Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Game-Violence Legislator Arrested, Faces Gun Trafficking Charges

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the should-have-stayed-home-and-played-GTA dept.

Crime 234

Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

cancel ×

234 comments

Makes Sense. (2)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 4 months ago | (#46590287)

Hypocrites rule!!!!

Re:Makes Sense. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592127)

California State Senator Leland Yee (D)

Re:Makes Sense. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46595949)

Anytime a politician is arrested and the media doesn't report the party, you can assume that they're a Democrat

Re:Makes Sense. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592129)

Except if TFS is to be believed, he wasn't pushing for an overall ban on violent video games, just ban their sale to minors. And while he might act like a child, he is still legally an adult, so his actions cannot be seen as hypocritical.

Unless the arms trafficking that he was involved with was giving guns to minors. Then maybe it could be hypocritical of him. Or maybe he just didn't want any competition (kids aren't buying my guns because they're buying violent video games and staying inside).

And my lawyer has advised me to clarify that I am not accusing Mr Yee of anything.

Re:Makes Sense. (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#46592575)

I think you missed it the hypocritical part is him trafficking guns illegally well being an anti gun person publicly

Re:Makes Sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592897)

I think you missed it the hypocritical part is him trafficking guns illegally well being an anti gun person publicly

I don't know that I'd say I missed it... only because TFS made no mention of his public anti-gun position. But you're right, that would definitely make him a hypocrite then.

Re: Makes Sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593319)

He's anti-youth violence, while at the same time selling guns outside the law that will probably find their way to be used in said youth violence.

Re:Makes Sense. (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 4 months ago | (#46593301)

Except if TFS is to be believed, he wasn't pushing for an overall ban on violent video games, just ban their sale to minors.

It's okay; he's only trying to oppress some people.

And while he might act like a child, he is still legally an adult, so his actions cannot be seen as hypocritical.

I don't see how they could be seen as hypocritical unless he was playing a violent video game and was a child.

Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Informative)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 4 months ago | (#46590297)

There for a while he was pushing for a ban on a bit of a work around that 'gun-nuts' in California came up with to get around it's ban on so called 'Assault Weapons' A weird little device called a bullet button that makes it so that the magazine in a firearm can't be easier removed. Pretty clever work around for a completely asinine law.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 4 months ago | (#46590333)

Well, yeah... making stuff illegal makes it more profitable, e.g. See "drug trade".

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590365)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46590469)

Great, so you're not a drug addict. Congratulations. Neither am I. But I nonetheless have a serious problem with the ridiculous expenditures on police and prisons, not to mention the militarization of the police force and increasingly invasive anti-drug measures being taken around the country. All of which is a direct consequence of the asinine and completely ineffective "war on drugs". That money comes straight out of my taxes, and could be spent on so many more socially productive endeavors. And it's my rights that are being potentially trampled on when police in military assault gear march on peaceful protestors, or kick in the wrong door in the middle of the night and start shooting.

Maybe the right comment for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590915)

Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over

Okay so you just explained the entire political system and yet your only going after one person because he profited!!! Oh wait the others do that too. Hmmm... [sarcasm]

I am aware of what he has done, but it's the oxymoron of it all!!!

The "war on drugs" isn't what caused a militarized police force, go back and look at the civil rights protests, you'll see that has been with us for years. It is about terrorism, Gang activity, protesters, you name it and the government uses it as a means to implement over reaching laws/rules, that give the police the power they have now.

Another oxymoron, the NSA being targeted by the very morons that gave them their power now want to limit it [aka, PR stunt]
but cops blatantly abusing their power, with more corruption, and right violations then ever, is okay? You know what the police need? Even more over reaching power!! In my state alone the corruption is rampant, from local to State, and all the Federal Agencies. We have DEA wanna b's, ATF wanna b's, all are "special forces to the Sate Attorney General/Prosecutors".

Re:Maybe the right comment for this... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46592607)

The use of police for political oppression has been with us for a long time, but the upgrade to military hardware has largely been in response to increasingly well-armed gangs - nobody is going to come out and authorize military upgrades to put down protestors. And the gang militarization is an utterly predictable outcome of prohibition.

Re:Maybe the right comment for this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592689)

the upgrade to military hardware has largely been in response to increasingly well-armed gangs

No, it has not.

nobody is going to come out and authorize military upgrades to put down protestors

This is exactly what is happening. See Occupy Wall Street, protests on campuses, etc etc. What flavor is the Kool-Aid this week, anyway?

Re:Maybe the right comment for this... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46592851)

When were 'military upgrades' used against any protest in the last 50 years?

Yes, there have been a bad response bo those protest by some law enforcement, but I am unaware of any of them use advanced military weaponry?

Re:Maybe the right comment for this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593153)

Well, Kent State comes to mind, but back in those days they just called in the actual military instead of paramilitary police, so you are technically correct.

Re:Maybe the right comment for this... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46593293)

>This is exactly what is happening.
Can you offer an example where police forces received military upgrades for the stated purpose of assaulting protestors?

Note that I'm not saying the hardware isn't *used* against the protestors. Hell, that may well have even been the actual long-term intent - gotta be able to keep the rabble in line as the fist closes after all. But very few politicians would put their name on a funds allocation based on that rationale. But fighting violent gangs in the manufactured drug war? Now *that* is something that looks good come re-election time. It may only be an excuse to serve other purposes, but remove that excuse and there's very few other plausible reasons to militarize police, forcing the elite to either reduce/refrain from militarization, or expose their actual objectives much more clearly.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#46591075)

To be fair though that doesn't mean drug legalisation is the solution to the particular problem you're describing, the solution to the problem you take issue with is simply to end the war on drugs.

That doesn't have to imply legalisation, it's perfectly possible to keep drugs illegal but not militiarise the prohibition of them, that's what most countries do - America is exceptional in the extremes is goes to to police illegality.

The problem you're describing is more symptomatic of America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control than it is legality of drugs because the problems you describe have been seen in it's war on terror, anti-arms trafficking operations, and in fact in general - proliferation of SWAT units and their use for minor things that have nothing even to do with drugs for example.

What you're talking about is merely an example of the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. Legalise drugs and that problem will still exist, legalisation will solve some different problems however, though it may also create others (e.g. increase in drug driving deaths). Neither the growth of the US' military industrial complex nor the legal status of drugs are a simple problem, and neither have simple solutions. Those claiming legalisation is a panacea that will end organised crime and remove all drug related health problems are as full of shit as those that claim legalisation will cause the downfall of society and turn a nation into a nation of addicts. Long story short, there are very few rational and sensible voices in that particular debate, but at least the discussion about the problem you cite - the strength of the military industrial complex is a much more clear cut problem that can be dealt with in itself.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#46591689)

Actually, it is a pretty simple matter. Legalization is going to be better overall than the current state. Moderate regulation may also be more beneficial, and would certainly be better than the status quo. Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake.

And you really are downplaying the role the war on drugs has played on the militarization of police forces and the curtailing of our rights. Civil forfeiture is more or less due to prohibition (and the organized crime that it inevitably brings), and civil forfeiture funds local police departments to buy SWAT gear. Furthermore, it feeds into the prison-industrial complex, which is a concern in the same league. Fixing everything is not a simple matter, but making improvements over clearly awful problems is one.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46592909)

"Legalization is going to be better overall than the current state."
You can't actually know that, so stop deluding yourself.

" but having better laws is a piece of cake. "
Apparently it isn't, as seen by the lasts 35 years.

" civil forfeiture funds"
Yes, that should be stopped for a great number of reasons.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#46593463)

One could extrapolate the results from places that have legalized, and society hasn't collapsed, or pretty much any place where they don't have the highest per capita prison population (with many inmates in for nonviolent drug offences), with associated after prison stigmata. As things are going at the moment, drug trafficking is often done by the most violent, least moral elements, as they are the ones willing to take the risks (including dealing with rival killer gangs), take the money out of that market, treat addicts like people with medical issues, stop destroying families, and reign in the police.. seems like a net gain, despite a possible increase in "addicts", a hypothesis unsupported by any place with legal drugs (discounting people who left repressive countries to head to countries where it's legal.. I mean new addicts).

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#46593849)

You can't actually know that, so stop deluding yourself.

Not conclusively, but we can speculate, especially since a number of places have significantly reduced enforcement and a few have legalized. We can also draw a number of parallels with alcohol prohibition.

Apparently it isn't, as seen by the lasts 35 years.

Is it tough politically? Yes. Is it tough to actually write laws better than our current ones? No.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#46592949)

"Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake."

If you don't get the balance of regulation right and you end up with taxes on drugs to pay for some of the likely increase in health problems meaning the cost is high enough that poorer people can't afford them and stick with maintaining a black market anyway, whilst rich kids go and get off their heads and kill themselves and others in their parents cars more frequently in drug driving incidents then you've clearly fucked up. Do you know what the ideal balance of regulation and deregulation is? I know I don't, I very much doubt you do, and I suspect anyone who says they do is full of shit. The fact is the more regulation you have, the more of a black market you have - it's not a binary either or thing, and the more deregulation you have, the higher incidences of deaths through overdose/drug driving and other health problems.

We can't even get the balance right with alcohol and tobacco and we've been trying for a rather long time.

"And you really are downplaying the role the war on drugs has played on the militarization of police forces and the curtailing of our rights."

No, I'm just making the claim that you can't prove such laws wouldn't have come about anyway and that the issue can be dealt with entirely separately.

If you deregulate drugs and dent the cartels in Mexico you'll see higher incidences of other arguably more harmful trades with just as much violence such as sex slave trafficking and kidnapping. You'll also likely see more ex-cartel members ending up as guns for hire in destabilised areas like Syria - hell, you might even see a resurgence of groups like FARC as they find a sudden influx of willing supporters, as well as engaging in higher levels of weapons trafficking. I think this sort of thing has to be factored in and it has to be considered as to how you go about solving these problems as they arise beforehand, not after it's already happened. You would need coordinated action to disarm and dismember the cartels around the same time you perform whatever degree of legalisation you intend to implement.

For what it's worth I am actually for some degree of change, because I agree that I think we can improve on the status quo, but I do not think that it is a given that if we deregulate that it will automatically be better, I think it has to happen slowly and carefully with plenty of funding available for academia to transparently measure and assess the effects of change.

So I repeat my earlier point - anyone who thinks it's simple does not grasp the full scale of the problem and the multitude of factors involved. The global drug trade is worth over $300bn, that's not the sort of industry you can just make drastic and far reaching changes to overnight without there being massive consequences and effects. I agree that cannot be allowed to be an excuse for inaction on the issue, but it's also a warning that the problem needs to be better understood and argued by all sides so that a sensible plan for change can be implemented, not a "OMG JUST LEGALISE IT'LL ALL BE OKAY" plan.

I think the status quo of slow legalisation of Cannabis state by state, nation by nation over a period of years is probably not actually a bad start. At least it's not going to send shockwaves through the industry and disrupt it too rapidly and uncontrollably.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#46594075)

We don't have to get the balance 'right', we just have to get the balance 'better' than it is right now. You are also making the bizarre assumption that health costs will go up, which doesn't seem to mesh with reality. Prohibition hasn't reduced usage, and a large share of the health-related concerns are due to impurities because these drugs are being made in environments not suitable for pharmaceutical grade production. Another concern is the lack of reliability of concentration, which is how a lot of overdoses happen. The biggest shift I would anticipate is going from alcohol to cannabis, which would be an overall reduction of health concerns.

Regarding civil forfeiture and militarization, while they might have happened through other methods, it's hard to argue that this wouldn't greatly reduce it by just changing it now. You can't buy your PD a tank if you don't have money, and the money comes largely from drugs.

I'm not saying that finding the right laws is easy. Far from it. I'm not saying that it will solve all of our problems. I'm just saying that it's not difficult to be less idiotic than we currently are. Stopping complete and total failure is an incredible step forward, and far beyond what most of our laws accomplish.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#46600709)

"We don't have to get the balance 'right', we just have to get the balance 'better' than it is right now."

I absolutely agree, which is why I support carefully planned and well assessed change.

"You are also making the bizarre assumption that health costs will go up, which doesn't seem to mesh with reality."

You say this as if it's a fact and this is precisely the problem I'm highlighting - too many people on both sides of the argument keep parroting their "facts" which actually aren't, they're just guesses in the dark.

"Prohibition hasn't reduced usage"

How do you know this? The only alternatives we have to compare against are places like Afghanistan and parts of Africa where opiate and khat users and so forth are widespread and far more problematic than drug use in prohibited nations (even those with equal poverty problems etc.) but this doesn't tell the full story because it's still hard to compare these nations to Western nations. The point is though that you're again stating something as fact when it's just an outright unknown. You've decided to fall on one side of the argument without there being anything to back up your viewpoint - you've decided it's fact for no other reason than it suits your personal bias.

You can look at alcohol and tobacco in Western countries over the last couple of decades and you'll note that a trend towards more regulation has actually solved the problem. Ontario's use of LCBO to control alcohol distribution for example means they have far less problems with alcoholism than we have here in the UK where you can go to your local supermarket and stock up on enough alcohol to give an entire family fatal alcohol poisoning for less than £20. I realise you said before that your recognise that some regulation is probably necessary so I think you probably agree with me here that complete unregulated legalisation isn't the ideal option anyway, but I give the example of alcohol and tobacco as a demonstration that actually more regulation can sometimes be better - something many people arguing for legalisation believe, is actually false.

"You can't buy your PD a tank if you don't have money, and the money comes largely from drugs."

Most equipment expenditure has been justified by the war on terror in recent decades, if they weren't getting it from forfeiture they'd be getting it by claiming it was essential for terror funding. The money may just have been redirected from the actual military to fund it.

As I said before I don't disagree with you on a fundamental level that change is necessary, I'm largely just pointing out that the debate is so riddled with people on both sides deciding things are facts, not understanding all the variables involved and hence failing to understand why progress is so slow. It's slow for a reason - if you're a politician in charge of making the call, you think legalisation is the answer, but then you ask the question "Well, can we be certain there wont be other major problems?" and you get the response "No sir, we really can't, we don't think there will be but we can't be sure" then are you really willing to bet your career on it? It takes a brave politician to make that call because they're literally putting their career on the line.

So I also understand why things are going as slow as they are, the practicalities of change are difficult, and the effects are awkward - that's why I both understand the reason for and in many ways support very slow change. As I say the last thing you want is complete national or worse, even international legalisation overnight putting tens to hundreds of thousands of violent armed drugs trade employees out of a job. It may be a bitter pill to swallow but if we want rapid change we may have to look at allowing the cartels to become legal business entities and allow amnesties, but how are we going to convince families of their victims that that's even a rational option? If that's not acceptable then it has to happen slowly.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Mephistro (1248898) | about 4 months ago | (#46599705)

... and you end up with taxes on drugs to pay for some of the likely increase in health problems

If you remove the war on drugs, you also remove contamination -poisonings-, variations in drug's concentration -overdoses-, needle sharing - AIDS, hepatitis- and most of the reasons for violent drug related crimes. Your "likely increase in health problems" is quite unlikely, indeed.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#46600653)

No it's not, you're just speculating. The point is that there are so many side effects that we just do not know. The point is that if you tax to cover healthcare costs then there'll still be a black market with all those associated, if you don't tax then you have non-users subsidising users who can't control themselves which isn't fair on non-users - why should they subsidise someone elses habit? simply because they're holding a gun to their head and saying "Well it'll cost you anyway because we'll just use the black market if you tax us"? Hardly fair.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46592879)

"America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control "
I disagree. I think it has far more to do with the privatization of prisons.
Some drugs should no longer be prohibited, such as Marijuana, and some should remain.

Stop incarcerating people who don't do violence, and focus on social programs.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 4 months ago | (#46593663)

I do agree that our prison system needs a serious rebuild such that those who serve time come out of prison more fit to live a decent life. Although the nation's economic condition now makes that sort of impossible. How can a released convict get a decent job when many much more perfect candidates can find no decent work at all? As far as dope is concerned we made the same mistake with alcohol. Going after the business side of dope can't work. There has to be a willingness to go to war on the casual drug user in order to win that battle. We will not survive as a nation if we allow people to get high at will. The militarization of police is being caused by the violent reaction that many people have towards any form of control. Cops get attacked far too often compared to decades past. There is some abuse of no knock warrants but these days it is important not to give a moment for bad people to get to their weapons, destroy evidence or kill captives. Right now there is already a tendency to arrest only as many people as a county can afford to arrest. It is not that there are not large numbers of people that are not already "caught" so to speak. It is simply an economic issue in not being able to arrest every criminal that one could easily convict.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46594847)

>We will not survive as a nation if we allow people to get high at will.
Really, on what do you base that conclusion? We allow people to get drunk at will with minimal ill effects on the nations survival. We allow them to smoke tobacco at will. Hell, most of the population is addicted to using large quantities caffeine on a regular basis - a drug which has thus far gone almost completely unstudied. Most drugs were perfectly legal throughout most of human history, and the fact of the matter is that by and large responsible people didn't allow themselves to become destructively addicted, and it's really nobody else's business what drugs they use in the privacy of their own home.

>The militarization of police is being caused by the violent reaction that many people have towards any form of control.
No, the militarization of police is caused by a political mandate that they attempt to shut down a violent black market. Which you yourself have pointed out is an impossible task. So long as drugs remain illegal the drug cartels will be better funded than the police, and competing cartels will be perpetually engaged in various turf wars with each other - the police are just one more faction trying to drive them out of their turf.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46687537)

Ah yes...20-somethings. Gotta love you twits.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590495)

All freedom should be important to everyone. I'm not a drug user either, not even alcohol, but the war on drugs is anything but. It is a war on victims and it is destroying our neighbor Mexico.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592721)

Actually, it's a politically expedient system designed to enrich the private prison industry. And why give a fuck about Mexico?

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46596157)

You are aware the Guardian has been editorializing in favor of legalizing and promoting incest, right?

Should elementary school teachers be free to sleep with their students? Some do!

Should the state honor legal marriages between people and abstract ideas?

You have to draw the line somewhere ...

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | about 4 months ago | (#46641873)

You are aware the Guardian has been editorializing in favor of legalizing and promoting incest, right?

So they're Royalists?

Should elementary school teachers be free to sleep with their students? Some do!

The fathers of Western civilization in ancient Greece would say "hell yes". Personally, I couldn't care less.

Should the state honor legal marriages between people and abstract ideas?

The state shouldn't be involved in marriage or any other religious ceremony/status. As for civil unions - well, can you tell me what it would be mean in the context of, let's say probate court, for a person to be married to an abstract idea?

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46662695)

>> So they're Royalists?

I wouldn't look at the history of the Hapsburgs and walk away saying that it justified incest. If you're suggesting incest in general is OK (as was the Guardian), I think you are only considering the outmost surface of things. If you think you would be OK with your parents having sex with you, you really don't know yourself very well.

>> The fathers of Western civilization in ancient Greece would say "hell yes". Personally, I couldn't care less.

Well, the children of those fathers ain't reading the Symposium any more. And one of those guys (Aristotle) said homosexuality is what happens when kids aren't loved very much. Couldn't have said it better myself.

>> The state shouldn't be involved in marriage or any other religious ceremony/status.

That's a simple answer, which I usually like, but what happens when your spouse dies? Does all her wealth go to the State? Somehow I don't think you'd be too pleased with that one. What if you want to work and your spouse doesn't? Should you be allowed to balance our your tax liability between the two of you? If not you're encouraging one person (who might be trying to raise children) to work 20 hrs/wk and the spouse to also work 20 hrs/wk to get around the tax law and the government collects the same amount of money. From a purely civil perspective, I think the government has to get involved (unfortunatly), but I am honestly open to alternatives.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46590547)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

You don't have to give a damn about drugs, pro or con, to admit that they are a useful example to bring up in the context of the effect of prohibition on the available margins in a given market.

If you prefer a classier example, from a (not actually more civilized; but definitely better dressed) age; we can talk about booze. Same effects were seen under the Volstead act.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591089)

Actually only the rich were better dressed (arguably). Most working class people (who can afford to go to a mall today) dressed in rags.

But you're right, and so many of the people endorsing the Volstead act or the Temperance movement were themselves involved in bootlegging. It's a great way of deflecting suspicion.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591401)

No, no they didn't dress in rags. Even bums wore a coat and tie. It might be a threadbare coat and tie, but rags were not worn by pretty much anyone in America in that time. Except for maybe a very few rural poor.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 4 months ago | (#46592119)

I gotta agree with the furry fungus here - this legislator was spending his career expanding the prohibition of guns while allegedly being involved in the black market for guns.

Drug and alcohol prohibition and the black markets they create are directly applicable examples for this discussion. Although it is admittedly pretty rare for the perverse incentives to be as directly applied as they are in this case. Usually it just involves interested parties like police and prison unions and private prisons lobbying (donating to campaigns) for more prohibition.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#46595265)

Same thing happened before in the 20''s/30's with prohibition they even coined a term for it "Bootleggers and Baptists"

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593033)

Not really.
Crime dropped dramatically during prohibition. Domestic crime dropped to just about 0%; which was the goal of prohibition.
The vast majority of violent crime was gang on gang, and even then it was still substantially less then pre-prohibition violent crime rates.

What prohibition of alcohol set out to do, it did and quite successfully.
Now, news papers made a big deal out of every gang incident, including exaggeration and lies.
I'm sure the fact that they lost a major advertiser had nothing to do with the bad reporting...

It's a bad example. One was an established industry enjoyed by most, the other has always been a little secret and then made illegal.
Plus, booze is harder to transport, requires a lot of space is you want to store enough to make money, and is a lot easier to detect.

If you noticed that at no place in the above statement do I give an opinion, then good for you you are actually reading. If you are getting ready to write a post assuming my opinion is anti becasue I pointed out some facts, (and 1 speculation) then shame on you. Calm done, take a breat, and learn to careful re-read things before replying.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593263)

Crime dropped dramatically during prohibition

You have GOT to be kidding. Since people did not stop drinking, and drinking was now a crime, there's that. Furthermore there is the fact that brewing/distilling and distribution also were crimes. Some of the more famous criminals in history became big players during all this.

If you have any evidence for your statement I would be very interested but otherwise I frankly think this is a lot of BS.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593305)

Nevermind, I think this [wikipedia.org] settles it pretty much:

Organized crime received a major boost from Prohibition

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition transformed some cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs.

Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 3 months ago | (#46604065)

"...the effect of prohibition on the available margins in a given market."

Good way to put it.

And I was just reading about the more-than-expected $$millions that legal pot is bringing Colorado in taxes, and my response (tho I don't use) was, "Hurry up and legalize the damned stuff! We need the money!"

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 4 months ago | (#46590583)

Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this: http://www.policestateusa.com/... [policestateusa.com]

This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0, Troll)

Megol (3135005) | about 4 months ago | (#46591091)

The standard procedure if a person is suspected to carry drugs internally is to put them in a cell with a toilet that captures feces.

The other alternatives are used if the person is suspected not only to carry drugs but to carry drugs that have started to leak into their body.

And that, Mr Checksum, is done in order to save the suspects life.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46594913)

The standard procedure if a person is suspected to carry drugs internally is to put them in a cell with a toilet that captures feces.

The other alternatives are used if the person is suspected not only to carry drugs but to carry drugs that have started to leak into their body.

And that, Mr Checksum, is done in order to save the suspects life.

"Hello? 911? My neighbor, Megol, is involved with drug traffickers - I think they killed that cop in the next town over. He's hiding from them but I think the drugs he has hidden in his butt are leaking. He could die! Please come right away! He might have a gun, he;'s scared! Please don't hurt him or his easily startled dog!"

There's the problem. Not how the police actually respond to that, but how they can choose to respond.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590615)

but normal people don't care about such matters.

Normal, decent people should care about excessive and unjust incarceration as a result of irrational and corrupt drug policies.

And if decently and compassion don't compel you to care, you should at least care because drug laws cost you a boatload of money.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

Kirth (183) | about 4 months ago | (#46590801)

> Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Apothem (1921856) | about 4 months ago | (#46598685)

> Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".

This is by far the best expression of the issue I have ever seen. The current laws totally mimic prohibition laws from the early 1900's. Seems more like history just keeps on repeating itself.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#46591067)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

Sure, once it's at least partly legalized in a sensible way for most areas of the world. Else the issue won't go away.

normal people don't care about such matters.

I imagine they would start caring, if say their house or car were seized as part of a US drug raid. You don't have to care in order to get bit by the bizarre and rather nasty laws that have come about in order to fight the War on Drugs.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

pantaril (1624521) | about 4 months ago | (#46591203)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

If normal people realy don't care about such matters why are the drugs banned? Stop the ban on production and consumption of drugs and i'm sure the "drug addicts" will stop bothering you about it. If you realy don't care about it it should be no problem for you.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

DaFallus (805248) | about 4 months ago | (#46591917)

Can you please stop thinking that anyone shares your opinion or cares to hear it?

Prohibition keeps the competition down. (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 4 months ago | (#46590361)

[Parent poster talks of ONE of his many anti-gun (i.e. anti-gun-in-private-hands) projects.]

Prohibition of something means the illegal providers of it have less competition and can thus sell for a higher price. So it's very convenient for those sellers. Thus, for instance, drug lords are just fine with keeping the drug laws strong and complex, and opposed to legalization of their product (which would put them in competition with efficient conglomerates who could compete the pants off them).

(Incidentially: I suspect Yee's opposition to video games was a spinoff of his antigun agenda.)

By the way: Pro-gunners are celebrating tonight. (The call from a friend a few hours ago with the news made both my wife my own day. B-) )

Re:Prohibition keeps the competition down. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593059)

why are they celebrating?

Re:Prohibition keeps the competition down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46595433)

What a stupid question, but then 90% of your posts are naught but narcissistic, egocentric masturbation. Just because you don't care about a tyrant and arms trafficker coming to justice doesn't mean other people don't have a reason to celebrate.

Don't worry. You'll be fine. It's not like they're arresting all the assholes this week.

Re:Prohibition keeps the competition down. (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46596181)

Because an anti-gun legislator got busted.

Re:Prohibition keeps the competition down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596661)

They're celebrating because an extremely corrupt, extremely stupid, selfish, anti-freedom, agenda-pushing idiot is no longer in a position to make people's lives worse.

Re:Prohibition keeps the competition down. (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | about 4 months ago | (#46609077)

The phenomenon where high-minded do-gooders want what the low-minded black market purveyors also want is called "the Baptist and the Bootlegger". http://duckduckgo.com/?q=bapti... [duckduckgo.com]

The effects of laws don't depend in the slightest on the intentions of their advocates.

That's why apartheid-era racists in South Africa wanted a certain type of law that today's American liberals also want, but for quite opposite reasons. (It's depressing to realize the South African racists had a better understanding of the social phenomena involved about a century ago than American liberals do today. Go figure.)

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590479)

This is actually extremely important. I hope this opens the eyes of at least a couple people that these politicians have no interest in making us safer by banning guns.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 4 months ago | (#46590593)

It makes perfect sense that a smuggler wants to outlaw whatever he's smuggling. The cocaine cartels don't want drug legalization either.

-jcr

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 4 months ago | (#46591429)

But then why is he anti-violence in games? Surely if he is trying to ban guns to increase his profits, why isn't he lobbying for violent games so people are more interested in buying his product? Is it possible that deep down he knows that violent games don't lead to an increase in real-world violence?

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591483)

It's because he doesn't actually care but wants to seem sympathetic, and the same idiots that think taking guns out of private hands makes us less violent and safer would also oppose video games.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592421)

Exactly - if violent video games lead to a decrease in actual violence, it's in his best interest to ban them in order to increase sales of his product; the "video games cause violence" spiel is just there to make it palatable to his colleagues.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592567)

"But then why is he anti-violence in games?"

Why do you have this idea that what he supports legislatively is what he supports privately?

He's a pubic servant - if his constituents instruct him to sponsor anti-gun or anti-violence-in-games legislation, then it is his job to do as he is told whether he personally agrees with it or not.

That's what politicians are for.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 4 months ago | (#46599045)

But then why is he anti-violence in games?

That's probably just some unrelated noise-making on his part.

-jcr

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590697)

He is a gun runner. How can you possibly call him Antigun? Besides have you ever met a Republican that wasn't. All of them are pro violence.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (4, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | about 4 months ago | (#46590967)

He's actually a Democrat. It's not mentioned in the article, but he's definitely a Democrat.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun to (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591341)

Of course he is. If he were a Republican, it would have been in the summary in all capital letters, bold, italic, and blinking.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun to (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 4 months ago | (#46594539)

With how commonplace it is for Republicans fundraisers to embezzle, moralists to molest, and budget hawks to feather with pork, it's important that "Democratic party affiliation" be mentioned, because otherwise we'd assume it was just another Republican and "patriotic Americans" would just carry on and ignore the story.

I'm in favor of prosecuting crooks with power, no matter their affiliation. Bold type on Republicans? Really? People would think that was the average weight of a font if we did that.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (4, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46591431)

The summary didn't mention party affiliation. Therefore it was safe to assume he is a Democrat.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 4 months ago | (#46594645)

Obama has been unable to make most of his Federal prosecutor appointments and it's been clear that as much as 7 times more investigations occur on Democratic appointments and politicians. While we have the IRS scandal, Republican connected 401C charities were investigated less and stopped less.

We also have minorities targeted more often by random drug sweeps and stop and frisk in certain parts of the country - and that results in more arrests of minorities.

Your chance of using a "Stand Your Ground" law is something like 384 times more likely if you are caucasian than you are a minority.

If Republicans and Caucasian established people never get investigated and handled with kid gloves -- then apparently that should mean it's not a crime if you are a caucasian Republican. Let's not pretend we are living in a society that is rapidly falling apart because of different standards of justice.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

nyet (19118) | about 4 months ago | (#46590775)

“My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this horrific tragedy and their families. These events are shocking to all of us and sadly remind us of the carnage that is possible when assault weapons get into the wrong hands. It is imperative that we take every step possible to eliminate the types of senseless killings witnessed in Aurora, Colorado. We must limit access to weapons that can carry massive rounds of bullets or that can be easily reloaded. SB 249 is a step in that direction and should be approved by the Legislature as soon as possible.” - Leland Yee

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 4 months ago | (#46591883)

Don't forget he also wanted to licence 3d printers during the 3d-printed gun hysteria.

"While I am as impressed as anyone with 3-D printing technology and I believe it has amazing possibilities, we must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences," said Yee [ca.gov] . "I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check.".

Smells rotten (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591447)

The story that is. Seems as if he was set up.

Re:Smells rotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591463)

my theory is the elite want guns to be abolished and they need all violence blamed directly on guns and not games. Violent games can't steel the limelight from gun bans.

Time wounds all heels (1)

davecb (6526) | about 4 months ago | (#46591683)

(Courtesy John Winterton)

corruption knows no party (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#46590299)

What a pieve of work this crook is.

Glad they nabbed him.

He'll probably get a month's probation.

Re:corruption knows no party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590523)

Supervisor Ed Jew not so long ago got over six years for arguably lesser crimes.

What party was that again... (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590305)

Rule of thumb:

If it don't have a letter,
It's a Democrat matter

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590351)

Is it my imagination, or is there also a dearth of "racial" descriptions? Seems to me, back in the day there would be reports like "a 5 foot 8 Caucasian, male, slight build, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt" should be given.

Now, it's just "a 5 foot 8, male, slight build, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt". Sheesh, what's next? "a 5 foot 8, person, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt"?

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593517)

Suspect description omits race? Suspect is black and lives in a blue state.

Re:What party was that again... (0, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590407)

ahem [wikipedia.org]

Here's the blurb in the New York Times on this topic. [nytimes.com] Party affiliation is in the second sentence.

Stop lying.

Re:What party was that again... (3, Insightful)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46590483)

Let's see... the summary above doesn't mention party affiliation, and neither does the LA Times article it links to. How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top? How many articles did you find where a Republican was accused of something negative but the affiliation wasn't mentioned?

Just because someone points out evidence for their case doesn't automatically mean they're engaging in confirmation bias. Finding one contrary piece of evidence to bolster your side doesn't mean you're not.

I'd say "lying" is a pretty over-the-top accusation.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590515)

How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top?

It was the very first one. NY Times is my go-to news source. But I can do some more.

Next up is the Washington Post. I can't find this subject there, but here's their top article on corruption. [washingtonpost.com] Again it's a Democrat, and again that fact is in the second sentence.

Now let's check the first corruption-related article in the Seattle Times. Another story on the mayor from the WaPo article. [seattletimes.com] This time you have to read all the way to the fourth sentence to find his party affiliation.

Get the point yet?

This is a regular lie that Republicans trot out. They just love to play the victim. See also: "white Christian men are the most oppressed group in America".

Re:What party was that again... (5, Insightful)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46590569)

Try again. The summary says nothing about party affiliation. The linked article in the LA Times says nothing about party affiliation. I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee", and none mention his affiliation in the headline, while only three mention it within the first two paragraphs. Three others mention it near the bottom of the article (interestingly, all in the form of a transition sentence like "Yee's arrest would make him the third Democratic state senator fighting charges this year", leading into a discussion of other Democrats in trouble), and one (from CBS, not the LA Times one again) doesn't mention it at all.

Show me a similar sampling of articles on a Republican corruption case where the party affiliation is not mentioned at or near the top of the article in anything approaching half the examples, and then we can talk.

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What party was that again... (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#46590627)

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]

Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.
....

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590683)

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

Yeah, like presidential candidates who abused their position to avoid combat slandering opposing war heroes as cowards.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590843)

What in the Hell are you even talking about? Did you watch too much Jon Stewart and Colbert during the Bush admin?

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590969)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the controversies surrounding Bush Jr's service record? Or maybe how ol' G.W. decided to bash John Kerry, who earned three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star in active service in Vietnam, because Kerry came home and took part in anti-war protests?

Nah, it couldn't be those things. Nope.

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592049)

Don't forget one of the biggest war hawks AND draft dodgers (sorry, I mean 5-time deferment winner) Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney. (My favorite is his 5th deferment when in 1965 the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Remarkably, and I'm sure quite coincidentally, nine months and two days later Cheney's wife gave birth to their first child).

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596685)

Hey, you haven't blamed Reagan for anything yet. Don't forget to trot him out.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591751)

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

Yeah, like presidential candidates who abused their position to avoid combat slandering opposing war heroes as cowards.

Hey...that's not a nice thing to say about our Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592157)

You win today's "biggest ignorant dumbass" award. Yes, those three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star he received somehow while avoiding combat?? Even Al Gore had more combat time than the entire Bush administration (who didn't make the military their career). It is funny how the biggest war hawks are the ones who went out of their way to avoid having to go to war themselves.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592809)

It's very questionable whether the raping of Vietnam created any heroes on America's side or if any participation in that slaughtering just turned the participant into a psychopathic murderer. Abusing one's position to avoid that combat might have been the only moral choice.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590829)

Odd, in my experience it's always been Democrats accusing people of projection. You are of course very much correct in this comment (and actually used the term "projection" correctly, which is rare) but it's just interesting that this is the first time I've ever seen them called out on this particular trait.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46591449)

So you're saying Democrats accuse people of projecting because they project? So they're projecting their projecting bias?

Re:What party was that again... (2, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590865)

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws.

Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592025)

Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users.

To give him some credit though he didn't make any secret of it when he went into rehab. Just because he's been one doesn't mean he suddenly has to be tolerant of other addicts.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#46593531)

He should have the good grace to shut up about it though. He's not required to tolerate em, but he is required to stop calling them degenerates, and casting aspersions on their characters, considering that the exact same thing happened to him (most people don't set out to become addicts, and it often isn't a failing of willpower, or some moral fault).. and all of a sudden it's a sob story.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 4 months ago | (#46592185)

Artor3 has you there. I was going to post along the same lines, but I think that pretty much covers it. Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and a myriad of other logical fallacies that support our personal world view. If you think you are exempt, that's just because your own biases are particularly strong.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 4 months ago | (#46593281)

It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

It's kept Obama in office.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593465)

I've been listening to Rush for a long time and I've never heard him "rail against drug users". I've never really heard him say much about drugs period.

Only Dems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591113)

Only Dems do this? WTF, did you forget Senator Larry Craig? You know, the guy who railed against homosexuality while making a habit out of nailing dudes in airport bathrooms. Or Ted Haggard, the leader of the country's biggest "Christian" ministry who was actually a meth addict who would hire men to suck him off? At least when Dems do something like this, they are essentially banned from the limelight. Haggard has started a new mega-church.

Mentality (1)

phorm (591458) | about 4 months ago | (#46593061)

After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else

I think it's more a case of "if guns are harder to get, illegal gun sales will be more profitable"

Re:What party was that again... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593119)

"He pushed for heavy gun regulations"
heavy? no, not really.

" because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. "
a) we don't know that. We will see what unfolds.
b) No, he submitted some bills because it would get him votes. You don't need to be a representative in order to do gun smuggling.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590855)

I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee"

Let's go into detail on that then. Ignoring the Wikipedia page, we have:

#1: Fox News - Waits all the way till sentence 18 to identify him as a Democrat. Are you prepared to argue that Fox is biased in favor of Democrats?
#2: CBS - No mention. That's one.
#3: ABC - Mentioned in the first sentence.
#4: NBC - Mentioned, but several paragraphs down.
#5: Mercury News: Mentioned in the first sentence.
#6: Mentioned in the second sentence.
#7: Mentioned in the 13th sentence.

So it's only omitted once, and only really buried one other time. In every other case, you need to read 20 or fewer sentences. And the third "worst" is Fox News, who you can't possibly claim to be biased against Republicans. Do you really believe there's malice there? And not just reporters figuring that his affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his crime?

I can't pull up a Republican, because I don't know of any who have recently been arrested. And if I Google "Republican arrested", I'm obviously going to get articles mentioning party affiliation. That's the brilliant thing about this lie that right-wing media outlets have been pushing. It won't be on your mind next time a Republican gets arrested, so you won't look for it. But whenever a Democrat gets arrested, you'll have some more fuel for your hatred.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Confusador (1783468) | about 4 months ago | (#46591737)

You'd have to Google "Republican arrested," find an incident, and then Google the name in a separate search (preferably in a private browsing session). I'd do it, but I can't find the energy to try to convince someone they're not being persecuted.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 4 months ago | (#46593303)

I'd do it, but I can't find the energy to try to convince someone they're not being persecuted.

Do you work for the IRS?

Re:What party was that again... (1)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46592245)

Apparently you got a slightly different top seven articles than I did... I got the Fox, CBS, and Mercury News ones, with the same result. The other two I got that didn't mention it until the end were from local stations (KGO and nbcbayarea.com, whatever that is).

Also, you and others are misunderstanding the causality here. The claim isn't that, if a Democrat gets into trouble, no one reports on their party affiliation. The claim is that, if you ever read an article in which party affiliation is not mentioned, the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat. So collecting examples where Democrats are identified doesn't even counter the claim we have existence proofs right here with the LA Times and CBS that it does happen. What's really needed is a broad sampling of articles in which party affiliation is not mentioned, then determining what the actual affiliations are in those cases.

Anyway, I don't think either one of us is going to do a scientifically valid study here. If you google "name that party" you can find a lot of other examples, pointed out by conservatives, of Democratic party affiliation not being mentioned, so the LA Times and CBS articles are not isolated examples. You're correct that that's not a scientific study either, and very susceptible to confirmation bias. It's worth noting that you never hear the same complaint from Democrats though.

I'm certainly willing to say that it's suspicious but unproven. Unlike you, I am not willing to call anyone a liar over it. You seem to be evidence in favor of Krauthammer's statement: "Conservatives think liberals are dumb, liberals think conservatives are evil." But maybe that's just confirmation bias on my part... :)

Re:What party was that again... (1)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46592281)

Ugh, "claim we" should be "claim. We". Conservatives are in too much of a hurry to proofread carefully...

Re: What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592355)

Same with those blacks. See what I did there? You are a bigot and probably do not even realize it.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593143)

" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"
and thats false.

What is happening is different organization report different stories differently and everyone is trying to find some sort of pattern.
You might as well look for clues to the next terrorist attack in a Moby DIck book.

Re:What party was that again... (2)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46593331)

" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"
and thats false.

How is that false? We have two examples right here (the LA Times article and the CBS article), and at this point, no counterexamples. I already explained how to find more examples via google. I'm not saying that proves it's true, but at least I have evidence. You're just making a totally unjustified assertion.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46651821)

I know this thread is dead, but I can't help noting a couple of recent developments:

On the Yee story, CNN has managed to avoid the question of whether or not to disclose his party affiliation by not reporting on the story at all. Seriously. Check this [cnn.com] . As of this writing the most recent story on him is from 2011.

In terms of more anecdotal evidence that I'm sure will be written off as confirmation bias, there's a new classic here [washingtonpost.com] from the Associated Press (via the Washington Post). An interesting summary article noting that Charlotte mayor Partick Cannon is just the latest of six mayors around the nation caught up in scandal. Most relevant to the thread here, none of them have their party affiliation mentioned. How many of those six do you think are Democrats?

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591845)

Also go to Senator Yee's home page and you will be hard pressed to even find his party affiliation there.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#46590609)

If it was an (R), his party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline, not the body of the story.

And honestly, there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men. You really don't see it? It's like the entire left wing decided that the problem wasn't bigotry, it was that bigotry was being directed at the wrong group. I know you don't believe me, so here's some science:

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative âoeoverall,â there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

-- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf [yoelinbar.net]

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Kirth (183) | about 4 months ago | (#46590817)

Conservatism isn’t http://seegras.discordia.ch/Bl... [discordia.ch]

But I actually don't see why the party has anything to do with it, besides, the Democrats and the Republicans are both right-wing authoritarians. http://politicalcompass.org/us... [politicalcompass.org] So there's no difference anyway.

Re:What party was that again... (2, Interesting)

cpm99352 (939350) | about 4 months ago | (#46590849)

Imagine how NPR would cover the ongoing (Executive branch) changes to the ACA if Bush were President.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591073)

Imagine how Fox News would cover the ACA if it had been passed under a Republican President.

And we know that the Republican House wouldn't waste a single vote on it but would praise it to the skies.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591777)

They'd probably cover it the same way as they did Medicare Part D - negatively. You know the Tea Party was founded in opposition to Bush's expansion of government and amnesty, right?

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592995)

this was before the GOP corrupted it, and the racists barged in and turned it into the "we hate obama" club.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591931)

Well, it was created by the Heritage Foundation specifically for the Republican Party to use as an alternative to the proposed "HillaryCare" (single payer) during the Clinton Administration.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593197)

Since NPR has taken a really through look at it, I got to say you are wrong.
IN fact, they are the only news organization I can find that's asking hard questions about it, to representatives regardless of the part affiliation.
NPR reporting is some of the most actually balanced reporting.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 4 months ago | (#46593615)

You have OBVIOUSLY never listed to NPR.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590877)

I am a white Christian man, and no, I don't see any significant hatred towards me. A few obnoxious atheists who are either passing through, or never grew out of, the I've-got-it-all-figured-out phase, but that's really about it. And even those are pretty much only on the internet.

Also, your copy-pasted science is talking about discriminating against people based on their political stance, not because they are white or Christian or male. If someone starts ranting about how Obama is gonna set up death panels, which was not at all uncommon among Republicans just a few years ago, then yeah, I'm gonna think they're an idiot and treat them accordingly. But that's on the basis of their personal actions, not because of a group that they belong to.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

strack (1051390) | about 4 months ago | (#46590939)

So thats a study that says that psychologists discriminate against colleagues with conservative views. I dont understand how that translates into "hatred against white Christian men". Seems they just dont like collegues with a political view that supports creationism over evolution in schools, ignorance of climate change research, and a general anti-science bent in their policies. Sounds like scientists being rational actors.

Re: What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591829)

Maybe you believe too much in that strawman created by mass media millionaries; but then again, you perfectly fit the stereotype of "useful brainwashed moron" that makes conservatives like me to avoid you like the plague.

Re: What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593703)

Confirmation bias works both ways, Mr way up there on that extremely tall equine animal.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 4 months ago | (#46590995)

there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men

But how much of that has anything to do with them being white, or christian, or men?

Given that this group has historically been -- and to considerable extent still is -- disproportionately represented in positions of power, it is hardly surprising that those who are underrepresented or feel disenfranchised would develop some animosity. But I would guess this has much more to do with the factual inbalances than traits such as skin color, or religion, or gender.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | about 4 months ago | (#46592039)

There's a reason for the bile thrown at white Christian males. They deserve it.

Sorry if that sounds like troll bait, but I don't remember any other group lynching African-Americans. While also denying women health choices or voting rights, or screaming for border security to keep out people who are "not like us". Or complaining about the "culture war" (which is in reality an indicator of declining influence). Or recently, trying to get Draconian voter ID laws on the books.

They'll do everything in their power to protect their hegemony, because they firmly believe that their privileges are in fact rights.

Sure, there are counterexamples, but not very many. Far fewer in fact.

If you're offended as a white Christian male, well, I'll ask you to try something new: Stop whining.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46594517)

Smash the patriarchy!

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46597155)

just...wow. Seriously, wow.
I can't even begin to comment on this, the stupid has made my head hurt.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#46599833)

Thanks so much for proving my point. Those people who think differently than us are wrong and we don't need to tolerate them. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#46592543)

well lucky that you have just two parties that are clones of each other so if there is no R on the headline there is no need to put D there.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592551)

Bigotry is directed at the wrong group. It ought to be directed at politicians, not between Ds and Rs.

You have it backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592597)

If he was Republican, the FBI would have left him alone instead of conducting a sting operation. They are ALL corrupt. If they solicit a bribe on their own initiative, they get arrested which is fine. What we've got here is a situation where they wait quietly to be offered bribes, and the FBI picks and chooses who they want to go after. So all the sting targets lately seem to be Democrats. Chris Christie also went after a lot of those when he was a federal prosecutor in NJ. He did it to members of both parties at first, til he built up a reputation for being unbiased. After that it was democrats all the way.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#46593111)

The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts

Oh me oh my! Out of 800 members of the soft sciences, there were some anti-conservative sentiments?!? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! (/s)

First off, that's not "hatred towards white Christian men" which is what you seemed to be trying to prove. Second, plenty of fields have biases. Go into a chamber of commerce in Arizona and take such a poll and I'm sure you'll find much more vivid hatred against liberals. And latinos. And I'd suggest that the chamber of commerce crowd weilds a lot more power than a bunch of psychologists. Yes, we're all discriminated against, but we're not all equally discriminated against.

On the larger point of bias in the media, sure, journalists might like to call out individual republicans for corruption more than democrats. And I'll give you that journalists are more liberal, it is one of those fields. But lets remember that the country is massively skewed to the right. When it comes down to things that matter the media obeys the republicans, [worldpublicopinion.org] . They marched us into Bush's war without asking questions. They did little cheerleading for obamacare and covered all the crazy bullshit conservatives were coming up with to attack what was essentially their plan.

I'd suggest that if journalists like pointing out shit that republicans do, it's only because their consciences are bothering them for following conservative orders when it actually matters.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590619)

The fact that the summary and the LA times don't mention his party affiliation is outrageous by itself, no matter what other newspapers do mention it.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Quila (201335) | about 4 months ago | (#46592369)

I'll do an experiment. I'll pick a Republican state senatorwho was in trouble. Jason Priest of Montana is a good one. I'll Google for "Jason Priest arrested" and pick the first four mainstream news links.

  • Billings Gazette: The headline, "Republican Senator Jason Priest arrested"
  • Huffington Post: Article begins with "Montana state Sen. Jason Priest (R) was arrested "
  • Missoulian: Second sentence begins with "The Yellowstone County Detention Facility's website listed the 45-year-old Republican lawmaker "
  • Local KRTV station: Article begins with "Montana State Senator Jason Sheller Priest (R-Red Lodge) now faces four charges"

Let's do the same for "Leland Yee arrested"

  • LA Times: Subtitle, "The prominent Bay Area Democrat and "
  • Fox News: Doesn't show up until paragraph 12, "Yee is the third Democratic senator to face charges this year"
  • CBS News does not mention his party
  • SF Gate: Second paragraph, "Yee, a Democrat who represents half of San Francisco"

The Republican has one in the headline while the Democrat has a whole article not mentioning his party. Even Fox put his party way down. Verdict: Likely biased for Democrats, but a much larger dataset is needed for verification.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46595017)

Fox New said Mark Sanford was a D, despite him actually being an R. Not all of Fox News is heavily biased, just 21 hours a day of it, as they fought to the Supreme Court to assert their right to lie on the air
http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/06/court-fox-news-has-first-amendment.html

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Quila (201335) | about 4 months ago | (#46595221)

Fox New said Mark Sanford was a D

Everybody refers to one mistake made long ago, a mistake Fox apologized for. Is that any worse than MSNBC identifying the notoriously racist Alabama governor George Wallace as a Republican? Nice history rewrite there.

OTOH, Fox apologized to the wrong people. The should have apologized to Sanford for the slander of putting (D) next to his name.

as they fought to the Supreme Court to assert their right to lie on the air

Sadly, that means MSNBC is a beneficiary of this precedent.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46591879)

It was mentioned on TRMS last night that he was a Democrat, and that is hardly a pro republican show.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46592271)

As I mentioned above: The claim isn't that, if a Democrat gets into trouble, no one reports on their party affiliation. The claim is that, if you ever read an article in which party affiliation is not mentioned, the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat. So collecting examples where Democrats are identified doesn't even counter the claim.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593227)

You need to PROVE your claim. It onerous is on you.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46593343)

Umm, this is Slashdot, not a court case...

For a Slashdot comparison (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 months ago | (#46606021)

This article vs. the recent one about a Republican doing something bad, and his party is right there early in the summary.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590517)

Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Microlith (54737) | about 4 months ago | (#46590553)

That's an idiotic "rule of thumb."

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46590875)

That's an idiotic "rule of thumb."

It's a factual rule of thumb. If you wander back though all of the media in the last decade, or even the last 20 years you'll quickly see that if it's any democrat related scandal/gaffe/offending comment/etc it in the vast majority of cases from municipal all the way up to the senate, that they won't list that they belong to the democrat party. However, if it's a republican/tea partier/libertarian/etc, you can bet that it'll be listed, and that the media will be hot on the heels to dig up anything else they can on them.

You want to play ignorant on politics, fine by me. But as an outsider in Canadaland, I've seen the US media do this plenty of times. And it's only gotten worse since Obama has gotten into office, and when hardcore liberals in the media say that, perhaps...just perhaps, there's something to it.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591537)

Not that I buy this for even a moment considering I live in 'murica and all....hypocrisy sells in America media. A liberal Democrat caught smoking pot, drinking, with a whore? Who cares, must be Tuesday. Family Values Republican smoking pot, drinking, with a whore? Now THAT'S news !

Re:What party was that again... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593255)

"It's a factual rule of thumb."
You don't know what the means, do you?

It's cute that you think you personal observation actually has Merritt or is accurate in any way.

If you want to be ignorant of science, and think you you observe if perfectly correct, that's fine by me, but shut the hell up until you have something substantial to back it up.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46595799)

It's cute that you think you personal observation actually has Merritt or is accurate in any way.

Keep on thinking that. [cbsnews.com] And I can keep on finding stories.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46595869)

Should I keep going? [sfgate.com] A few more posts perhaps?

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#46603393)

Would you like another? [yahoo.com] Really now, I could do this allllll the time and not run out of articles.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590587)

Rule of thumb:

If it has a (D),
And it's on Fox News
It's a Republican matter

Re:What party was that again... (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590661)

I thought I had a horrible rhyme that was really reaching, but I have to hand it to the AC to going a step further and making incomprehensible gibberish to try and suit his own political leanings.

I'm just pointing out a truth of the matter.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#46590603)

Most people's first thought when a politician does something they disagree with: "Isn't this just typical of $political_party? Always doing $stereotypical_action."

Between confirmation bias, the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the polarizing messages coming from the American political camps that are reshaping nearly every American's world views, the everyday Joe has an inordinate number of tools at his disposal to think exactly what I said above. They'll forget the good while making a point of remembering every wrong done by the other side, dismiss every wrong done by their own as someone who never really belonged, have those ideas reinforced by their preferred "news" sources, and get sucked into unproductive back-and-forth "debates" with the other side that only serve to divert attention and keep us from working together.

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care. I'd encourage you to stop making it a source of division. Because even if the media favors one side or the other, what I care about is that he's doing something reprehensible and sounds like he deserves some serious jail time. Anyone on either side of the aisle engaged in the same is also a scumbag that deserves jail time. Neither side supports the sort of thing he's doing, so blaming it on either party makes no sense, and focusing on his party does nothing to address the issue.

We should all care a great deal (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590701)

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care.

I myself am a Libertarian, and I DO care. I care very much that the press tries to harm as much as possible one major party and tarnish every member with the brush of a few lunatics, while shielding the Democrats as much as possible from any negative behavior by members and making sure that each and any infraction is isolated from any and every other Democrat.

The reason I care is because the press is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps people honest. Instead it's busy rigging the game in conjunction with politicians, and if you don't care about that then all is lost.

I'm not making it a source of division, I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check.

Re:We should all care a great deal (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593265)

" I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check."
without bothering to back up your belief with any rigor.

Typical.

Re:We should all care a great deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46599377)

Had you stopped with "rigor", you might have had a point. Adding "Typical" puts the burden of proof on you, asshole.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

poity (465672) | about 4 months ago | (#46594677)

Here's what usually goes down around /. (from my years of experience reading "+5 Insightful" comments)

- Republican caught in wrongdoing -> Republicans are wrong and bad
- Democrat caught in wrongdoing -> The System (TM) is wrong and bad

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590605)

Rule of dumb:

If you don't see corruption on both sides,
you're probably a f**king moron who cares only if shit rhymes.

Both sides have corruption (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590679)

But the press trumpets party when a Republican, and hides or omits it when Democrat.

There's really not much difference between the parties. The reason to vote Republican is that the press pays FAR more attention to Republican corruption, and sweeps Democrat-branded corruption under the run as long as possible. The Democrat in this story would not have been able to run a gun-smuggling operation for nearly so long had he been a Republican, he would have had the press sniffing all around him much earlier.

Both sides having corruption is also a great argument for smaller government, which by its nature reduces corruption.

Re:Both sides have corruption (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590773)

You're one of those idiots who fears "a liberal media conspiracy" obviously. What's it like inventing fake victimstance to avoid realizing you're equally if not more culpable?

Re: Both sides have corruption (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591355)

Truth hurt, dipshit?

Re:Both sides have corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592885)

Wrong.

Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591899)

If there is one analogy that perfectly describes the "difference" between the political parties here in the US it is something along the lines of "Which way would you prefer do die, fed feet first into an industrial meat grinder or ran over by a steam roller."

Re:What party was that again... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590897)

As an European, I find it hilarious that you bicker about what edge of The Party someone came from instead of realizing that it just doesn't matter what letter is next to someone's name.

It's absolutely amazing to watch that fight. It's like watching two religious nuts fighting over who has the cooler imaginary friend, not realizing that they're both being bullshitted by the system behind it.

Re: What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591889)

If you find it hilarious, I deduce that you are näive, stupid and conceited, which allows me to predict which a high degree of confidence that you are on the far left side of the political spectrum.

Re: What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46593737)

If you deduce that from a post on the internet, I'd say you fit better into those aforementioned categories, which allows me to pronounce you a mouth breathing ignorant reprobate.

This is fun.

Re: What party was that again... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46595505)

From a US perspective, I'm probably at the far left side of the political spectrum. But then again, from a European perspective the whole political system of the US is at the far right side of the political spectrum, so I guess it depends on where you put your personal middle ground.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46596779)

You're not the only one ...

The reason why no one in Europe cares what party is next to a person's name is because all European parties stand for the same thing: bigger government, restricting personal freedom, increase taxes, etc.

As an American liberal and conservative (however you define them) mean polar opposite things. But then the conservative Cameron (in Europe) forms an alliance with the liberal party? In Europe Angela Merkel is a conservative, but she's also a liberal.

So when it gets reported that one of these bland-ist politicians did something that favors one side, people (in the US and Europe) say, "So what? Both sides are the same."

What does make headlines is when a European head of state supports an American who stands for something. So when Tony Blair supported Bush, there were riots in the streets. I personally witnessed them (as an American abroad in Oxford).

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46598285)

In Europe, parties tend to have to engage in coalition governments because we don't tend to have first-past-the-post systems. In other words, it is very unlikely that a single party can accumulate more than 50% of the required seats in parliaments and smaller parties actually can have some impact.

So governments here are traditionally compromises of parties that can somehow cooperate. Or simply of whatever actually can result in a majority, which can result in rather interesting combinations.

It's kinda hard to describe it to someone who doesn't know that there is a political spectrum left of the middle why we don't consider what you consider "conservative" and "liberal" as so incredibly different political views since we do actually HAVE parties that do actually have political views that differ from these.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 4 months ago | (#46591769)

It really doesn't make a difference in this case. He's from California. You just kind of assume he's a Democrat, or maybe something further left.

That rule is reversed on any of Murdoch's media.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593091)

First off: That's a horrible attempt at a rhyme.
Secondly, I can find all kinds of article where the pub isn't called out as well.
You should probably read up on observational bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]

Of course marijuana is involved. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590327)

Like it or not, marijuana and crime go hand in hand. Drug advocates pretend the two are unrelated, but time after time we get situations like this.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590381)

Okay, you can stop trolling now... Nobody cares about your bullshit

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590389)

Then legalise it. Presto, problem solved.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (5, Interesting)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#46590411)

If you want to make anything and crime go hand in hand, make that thing illegal. This has worked more times than there are rivets on the underside of your bridge.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46590475)

only because people like you drive up the cost of drugs for a chance at finger wagging and sanctimonious preaching.

Btw, I bet I'm cleaner than you are.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 months ago | (#46591443)

Replace marijuana with alcohol and you could have made exactly the same argument during prohibition.

I'm mildly allergic to marijuana (its only effect on my brain is to make it hurt, a lot), so I have no personal stake in legalisation. But I do want to see people who smoke it taxed at the same rate that I am when I buy a beer.

Figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590331)

... too much GTA on this one :P

Re:Figures... (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 4 months ago | (#46591461)

Don't dismiss this too soon. As an anti-violence in games person, he must have done lots of thorough investigation into exactly what kind of violence is actually in games. So it's actually quite possible he was influenced by all the violence and crime he's seen depicted in these games and as this has lead to him pursuing it in the real world.

The Usual Shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590349)

I used to read these things and go "Hahaha! Get 'im!" but now I know that there's a really good chance that the FBI just made up about 98% of the whole thing.

Re:The Usual Shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592825)

but now I know that there's a really good chance that the FBI just made up about 98% of the whole thing.

Yes indeed, you are an idiot.

Oh (1)

i58 (886024) | about 4 months ago | (#46590363)

the irony.

Re:Oh (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46590481)

Irony implies that something is contrary to the expected meaning/outcome - I don't think hypocrisy from a politician qualifies.

Re:Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590735)

In fact it would be irony if he is innocent.

He wouldn't want competition (1)

gnoshi (314933) | about 4 months ago | (#46590397)

It makes complete sense. If those kids can play GTA, some of them might be inspired to go into competition with him.

Re:He wouldn't want competition (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590903)

Or simply go "why should I be nuts and go out and shoot people when I can do it from the safety of my home?"

Any actual police work? (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 4 months ago | (#46590409)

From the summary:

in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

Didn't catch the guy with a cache of weapons...
Didn't catch the guy with a known weapons trafficker...
All they have is hearsay from a guy kicked out of public office, probably with an axe (non-assault weapon) to grind...

Re:Any actual police work? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590461)

Read the articles, the undercover officer met with Yee multiple times and gave him cash for a small initial shipment.

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#46590501)

But was there an arms shipment? Were there ever any arms or a trafficker? Or was that all a fiction created by the FBI?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590559)

Is anything real? Are you?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#46590631)

I'm real.

What is not clear is if there was an actual arms deal being done or the feds were leading him down a path. It wouldn't be a reasonable thing to ask except that this is in keeping with a pattern the FBI is known for. For example a local (to me) case was Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who engaged in a spot of attempted mass murder, but it transpired that he was led down that path by the FBI and only the FBI. They providing the schooling, the materials and the motivation. Left alone he probably would not have done anything. Instead of waiting to see if he did anything, they helped him right along so they could prosecute him and claim a victory.

Re:Any actual police work? (3, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590709)

Can you imagine a scenario where an FBI informant would be able to lead a principled gun control advocate down the path of importing machine guns and rocket launchers? Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593323)

" Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?"
yes.
Does this person give donation to charities? are they also perusing legal action in the city?

Just becasue he is head of a mafia doesn't mean he doesn't get the same rights or representation as anyone else.

I can think of a scenario were a Chinese mafia leader would want to set up a representative.

I don't know if any of that's true, just speculation.
I suggest the same thing I always do: Calm down and wait and see.

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590921)

If someone takes money in exchange for doing something illegal, he is a criminal. Whether he delivers or whether he just promises to do it does not matter. When you take money for the promise to deliver dope, you're going to do time. Ask your local police department, it works for them quite well.

Re:Any actual police work? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593335)

What about entrapment?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46595475)

An Austrian politician tried that defense when he was caught red handed lately. A couple reporters from England posed as people trying to buy some legislation and he fell for it. His defense in court was that he was just trying to make them believe he went for it and then turn them in.

I think it goes without saying that it didn't really convince the judge. What's more likely, a politician being corrupt or one trying to stage his own private James Bond op?

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46596827)

There's no such thing as "entrapment" anymore. These days its called a "reverse sting".

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591009)

I did some skimming of the affidavit, and it certainly seems like Yee had contacts well before the FBI got involved. I think it ran from around pages 90-105 for most of it, with a few bits around page 84-85, but Yee and Jackson were talking to the undercover agent about how Yee knew at least two arms dealers who were sourcing shipments through the Philippines. One they tried to set a deal up with and it seemed to fall through, and the other they were working on a replacement deal with.

We won't know exactly how true this stuff is until everything actually goes through court, but from what's in there it's looking like Yee knew what he was doing beforehand. Especially if his connections to the Tongs turn out to be more than incidental.

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#46595755)

Well he was certainly into gun control - He was trying to control the gun supply.

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590491)

You're right. This is probably some rookie cop trying to make a name for himself by arresting a sitting state senator with no evidence. It's not like there's a 137 page affidavit that lists out all the details of the case. The four-sentence summary above is all we have to go on.

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591479)

The denial is strong with this one.

Politicians are generally the bad guys now (4, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 4 months ago | (#46590487)

Politicians like to keep pointing fingers at other people at being the bad guys so less people points fingers at them.

As long as the law says it is legal to bribe politicians with campaign contributions, the only way someone will get in a significant office is if they're willing to take bribes. The system is designed to get crooks in office and keep honest folk out. Mandatory corruption is generally unsustainable in the long run.

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590927)

Should for some odd reason corruption become a criminal offense at some point in time, most parliaments will be very empty places...

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591605)

That suits those of us who favour small government just fine.

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46595439)

Well, I'm not really a big supporter of small government, but in this time and age, not being one only means that you're a proponent of corruption and cronyism.

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 4 months ago | (#46591471)

Mandatory corruption is generally unsustainable in the long run.

You actually think US government corruption is only a recent thing? How long do you think it has to run before it becomes unstable? How long do you think it has been running so far?

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591799)

Even if you restrict or make campaign contributions illegal it will still happen. The problem isn't the money being thrown around, the problem is that there is power to be bought to begin with. If the government was actually restricted by the constitution, the politicians wouldn't have so much power to be worth buying to begin with. That is the ONLY way to solve the problem.

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 4 months ago | (#46596841)

The only thing worse than allowing bribing with campaign contributions is allowing my pocket to be picked to fund these campaigns.

Did anyone read the idictment? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590555)

it's wild. Apparently the guy running the show was the "Dragonhead" of a tong in San Francisco. Seriously? They still have titles like that? It's like a freakin' Bruce Lee movie.

Re:Did anyone read the idictment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590591)

No different than the euphemisms the mafia used when they thought they were being spied on by the FBI. Only they have more colorful imaginations.

forbid (1)

conveyor1 (3586409) | about 4 months ago | (#46590651)

This kind of behavior should be banned, will hurt others!

All politics are local (1)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590659)

This is nothing more than a 160+ year continuation of San Francisco Chinatown corruption and bizarre happenings. It has nothing to do with party.

Re:All politics are local (1)

llamahunter (830343) | about 4 months ago | (#46590783)

Dunno... but as a San Francisco voter, I'm pretty pissed off that my Senator is a gun runner and influence peddler. Isn't this the third California Senate Democrat to be indicted for some sort of fraud in the last 30 days? Sounds like there's a serious problem in Sacramento.

Re:All politics are local (2)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590861)

In California, if there's a scandal, it's likely to be a Democrat, just based on the statistics. There are far more Democrats than Republicans in office. Furthermore, if you're in San Francisco, you're going to have a Democrat in office. It's the way the city votes. It's your job to pick a good one.

Re:All politics are local (2)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590889)

In recent news, a state senator from Montana (R) [billingsgazette.com] was arrested, and a tea-party-republican-congressman from Florida [ibtimes.com] was also arrested. A Republican from Montana and a Republican from Florida. Who would have guessed that. It has nothing to do with Sacramento or party. Like I said, all politics are local. Especially corrupt politics.

Re:All politics are local (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590931)

A politician being corrupt and feeling like he's above the law is really surprising you? You must have a very sheltered life...

People like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590913)

People like this are against those games because ever since games like GTA, gun crime in many urban area's in the US has actually gone down.
and if you're in the gun trade, less gun crime = less guns sold...

These kinds of people are the real rats of society and should get jailed for life...

Once again another politician doesn't understand.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591017)

Once again another politician doesn't understand that most minors receive the violent games as gifts from their family, so passing law to restrict the game purchases wouldn't change much.

This kind of behavior should be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591381)

Really very useful information.
Thanks a lot for sharing it with us. I will look forward to read more from you.
  Could I share this information on my site.
Web Designing in Chennai [slashdot.org]

Pay them what they are worth...? (1)

muttsnutman (997560) | about 4 months ago | (#46591599)

Why would any sane person dedicate their life to 'public service'. In the majority of the 'civilized world', meaning that portion which operates under a more-or-less democratic system, Politicians work long hours for negligible direct reward. End result, they are looking to maximise their 'expenses' and 'allowances' and are highly partial to the odd junket or two to build up relationships with folks who will employ them in other capacities... What we should do is pay them a very good salary and ban them and their family from receiving any perks or benefits or taking on any outside roles. Build in a satisfaction vote at polling time, and if the incumbent has done a good job they can be voted a bonus at the end of their term. Of course that would mean that the vast army of lobbyists, analysts, opinion peddlers, marketeers and PR people across the country would be redundant, and the 'hospitality industry' would lose a big chunk of business, but hey we would actually be paying people to represent us instead of 'fact-finding' in Bora Bora! Until then, it's a human type compromise - we get by with good enough and the odd bad apple gets found out sooner or later...

Not surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46592079)

With control comes power and with power comes capital(money). Everybody in Washington DC is a self serving opportunist which is part of the human condition. Unless we have computers or robots managing this country, corruption won't go away.

Campaign Promises (1)

unixcorn (120825) | about 4 months ago | (#46592117)

As a candidate for a local school board, I decided not to accept any money for my campaign. Easy to do in a local election, I get enough exposure in the paper and at candidate forums, but not so easy to do on a state or national level. We have created a system where, it seems, the more dollars a candidate can raise the better their chances of getting elected. Let's stop the madness and make it illegal to take any (or spend any) money for a campaign. Rely on media coverage as they must give equal time and allow a personal website and whatever other social media that is free. That would certainly eliminate the temptation to do what Yee did and might help to bring in new blood.

Re:Campaign Promises (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46593369)

That a great way to be damn sure only the rich have power, well done.

Re:Campaign Promises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46595293)

That a great way to be damn sure only the rich have power

As opposed to what? Only the rich and connected having power?

Makes NO sense (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 4 months ago | (#46595169)

This makes absolutely no sense....In America, isnt "agreeing to perform official acts in exchange for the money" a fundamental part of how the American government works?

Isnt this how their Senate operates? The media tend to call it "lobbying", and the "lobbying industry" has sprung up around this practice, so how come this politician was arrested for this?

Im confused, isnt this a perfectly legal thing in the USA? Its been going on for so many decades, why start charging people now?

michael kors handbags outlet http://www.easybagst (1)

jureoiuw (3599623) | about 4 months ago | (#46627439)

Designer Bags, discount designer handbags, discount sunglasses online, Handbags Discount, cheap purses, leather handbags, cheap handbags, designer bags on sale, michael kors outlet, handbags for cheap, michael kors purses, designer bags for cheap, michael kors bags, wholesale designer handbags, leather handbags wholesale, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet store, wholesale handbags china, michael kors handbags sale, wholesale handbags usa, Discount Sunglasses, cheap designer sunglasses, cheap mens sunglasses, mens designer sunglasses, wholesale designer sunglasses, discount designer sunglasses, china wholesale sunglasses, cheap michael kors bags, michael kors handbags on sale. designer handbags http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] designer sunglasses http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] wholesale handbags http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] mens sunglasses http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] Handbags On Sale http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] wholesale sunglasses http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] cheap designer handbags http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] sunglasses hut http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] cheap sunglasses http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] cheap michael kors handbags http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com] michael kors handbags outlet http://www.easybagstrade.com/ [easybagstrade.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...