters restaurant] if the reference isn't clear) for three years then suing the company for the fact she had to wear revealing clothes on the job.
They volunteered — more than that, they competed — to get these jobs, about which they cannot possibly (feminist caveats about the inferior reasoning abilities of curvaceous women notwithstanding) have been ignorant.
Any details beyond that, and especially minimum wage laws, are beside the point.
Skipper:
Even the most doctrinaire libertarian will say government is necssary to provide defence and enforce contracts. Now you have managed to cast the enforcement of employment contracts as the heavy hand of government interference.
But that isn't really the point. I have no idea whether minimum wage laws apply to cheerleaders, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they do. If you want to mount a campaign to repeal or change them, fill your boots, but to argue there is something illegitimate about employees trying to enforce them and other express or implied contractual terms on the dismissive grounds they are little better than hookers (if they are looking for rich husbands, what do you think these rich old geezers are looking for?)and beneath your contempt is to dismiss the rule of law. Is your argument really that these rich teams should be exempt from the application of the law of the land because you don't like the law? That employees should be held to "consent" (and you aren't talking about express consent, obviously) on the basis that they "knew what they were getting into" even if the law prohibits it? I appreciate that libertarians are in a revolutionary mood these days, but the right to oogle jiggle tests is a long way from Patrick Henry.
You have written some interesting arguments on the natural differences between men and women in public life and how doctrinaire equality ignores reality. Sorry, but this wasn't one of them. If conservative theory now defends the timeless material and sexual exploitation of young women by rich old men on the basis that the former are "adults" and therefore asking for it, it's just another step on the road to political marginalization as far as I'm concerned. What's next, how market theory in the film industry justifies the casting couch?
Peter,
You don't really get it, do you?
It is very simple: the point for our Libertarian friends here is that those girl can always quit their jobs and open their own business. Anything else is govt sanctioning of progressive-collectivist looters.
Clovis, I've been jousting with these gentlemen for almost a decade. Believe me, I get it. I probably agree with them more often than not, but with this kind of stuff I feel like they are mirror images of marxists, distorting very complex realities with simple all-purpose mantras.
But maybe you and I are just hopeless old-fashioned prudes who don't understand that rich liberty-loving businesspeople, who keep the socialist hordes at bay and whose every penny of wealth can be attibuted to a lifetime of hard work, should be rewarded with a little underpaid slap-and-tickle from scantitly-clad young women as our thanks to them for keeping the flame of freedom burning.
Peter:
Who exactly do you think is rewarding whom? How do we (whoever that is) get involved?
In every instance of wealth creation, except of course crony capitalists who steal our labor through taxes, was earned by somebody. If not this generation, earlier ones.
IMO more good has been and is still being done privately with that earned wealth aka disposable income than by all governments since recorded history.
As has been noted above, girls/women compete for the privilege of being NFL cheerleaders. They aren't picked off the junior high school bus and taken to secret cheerleader prep schools and then thrust onto the playing fields and forced to submit to ogling by millions of men while they gyrate and if we are to be inclusive here, probably if not millions, perhaps thousands of women as well.
Clovis:
To answer your question above about why beautiful women are attracted to school boys and is this perhaps a lack in modern men? IMO it's not that modern men are different, it's that modern women want to be like them and men have traditionally lusted over young girls (and boys), so why shouldn't they.
A corollary of that is that young children aren't able to judge the adults who abuse them and find them lacking.
Erp,
---
Clovis, in your experience where would beautiful girls with no connections meet rich men [...]
---
As I am no beautiful girl, I have no idea Erp.
I know that beautiful girls down here usually can find their rich guys without ever doing acrobatics in soccer games (our games have no girls doing somersaults), so they must meet them somewhere.
But I guess it is easier to meet people in Brazil. You don't need to make schedules and appointments, you just stop them for a chat anywhere you find them.
Erp,
---
To answer your question above about why beautiful women are attracted to school boys and is this perhaps a lack in modern men? IMO it's not that modern men are different, it's that modern women want to be like them and men have traditionally lusted over young girls (and boys), so why shouldn't they.
---
I find it very funny that I questioned the masculinity of every American male up there and the only one that shows up to defend it is... a woman. America is in serious trouble indeed.
But your explanation above lacks in at least one serious way, Erp: male teachers who end up atracted by a 17 years old girl are only following their instincts, in the sense those girls are already grown up women and probably attractive ones in their eyes (I am not justifying them in any way, just pointing out the obvious biological factor).
I am no woman to really judge that, but I would guess that - from a purely biological point of view - the same is not true in relation to the 17's boy and the 30's woman.
The 17's boy is only a choice if so many of the usually "better options" are not available, which brings me back to my point on lack of American testosterone.
Clovis: My point as stated is that men/boys haven't changed. It's the feminists who've changed some weak-minded women into wanting to emulate men in all things even unto lusting after children.
To be accurate, the boy in the story was 14 when he first fell into the teacher's clutches. As the mother and grandmother of four boys, I am quite sure that neither they nor their many friends and classmates would have been ready for fatherhood at 14, even though in retrospect it might seem like a fantasy come true.
Not knowing anything about dating and mating in your country, I will refrain from comment on your depiction of it.
Erp,
Sure nobody is ready for parenthood at 14 in our modern cultures, I am not disputing that.
But I don't buy your "I want to be like the boys" feminist theory, sorry. It may be true in other cases, but I think of sexual impulses as something more instinctive and less prone to influence of rational/ideological decisions.
Well, maybe that's because I am a man. Maybe women do make sexual decisions based on some reasoning I can't phantom, I really wouldn't claim to actually understand a woman's head.
Erp,
---
Not knowing anything about dating and mating in your country [...]
---
I don't know what you understood from my description, but I am not saying people mate and date everywhere. Only that they get to talk with each other more easily than in the US. Just one of these classical differences between anglo-saxon and latin cultures.
Clovis, even though the word you're looking for is "fathom," phantom might be the better word after all.
It was my impression that in the latin world, well brought up young ladies aren't let out of the sight of their dueñas and they definitely don't talk to strange men on the street. Has that changed?
[erp:] Ridiculous charges that nurses and other professional women work to entice rich men are just that ridiculous and the comparison is bogus.
Really?
In all known societies, women are hypergamous.
A few months ago, Susan Patton took a tremendous amount of heat from women (It is astonishing. Follow the links. There is nothing like women for furiously judging women) — for suggesting that women had life goals beyond the cubicle habitrail, and therefore should pay attention to snagging a husband while in college.
It is ridiculous to suggest that all, or even most, women choose occupations primarily because of the consequent proximity to well-off men. But it is just as ridiculous to say that none, or only a few do, because for women, it is probably the best mating strategy available.
[Peter:] Even the most doctrinaire libertarian will say government is necssary to provide defence and enforce contracts. Now you have managed to cast the enforcement of employment contracts as the heavy hand of government interference.
I think — correction, I know you are assuming facts not in evidence. I agree with Bret and AOG that if these NFL teams had, in fact, violated the terms of employment, then they should get hung out to dry.
But that isn't what happened.. (The link includes all the terms of employment for the Baltimore Ravens.)
Yet despite these seemingly onerous terms, and a plethora of more lucrative options available to these women — heck, even a garden variety minimum wage job, apparently — NFL teams aren't suffering a dearth of obviously quite qualified applicants.
It should be clear that my point here isn't that these women are somehow "beneath my contempt". Rather, this lawsuit highlights the minimum wage law's imposition on freedom.
These women are absolutely free to do something else. In fact, it is certain they already do. Other women are happy to treat being an NFL cheerleader as the hobby it is, and a great many of them would continue to do it if they didn't get paid a dime.
A very foreseeable outcome of these lawsuits, the unstated but likely motivation, is to use minimum wage law to eliminate NFL cheerleading squads.
Furthermore, this lawsuit, if successful, would lead to some real bizarre results. For instance, a few guys I know fly support for the Iditarod. Except for fuel, they get paid nothing (which means they are out of pocket about $50 per flight hour). If NFL cheerleaders are to get minimum wage, then these guys must also? If not, why not? College cheerleaders would also get paid minimum wage, right? If not, why not?
There has to be some scope to minimum wage laws (and sex discrimination laws, for that matter). While drawing lines is always hard, including activities that people are eager to do regardless of pay renders the whole notion of voluntary exchange meaningless.
And, in this case, infantilizes women.
[Clovis:] Anything else is govt sanctioning of progressive-collectivist looters.
No, it is the recognition that people sometimes decide to engage in activities without monetary compensation being a sole, or even primary, consideration. Clearly, they must be stopped.
BTW, it is off-topic, but it is about something we discussed here before.
I had read that.
It suggested that the US should have tried him in absentia. I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but it isn't clear to me that a trial in absentia could yield a death penalty verdict.
Although even if it could, I'm not the least persuaded it is necessary. If we were to leave everything about al-Awlaki the same, except he was a British citizen instead, would our attack have been justified? How about if he was Jordanian, Saudi, or Norwegian?
I think "yes" is the right answer in all those cases, because of what he was: an enemy combatant. That consideration is completely outside the bounds of what passport he happens to be holding. It is what he was doing that made him a legitimate target of military force, not who he was.
Hey, how about a contest. Who's up for a round of Spot the Duena?
Erp,
Thanks for the correction, although the mistake was in a good place indeed.
Well, the latin world is a big one, and I can only claim to know well my own country, where that picture you have was never true. I think it is no longer true also in other countries where it once was.
Anyway, I believe strangers doing small talk (between same or different genders) is something way more usual down here than in the US.
The culture is a lot more informal too. For example, if I believe the movies I see of your culture, if you invite someone out and you have any romantic pretension, you need to tell the person you are calling for a "date".
That would be a strange concept down here. You can call a person and invite him/her out, but no one will announce what are their intentions beforehand. If the meeting turns romantic or not is going to be determined only while it happens.
I believe it has consequences to the cheerleader case. Down here, the girl can approach the rich guy only for small talk purposes, in almost any place, and if it happens that they arrange to meet again some other day, for whatever reason, it won't necessarily be a romantic (a date) setup. So basically the interested girl has the chance to turn any casual encounter in a potential date - she does not need to jump and do somersaults.
Of course, it also generates a lot of competition, and the rich guy may end up with lots of pretenders, which they usually enjoy a lot by using and disposing of as they wish - until he indeed finds a girl that is smart enough to differentiate herself and catch him (some will differentiate themselves by getting pregnant, but it no longer leads to marriages, only to some good years of paychecks to take care of the child).
But I guess the last paragraph's description is equally true in the US too.
Gosh Clovis, you don't mean all those movies and television shows I've seen depicting life in Latin countries aren't reality and I shouldn't use them to form my impressions of life in a non-Anglo culture?
Who'd a thunk it?
;-}
Erp,
I am amazed you ever saw a movie or television show depicting the life in Latin countries. I bet you can't name one. :-)
Skipper: The charge wasn't hypergamousy which is a result of men being uncomfortable dating or marrying women, smarter, taller, or richer than they. The charge was that women go into fields like nursing on the off chance some rich old dude will leave her his money or to nab a doctor for a husband is insulting and bogus and even old dame like me who condemns almost everything the feminist movement stands for, will stand up and say no to that charge.
How about 100USD to my favorite charity for Zorro. Just happened to see it a couple of days ago on TV.
I'll send the address and details of a local charity that feeds the homeless to you in an email.
I'll be sure to let them know to expect it.
Erp,
LOL. You made my day: Zorro as depicting the life in Latin countries.
I just won't pay $100 for the joke, sorry. Maybe it even deserves it, but you are talking to a poor latino here...
Clovis, so when you said you have a good handle on life in the U.S. from movies and TV programs, you were just joking and your store of knowledge really comes from ... because I also know all about Brazil from Carmen Miranda movies.
Carmem Miranda? LOL! This only gets better...
Look, Erp, I happened to visit your country twice, and happened to have American friends during a good part of my life and talk about the US now and then.
Yet, I don't think you can discard my movies/TV hard won knowledge so easily. If I had watched only a few movies during my life, it would be OK to disregard it. But I don't know if you are aware on how ubiquitous American culture has become. Latin America is exposed to the American Way of Life by TV, cable and Cinemas in levels you can't fathom (see, I used the right word now). I started learning English by watching CNN and NBA games when I was 12 years old.
Sure, there is a lot of trash out there, but there are also many things that are not so far from reality.
What know and have had confirmed by your comments and those of others like you is that there is a lot of leftwing propaganda being sold all over the world that purports to be an accurate picture of the U.S.
Of course it isn't and seeing a thousand such epics doesn't make them any more valid than Ms Miranda's movies, entertaining thought they are and at least, they do no harm.
Erp,
There again you are talking politics, as if that's all a movie can show about a place.
I can promptly agree with you that conservative values are underrepresented in the movie and TV industry.
Yet, those medias are not only channels for political propaganda. You, among us all here, should be keenly aware on how movies had a place on presenting new cultures from afar.
Today, with blogs, twitter, facebook and 24h news channels, you should take in account that anyone paying attention to the US can grab quite some notion of how your society works without ever setting their feet there.
I do not claim to really know all that much, but it is not like it was an alien society.
The charge was that women go into fields like nursing on the off chance some rich old dude will leave her his money or to nab a doctor for a husband is insulting and bogus and even old dame like me who condemns almost everything the feminist movement stands for, will stand up and say no to that charge.
But it isn't bogus -- it is reality. I know some nurses, and teachers used their proximity to successful men in order to greatly enhance their odds over what they would have been, otherwise.
I know, because I saw it happen.
I doubt it mating strategy was their primary motivation in becoming a nurses or teachers, but choosing to be a nurse, or a teacher, at a military base that has a pretty high proportion of single officers probably was.
Really Skipper, very chauvinistic.
BTW did you become a fighter pilot so you could impress all the hot chicks?
I'm beginning to think that might have been the case rather than wanting to protect your country.
Clovis, probably if I visited Brazil it wouldn't be an alien country either, but even after such a visit, I would hardly hold myself out as an expert on the subject of Brazil culture.
Peter, BTW - how do you know all those possible dueñas were latinas? Some look decidedly northern European.
erp -- that isn't chauvinistic, that was, and remains, reality.
BTW did you become a fighter pilot so you could impress all the hot chicks?
Considering all the places I was stationed where there were few women around, that could hardly be the case.
Although, taken in a larger sense, of course that is true. Why do men do all sorts of things, except to impress women?
Observing that obvious truism isn't chauvinistic, nor is it an insult to men to suggest that is the case.
So why is it bogus, or insulting, to observe that women will put themselves in proximity to men who are demonstrating their fitness to women?
BTW did you become a fighter pilot so you could impress all the hot chicks?
FTW, erp. :-)
I know that's why I became a lawyer. Didn't work.
Men do all kinds of crazy things to impress us, but we only do things for altruistic reasons. Are you guys lucky to have us in your lives, or what!
Peter, not surprised.
Fighter pilot in a cool uniform with a leather flight jacket streaking across the sky.
Lawyer in a three piece suit with a sweater vest doing paper work.
See the problem?
See the problem?
Having been born forty years old wearing a blazer and grey flannels, indeed I do, erp. I don't really begrudge those fighter pilots their cool chicks, provided they don't expect to be paid minimum wags.
Which? The pilots or the chicks?
The pilots. C'mon, they knew what they were getting into.
I hope everyone knows how much Skipper and all the others in our military have my undying gratitude for putting their lives on the line and keeping our country safe.
My comment, as are most of my comments, was just joshing as Skipper knows I'm sure, but I just want to make sure it's not misinterpreted.
Erp,
---
Peter, BTW - how do you know all those possible dueñas were latinas? Some look decidedly northern European.
---
No, Erp, those pictures are pretty much what you see in many of our beaches indeed.
I wish you had visited us sometime in your long life, for you would not give proof after proof we are quite an alien society for you.
What are you talking about Clovis? Alien? I have made no comments about your society, but have said several times that I am not equipped to comment because I lack any knowledge other than films and an occasional news item.
I'm teasing Peter about his link to bikini clad ladies, not making a comment on your society, I am quite aware that there people of all human characteristics in Brazil -- even northern Europeans.
Skipper,
---
I think "yes" is the right answer in all those cases, because of what he was: an enemy combatant.
---
I must confess, I fear for our future when I see how people like you - the military, the guys who have the guns and their fingers on the trigger - can easily forget their constitutional oath by the mere mention of some new catchword.
Can you point out to me where your Constitution defines an "enemy combatant" and explicitly devoids him of his Rights?
Erp,
---
Are you guys lucky to have us in your lives, or what!
---
Lucky does not even begin to describe it, Erp. I thank God every day. A word without women is not worth to live in.
Clovis;
But I don't buy your "I want to be like the boys" feminist theory, sorry.
I'm not sure what you don't agree with - that the theory is workable, or that modern American feminism embraces it. I can tell you the latter is certainly true, it is (for example) the entire point of "slut walks".
Well, here's another (refreshing) perspective from an enterprising realist:
https://chroniclevitae.com/news/492-stripping-was-the-easiest-and-quickest-solution
Questions:
1. Do men strippers make as much as women? If not, why not? (War on Myn, perhaps? cf. Male models)
2. Should strippers with PhDs make more money than those with lesser degrees?
3. Should strippers unionize?
4. Other?
AOG,
---
I'm not sure what you don't agree with - that the theory is workable, [...]
---
My point is that the theory does not apply to the domain where Erp tried to use it.
Barry,
As it happens, I knew a male PhD Physics student who happened to be a stripper in clubs for women. He wouldn't tell, but I believe he was also doing extra work with some of those women, I mean, beyond stripping.
He was not the brightest student, but was focused enough to finish his Masters. I believe he did not finish his PhD though, for the money and partying may have gotten him distracted. As far as I know, he was making good money. I have no way to compare how good it was in relation to female workers in the same business though.
A commenter in your above link made a very good question, "Is there an age limit, as for professional athletes, beyond which earning a living stripping is unrealistic?". If we forget any moral concerns about the job, it does have the problem of being a time limited position. Unless the person has a good strategy to build other possibilities before time is out, he/she will be in the unpleasant situation of living with much less than used to. I believe very few of them have the drive and focus to prepare themselves for that future, having PhDs or not.
Clovis, I like to be accurate, in which domain was I using my own theory incorrectly and in which domain would it have been correct?
[Clovis:] I must confess, I fear for our future when I see how people like you - the military, the guys who have the guns and their fingers on the trigger - can easily forget their constitutional oath by the mere mention of some new catchword.
Can you point out to me where your Constitution defines an "enemy combatant" and explicitly deprives him of his Rights?
No, of course I can't, because the Constitution places limits on government with respect to civil society. War is completely outside its remit.
Conversely, the Geneva Conventions are on point.
Which is why Rand Paul has this completely wrong — if al-Awlaki was a combatant within the Law of Armed Conflict, then he was a legitimate target, regardless of his citizenship.
The Constitution, which is completely silent with regard to how to conduct war, simply doesn't apply.
Physics major, eh?
Applied physics, no doubt...which would certainly have given him a distinct advantage.
As far as age goes, it is a fair question. One might assume that, as in athletics, what is lost in quickness and reaction time would be made up in "smarts" (i.e., experience, anticipation, etc.). The equivalent as far as stripping goes would, I suppose, be a solid (er, well, flexible) professionalism as well as knowing, instinctively what the customer might want.
So that an "elder statesperson" (so to speak) stripper could probably last a considerable while until it's time to hang up the---gosh, what would they hang up?
(It goes without saying that if they were unionized, they would likely get full health benefits, which could only be of help in such a grueling, drooling profession.)
Barry, you may not be old enough to remember when airline hostesses looked more like the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders than Hillary Clinton, but they did. Then the union stepped in and stopped all that. Airline patrons having been softened up by all the other atrocities inflicted on them, were in no position to complain about the lack of pulchritude in the cabin.
Not so with professional sports. It's unlikely that middle aged and above women would be sent on the field even if they could gyrate with the 20 year olds, so another harmless it of Americana will be sent to the dustbin of history.
Yes, and for the airlines, it's been downhill from there....so it seems, at least.
There must be a connection (or even congeries of connections).
As far as the topic of more ancient cheerleaders goes, if Mick and Keef et al. can gyrate and (in that strange space between the grotesque and the fascinating) at the age of 70 in front of a frothing crowd, why can't ancient cheerleaders do the same?
I don't see why the Dallas Cowboys can't ornament their "old-timers" day (assuming they have one) with 50 or 60 year old former (or current, for that matter) cheerleaders.
It's a family values thang. Aren't we, after all, told to respect our elders?
Works for me and as a member of the eldership, I second the motion of the respect part.
As for aging hippies and their veneration for the icons of their youth, even "I" have no explanation to offer for that kind of madness.
Erp,
That's funny, you just endorsed a proposal to pay homage to the old days in the same phrase you comdemn those old liberals for missing their good times too. Only conservatives get to have their fond memories respected?
Skipper,
I guess we'll need to agree on disagree.
I believe Rand Paul is completely right here, and you went to the dark side of the Force. I only hope you won't direct all those drones to exterminate the good Jedis so soon.
Clovis: Every statement is not an endorsement.
It makes no difference to me what stewardesses look like, I merely pointed out what happens when the equality nannies get their way and physical characteristics are no longer permitted to be part of the hiring process. In the case of cheerleaders or flight attendants, it's only esthetics, but in the case of police and firemen and now possibly even military combat, it can be dangerous.
Girls weighing a hundred pounds are put into positions where they can't manage the job and put, not only the public, but their partners and co-workers in danger. Such a thing happened to my nephew who was in the NYPD special forces squad when on a call, a crazed maniac came at him from behind with a machete and tore his back and shoulder so badly he's been in pain and lost use of his arm because his partner, instead of subduing or shooting the guy, ran away!
No harm or foul came to her and she was not disciplined in any way, but while he's in chronic pain on permanent disability, she's out there as a potential time bomb for some other poor sap in the name of sexual equality.
Score another one for public service unions.
Erp,
Hey, I was only talking about celebrations for the eldership, I didn't want to really go into this union thing.
I am truly sorry for your nephew. If the NYPD special force is allowing incompetent officers, I can't really comment on wether this is union's fault or not, I have no idea.
The image we have down here of Americans is that they usually build organizational structures where you are fired by the first error, with no room for excuses or second chances.
The way you describe things here, it looks like you are half-Brazilians in terms of incompetence.
I guess the truth must be somewhere in between those two descriptions. I am only sure that you are too biased to actually give me the real picture here.
I am too biased because what I am saying doesn't agree with your biases?
The unions run all public service employees.
This is a fact, not an opinion.
You recently became aware of a vile pervert who because he has the protection of the teachers union is not only, not in jail, but collecting a nice pension.
You believe that in the U.S. people are fired for the first infraction because ...?
Which film, TV program or cartoon gave you that idea?
... celebrations of eldership.
Barry's comment and my response were joshing. Although I do endorse respecting one's elders as well as all other human contacts ... and kittens. ;-}
Erp,
---
Which film, TV program or cartoon gave you that idea?
---
Haven't you ever seen Donald Trump in The Apprentice? :-)
(If not, no problem, me neither).
... and you made fun of Carmen Miranda!
I rarely watch TV and never reality shows, except "Project Runway" of course.
Barry Meislin wrote: "...if Mick and Keef et al. can gyrate ... at the age of 70 in front of a frothing crowd, why can't ancient cheerleaders do the same?"
I assume you're not serious. Far fewer would go to see the stones if ALL they did was gyrate. People go for the whole show which includes the music.
Some older female rock stars gyrate as well (I saw Bonnie Raitt a few years back and she was moving pretty good). But again, it goes with the music and isn't the primary act.
Cheerleaders are selling sexiness and it helps to be young and female when doing so. They've got nothing else going for them.
Bret, not another chauvinist!
How do you know these girls aren't physics students?
Doesn't matter if they're Einsteins. Nobody goes to a football game to listen to a physics lecture and even if they did, the forum isn't conducive to delivering a physics lecture.
In that forum, all they have to offer is sexuality. Note that not only are there very few if any older cheerleaders, there are hardly any male cheerleaders either.
Teasing. Yikes you guys don't have a sense of humor.
Of course, they're there because they're adorable examples of beautiful girls of every description and are a welcome distraction from the violent yet boring football* game.
*ditto basketball
Down here people would call this selling sexiness.
And there is no problem with minimum wage laws, some of those women actually pay to pass by that venue.
That one's NOT safe for work!
The funny thing is, it says, "This page is in Portugese, would you like to translate it?" I didn't notice a lot of words in any language on the page!
Bret. Thanks for the warning.
[Clovis:] I guess we'll need to agree on disagree.
I believe Rand Paul is completely right here …
But neither Rand Paul, nor by extension, you, can be right on this, because you have both failed to grasp the nettle. Neither of you have touched on the category problem: the LOAC and the US Constitution operate in completely separate realms. Neither of you have spent a syllable on explaining why a legitimate targeting decision becomes somehow illegitimate on the basis of where someone was born.
Further, you both fail to pursue your own logic. I will take it as read that killing al-Awlaki violated the U.S. constitution. Fine. Then it is also true that if the U.S. government was to censor his recruiting and incitement videos, that would also be a violation of al-Awlaki's first amendment rights.
If not, why not?
Skipper,
---
Neither of you have touched on the category problem: the LOAC and the US Constitution operate in completely separate realms.
---
Because there is no category problem. The Constitution, contrary to your claim, does take account of war by establishing a hierarchy where the President is the Commander in Chief. That means he has the ultimate authority to decide on death by treason in the event of a war.
There was no war against the USA happening at the place al-Awlaki was executed. Unless you twist the concept of war and bend the truth, he was executed outside of war boundaries, where Constitutional order and the Rights there imposed must be valid.
Mr. Obama, and by extension, you and all of his enablers, just placed himself above the Law. Think about that every other time you complain he did so in ACA implementation, or any of the other instances our friends here love to grumble about.
---
Then it is also true that if the U.S. government was to censor his recruiting and incitement videos, that would also be a violation of al-Awlaki's first amendment rights. If not, why not?
---
As far as I know, hate speech that promotes imminent violence is passive to censorship, as established in your courts. So I don't get your point here.
The Constitution, contrary to your claim, does take account of war by establishing a hierarchy where the President is the Commander in Chief. That means he has the ultimate authority to decide on death by treason in the event of a war.
No, it doesn't. The Constitution only stipulates that the President is the CINC. It in no way addresses how the President may conduct a war. And it certainly doesn't spend any time on what constitutes a legitimate target.
Which takes both you and Rand back to the question that begs asking: under the LOAC, was al-Awlaki a legitimate target.
There was no war against the USA happening at the place al-Awlaki was executed. Unless you twist the concept of war and bend the truth, he was executed outside of war boundaries ...
History is against you on this one.
Besides, your concept of what constitutes war is completely blinkered, and would render us completely incapable of engaging any non-state threat.
... just placed himself above the Law
Which law? Chapter and verse, please.
As far as I know, hate speech that promotes imminent violence is passive to censorship, as established in your courts. So I don't get your point here.
No. Fighting Words doctrine can punish speech the foreseeable, or actual consequence of which, is to incite violence or a violent response, at the time it is said.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Nothing al-Awlaki said ever ran afoul of fighting words doctrine.
Skipper,
As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Our premises are opposite and I don't think we will converge. For example, I don't see the USS Cole bombing as an act of war. It is as much (or even less) a civilian act of terrorism as the Oklahoma bombing, for example.
And no, my view in no way hinders your capacity to fight what you call "non-state threat", for you deal with them as you always did before the present fashion of calling everything a "war on terror": with civilian police and enforcement work.
Now, if you truly think that nothing al-Awlaki said ever ran afoul of fighting words doctrine, maybe you should start thinking how necessary it really was to execute him in breach of his right for a fair trial.
Clovis;
No, in the past this would have been handled with gunboats and Marines. If you want to have that as your recommended policy, I think you, I, and Skipper could all agree.
AOG,
If the USA can reach an agreement with Yemen's govt. to use their airspace for deadly drone missions, I am quite sure they would easily accept and agreement where US agents could operate with Yemeni ones in the capture of a US citizen.
It should be mentioned that, were the suspect in a developed country, I highly doubt the US would be allowed to target him with drones. It would simply need to handle his location for local authorities to do the capture, as it has always been the custom. So the double standard present here - where you are sentenced to death without a trial based on your location - should promptly raise the alarms about the legality of any such operation.
There is a line of argument that reasons on how much easier and less costly it is the use of drones. Fewer agents hurt in the process, and so on. But if you really buy it, I don't see why shouldn't all warrants within the USA be serviced by drones, with automatic execution allowed with the more dangerous targets.
I much prefer not to open that Pandora box, for history abounds with examples on how such power is easily used for totalitarism purposes in the end of the day.
By the way, I would like to remark that there is one thing much more powerful than Welfare to enslave able-bodied men into servitude, and that's Fear.
IMHO, the general way your country deals with terrorism - this sense of imminent danger, this urging to use all means available no matter what, this creation of new buzzwords to bypass well established Constitutional rights, this state of eternal War - they are far more corrosive of Liberty than any other of the topics I see our friends here complaining about.
Let me know when that sort of things works in Iran, Somalia, and North Korea. How well did that work in the run up to the 9/11 attacks, might I inquire? Or is worrying about such events just that "Fear" thing in operation? Or we could ask Ambassador Stevens about that "Fear" thing...
It is hard to remain on topic for you sometimes, isn't it AOG?
No. Unless you think judging a policy by its results in the real world is off topic.
Oh, wait. My bad!
[Clovis:] As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree.
When you typed this:
I fear for our future when I see how people like you - the military, the guys who have the guns and their fingers on the trigger - can easily forget their constitutional oath by the mere mention of some new catchword.
You stepped right out of the realm of merely agreeing to disagree.
As a refresher, here is the opening sentence of the Uniformed Services Oath of Office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …
Which kind of points out where you, and Rand Paul, et al continue to make a category mistake.
IF al-Awlaki was, citizenship notwithstanding, a legitimate target under the LOAC, then killing him without any sort of trial is completely out of the scope of the Constitution. So the argument you should be making is that he wasn't a legitimate target — if he wasn't, then his citizenship is pertinent; otherwise, it is utterly beside the point. I can't help but notice, however, that no one is pursuing that line, because it is farcical on its face. The man was doing the best he could, in whatever ways he could manage, to attack the US and kill Americans. He was pursuing political end through violent means.
Further, if he wasn't a legitimate target, then Obama is guilty first and foremost of a war crime, which is a far more universal notion, compared to a far more particular offense against the Constitution.
You don't feel the attack on the USS Cole was an act of war. Okay, fine. Let's say the ship's Captain had a better idea of the threat, and actually had an armed deck watch. Since the bombing wasn't an act of war, then the sailors would have been liable for murder if they shot at the approaching boat. Right? After all, nothing had happened yet. This is where your argument simply goes off the rails. Following it where it must lead quickly ends in absurdity.
Police forces, in a civil society, which is where the Constitution applies, cannot preemptively shoot someone whom they think is going to commit a crime. Military personnel, operating outside the bound of civil society, may. Your appeal to "enforcement work" would have necessarily stopped the USS Cole's sailors doing what they bloody well should have done.
I am quite sure they would easily accept and agreement where US agents could operate with Yemeni ones in the capture of a US citizen.
Spoken like someone without a dog in the fight. Why don't you go into the Yemeni hinterlands and serve the arrest warrant?
[Clovis:] As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree.
When you typed this:
I fear for our future when I see how people like you - the military, the guys who have the guns and their fingers on the trigger - can easily forget their constitutional oath by the mere mention of some new catchword.
You stepped right out of the realm of merely agreeing to disagree.
As a refresher, here is the opening sentence of the Uniformed Services Oath of Office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …
Which kind of points out where you, and Rand Paul, et al continue to make a category mistake.
IF al-Awlaki was, citizenship notwithstanding, a legitimate target under the LOAC, then killing him without any sort of trial is completely out of the scope of the Constitution. So the argument you should be making is that he wasn't a legitimate target — if he wasn't, then his citizenship is pertinent; otherwise, it is utterly beside the point. I can't help but notice, however, that no one is pursuing that line, because it is farcical on its face. The man was doing the best he could, in whatever ways he could manage, to attack the US and kill Americans. He was pursuing political end through violent means.
Further, if he wasn't a legitimate target, then Obama is guilty first and foremost of a war crime, which is a far more universal notion, compared to a far more particular offense against the Constitution.
You don't feel the attack on the USS Cole was an act of war. Okay, fine. Let's say the ship's Captain had a better idea of the threat, and actually had an armed deck watch. Since the bombing wasn't an act of war, then the sailors would have been liable for murder if they shot at the approaching boat. Right? After all, nothing had happened yet. This is where your argument simply goes off the rails. Following it where it must lead quickly ends in absurdity.
Police forces, in a civil society, which is where the Constitution applies, cannot preemptively shoot someone whom they think is going to commit a crime. Military personnel, operating outside the bound of civil society, may. Your appeal to "enforcement work" would have necessarily stopped the USS Cole's sailors doing what they bloody well should have done.
I am quite sure they would easily accept and agreement where US agents could operate with Yemeni ones in the capture of a US citizen.
Spoken like someone without a dog in the fight. Why don't you go into the Yemeni hinterlands and serve the arrest warrant?
How does the Constitution address this:
In 2010, cartoonist Molly Norris at Seattle Weekly had to stop publishing, and at the suggestion of the FBI change her name, move, and go into hiding due to a Fatwā calling for her death issued by al-Awlaki, after Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.[191][192][193] Al-Awlaki cursed her and eight other cartoonists, authors, and journalists who are Swedish, Dutch, and British citizens for "blasphemous caricatures" of the Prophet Muhammad, in the June 2010 issue of an English-language al-Qaeda magazine that calls itself Inspire, writing "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved" .
Oh, I know. It is the part where it says "suck it up, Molly."
AOG,
---
Unless you think judging a policy by its results in the real world is off topic.
---
As far as I can see, the only policy change I've defended is to pursue non-lethal captures of any wanted citizen to bring him to trial, as opposed to executing him without a trial.
Somehow, you manage to relate that with Iran, Somalia and North Korea. Considering the topic was on "non-state threat" (and the expression is not even mine), I wonder how you connect the dots here.
Skipper,
---
You stepped right out of the realm of merely agreeing to disagree.
---
I don't see why. I do believe you, and anyone else defending the use of capital punishment without a trial, have forgotten the Constitutional order. It looks like I can't convince you of that, nor can you convince me otherwise, so the only solution is to agree on disagreeing.
---
So the argument you should be making is that he wasn't a legitimate target [...]
---
How can I, when there is no public trial nor public display of proofs?
People sometimes think a "fair trial" is meant to protect the rights of the defendant against injustice. But it is also meant to protect the moral right of the accuser (the State) as the executioner. So it is a double mistake, for an execution without trial trumps the legitimacy of the State on its core.
---
Since the bombing wasn't an act of war, then the sailors would have been liable for murder if they shot at the approaching boat. Right?
---
Absolutely not. I am almost at shock that you can build such a baseless argument.
Any armed official, military or civilian, has the right of self-defense, otherwise they would be all lame ducks.
Any sailor worth the name knows well the limits to approach a military vessel. The ones trespassing it are doing so at their own peril.
---
Spoken like someone without a dog in the fight. Why don't you go into the Yemeni hinterlands and serve the arrest warrant?
---
Really? Well, I give you that: at least it took you some time before falling for this low level kind of argument.
The concept of a Brazilian civilian delivering warrants for the US Justice system in Yemen could sound a little bit at odds with your Constitution too, but who cares for the Constitution, right?
Now, if that's a job offer, I can give you my number so we can talk. As they say, everyone has a price. I don't think I am much qualified for the job, but we can talk about that during the interview.
---
Al-Awlaki cursed her and eight other cartoonists [...] writing "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved"
---
At least you and that guy have something in common: both believe in execution without a trial.
By the way, I would like to remark that there is one thing much more powerful than Welfare to enslave able-bodied men into servitude, and that's Fear.
Clovis:
Again, you don't get it.
Fear is exactly what the left engenders by welfare. Making able-bodied people feel helpless to provide for themselves and their families and make their own decisions promotes, nay encourages, feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, etc. and when people are treated like helpless children, they take no responsibility for their actions leading to violence, lawlessness, substance and child abuse and all the other problems inherent in the system.
Enslaving people by making them fearful of losing their handouts keeps them on the plantation.
Fear of physical danger is far less threatening and self-confident able-bodied people can deal with it if they feel empowered as the countless revolutions against tyranny have proven including our own revolt against King George.
Clovis;
you manage to relate that with Iran, Somalia and North Korea
All of which sponsor or are locations of indirect non-state threats. Moreover, do you think your plan of negotiating as with Yemen will work in those places?
Erp,
---
Fear of physical danger is far less threatening [...]
---
Except history is not on your side.
I can tell you, few people shut up their mouths in Nazi Germany for fear of losing a welfare paycheck (for there were none). But fear for life on the other hand...
AOG,
---
All of which sponsor or are locations of indirect non-state threats. Moreover, do you think your plan of negotiating as with Yemen will work in those places?
---
I am not aware of any fugitive US citizen in any of those countries, so I assume your question is hypothetical.
I don't think North Korea would withhold American islamist-terrorists too, so I also assume you are elevating the discussion to any kind of fugitive.
Hence my answer is: that the US had no control over every country of the World was already true when they wrote your Consitution, yet none of your Fathers worried about declaring invalid the Rights of a US citizen located abroad.
Also, the moment a country start hiding terrorists to attack another country, that's no longer a non-state threat. You do have a State to put blame on, and the tools to deal with it, including the Armed Forces, are all at your disposal. That's the trivial case, and unless I've lost your point, I see nothing controversial here.
Better check that history book out of the library again Clovis.
The nazis only lasted a handful of years because able bodied free people fought them while welfare is getting stronger after more than a handful of decades because more and more fearful people are seeking to become infantilized.
[Clovis:] I don't see why. I do believe you, and anyone else defending the use of capital punishment without a trial, have forgotten the Constitutional order.
So far, your argument has amounted to this.
War is not justiciable, because war is in an entirely separate realm. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a brute fact. Killing someone as an act of war is not "capital punishment". Insisting otherwise amounts to confusing chalk for cheese.
Yet you have reached a contrary conclusion without any argument whatsoever, or even acknowledging the problem.
And because you haven't argued your position, you fail to see where it leads to absurdities.
By failing to understand what war is — the pursuit of political ends by violent means — you reach the point where killing an enemy combatant who is attempting to violently undermine the US Constitution is somehow undermining the Constitution. Instead, you would allow him — because of a consideration completely outside the laws governing armed conflict — to continue waging war against the US with impunity, while someone else doing exactly the same thing would be a legitimate target.
That is a foolish, meaningless distinction.
[Hey Skipper:] Since the bombing wasn't an act of war, then the sailors would have been liable for murder if they shot at the approaching boat. Right?
---
[Clovis:] Absolutely not. I am almost at shock that you can build such a baseless argument.
You were the one who said the bombing of the USS Cole wasn't an act of war — how you got there is a source of enduring astonishment.
Okay, it wasn't. Then the laws of war don't apply. Outside of war, there is no such thing as pre-emptive self defense. Police don't get to shoot people in advance of the crime. Since the attack on the Cole wasn't an act of war, the ship wouldn't have been able to establish a no-go zone around the ship and preemptively shoot anything that came within it. Indeed, had al-Awlaki actually been on that boat, the crew — according to you — would have been Constitutionally prohibited from killing him. That is where your logic, and Rand Paul's, et al ends up.
Either countries can avail themselves of the concept of national self-defense within the context of war, or they can't. You apparently want it both ways.
The concept of a Brazilian civilian delivering warrants for the US Justice system in Yemen could sound a little bit at odds with your Constitution too, but who cares for the Constitution, right?
I typed unclearly — I meant the collective "you", as in everyone insisting that the Constitution reaches situations and places where it clearly doesn't.
Those who make that argument (and I use that phrase very generously) are never the ones who would actually have to do such a thing. If they had to — if they were the ones who had to put their lives on the line in order to carry out such an arrest — I'll bet they would start singing a very different tune. Moreover, they don't think things through very well.
War, particularly against Islamists, is often as much psychological as it is material. Imagine the psychological benefit to Islamists if the US was to attempt arresting al-Awlaki, and things went very, very wrong.
Never mind the consequences to the Americans involved. But leftists never worry themselves about that, because their skin is never in the game.
How can I [consider whether al-Awlaki was a legitimate target] when there is no public trial nor public display of proofs?
Should there have been a trial, the public display of proofs would have amounted to this.
All of which makes him a legitimate target.
At least you and that guy have something in common: both believe in execution without a trial.
This demonstrates your confusion perfectly. Al-Awlaki was pursuing a political goal — suppression of the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech — through non-political means: killing someone who was operating within solely within the bounds of civil society.
He was operating outside the Constitutional realm, she totally within it.
And somehow you can't suss the difference.
This and this should help you figure it out.
And show how your accusations are far too facile.
Clovis;
a country start hiding terrorists to attack another country, that's no longer a non-state threat. You do have a State to put blame on, and the tools to deal with it, including the Armed Forces, are all at your disposal.
Is that not gunboats and Marines? You were against that, now you're for it?
AOG,
I find it amazing that you can not realize when I actually agree with you. Scroll up and tell me where was I against that.
aog, the mind of a lefty isn't set in concrete aka biased like ours. They can change their positions depending on whether it advances the narrative or not, to wit, Harry's ability to tip toe and tap dance between the cracks to come up with his cracked-brain analyses.
Clovis is either anti-Semitic himself or so determined to prove me wrong, that he can throw the notion of innocent children turned over to the nazis under the proverbial bus without a comment while waxing eloquent on the plight of needy children in the U.S. whose "caregivers" of record are given thousands of dollars a month on their behalf and yet need three meals a day at school in order to be saved from starvation in a classic redistribution of our income, slackers get theirs and the teachers union thugs get their cut. The kids? Well plenty more where they came from.
Skipper,
---
So far, your argument has amounted to this.
War is not justiciable, because war is in an entirely separate realm.
---
I can only counter that so far, you argument looks like the one of this pet shop owner.
I've made clear I do not consider there is a war situation there, for the rest of your arguments to apply. You just can't recognize the parrot is dead, otherwise you would need to pay me for all this time I'm typing to grant you an argument therapy.
---
[...] you would allow him — because of a consideration completely outside the laws governing armed conflict — to continue waging war against the US with impunity [...]
---
I've lost count of how many times I denied such an absurd accusation. The only explanation I see here is, being a military type, you have contempt for any civilian law enforcer. You look to believe nothing but the Armed Forces are able to deal with the bad guys. It is this kind of mentality that drove us to a dictatorship not long ago, just so you know.
---
Since the attack on the Cole wasn't an act of war, the ship wouldn't have been able to establish a no-go zone around the ship and preemptively shoot anything that came within it.
---
Wrong. And I keep astonished to read that from someone with military training.
I know very little about rules of engagement of naval ships, but Google knows a lot, and
self defense is allowed. I guess you were too focused on aircrafts to pay attention to the naval lessons, or the Air Force does not even care talking to the Navy?
---
Never mind the consequences to the Americans involved. But leftists never worry themselves about that, because their skin is never in the game
---
You must the first to ever call Rand Paul a leftist. Anyway, I won't play this game where I must be a chicken because I am a civilian.
Yes, Skipper, I've never even touched a gun, but that does not make me a coward. By the contrary, I've been in situtations where to be unarmed takes a lot of guts. But I'll let you to your superior attitude just because you walk the dog with a 38mm.
Now, on your links, since you had the need to send me to a 49 pages article to defend your argument, I'll take some time before giving you an answer.
Clovis;
Here is where you disagreed. I mentioned it in the previous comment, and you responded with "the USA should just negotiate" and how that kind of this is driven by Fear.
Or your just previous response to Skipper is a disagreement with that as well - specifically the part about civilian law enforcement.
Now, on your links, since you had the need to send me to a 49 pages article to defend your argument, I'll take some time before giving you an answer.
The shorter one, which takes about 10 mins to read, covers the territory just fine.
I've made clear I do not consider there is a war situation there, for the rest of your arguments to apply.
If you are right -- and you aren't -- then the Obama administration is guilty first and foremost of a war crime.
The fact that no one is making that suggestion should be a sign that your notion of what constitutes war (as opposed to what kind of war it is, and what rules should apply) is at sea.
AOG,
I don't know if that's my mistake as a writer, or yours as a reader, but let me summarize the view I presented:
1) In Countries with friendly ties, where the US is allowed to ask for local authorities - or directly send their own officials - to capture a US citizen, I see execution without a trial as an infringement of basic Constitutional rights. The custom in such cases is to send civil law enforcers, but I have no problem with Marines in a gunboat, if their instruction is to use lethal force only if necessary.
2) In enemy Countries, I exeplictly cited the used of the Armed Forces.
I can't see how you concluded I was contrary to your position. I guess you are pre-programmed to see me as the enemy no matter what I say, and that's not the first time it happens.
H. Skipper,
---
[...] your notion of what constitutes war (as opposed to what kind of war it is, and what rules should apply) is at sea.
---
I started reading the 49 pages article, which in fact is a good one, since it deals directly with the questions posed here.
I am prepared to change my opinion if I conclude my views of war are wrong. But that will depend on wether that article really touches the boundary where the abuse of execution powers can be contained before it is used for totalitarism purposes.
[Clovis:] ... if I conclude my views of war are wrong.
That is the hinge on which this whole argument pivots.
If you are right that this doesn't amount to a war -- I don't agree, but that doesn't mean you are wrong -- then never mind Constitutional issues, the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations are all guilty of war crimes.
But if the manner in which Islamists are pursuing their political goals amounts to acts of war, then neither the Constitution nor the LOAC are at risk.
After reading those two links, you may well still think I'm wrong.
However, I'll bet you will also conclude that the issue is -- like physics to the uninitiated -- far more complex than it appears.
Post a Comment