Racial Profiling


One day back when I was working retail security I was watching by CCTV when I observed a black male adult approach the pneumatic tools, select one and conceal it in his pants. Then he selected a second one and concealed in his pants with the first. Then he headed for the exit.

I un-assed the office and ran after him, catching up with him outside in the parking lot. I identified myself and placed him under arrest. As I was handcuffing him he said “It’s cuz I’m black, right?” I had to bite my tongue to keep from replying “Yeah, we let white people steal whatever they want.

The first time I heard the term “racial profiling” was in a 60 Minutes story about drug couriers (aka “mules”) transporting cocaine and other drugs from entry ports in Florida and along the US-Mexico border via the interstate highways to cities in the northeast. This led to the creation of “Operation Pipeline“:

The term “profiling” first became associated with a method of interdicting drug traffickers during the late 1970s. In 1985, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) instituted Operation Pipeline, an intelligence-based assessment of the method by which drug networks transported bulk drugs to drug markets, and began training local and state police in applying a drug courier profile as part of highway drug interdiction techniques. Under Operation Pipeline, police were trained to apply a profile that included evidence of concealment in the vehicle, indications of fast, point-to-point driving, as well as the age- and race characteristics of the probable drivers. In some cases, the profiling technique was distorted, so that officers began targeting black and Hispanic male drivers by stopping them for technical traffic violations as a pretext for ascertaining whether the drivers were carrying drugs.


This is also about the time that drug forfeiture became trendy in law enforcement. State and local cops in rural Texas, Tennessee and Georgia staked out the interstates, stopping black and Hispanic drivers on any pretext hoping to find drug couriers.

A term used synonymous with racial profiling is “driving while black (or brown).” This is the idea that the cops stop people because of their race. I have no doubt that it occurs, but how common is it?

In some cities and neighborhoods nearly everyone is a member of a racial minority. If the police pulled over every black and brown driver in South-Central LA there wouldn’t be any cars left on the road. But if they pulled cars over at random they would still be stopping more black and brown drivers.

Poor neighborhoods are the ones most likely to be high-crime neighborhoods with heavier police patrols. More cops means more traffic stops. Poor people are also more likely to be driving older vehicles in need of repair or to have expired registrations, which are the kind of things cops look for. And blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be poor.

Cops are supposed to enforce traffic laws. So how do we determine which traffic stops are legit and which ones are based on racial profiling?

The answer is a pet cause of mine – cameras in police cars.

I think every patrol car in the country should be equipped with a dash cam that includes a microphone worn by the cops. With today’s digital recording capabilities entire shifts could easily and cheaply be recorded and stored. Then we would have a record of everything that took place from the beginning of a traffic stop until the end. We can also compare how the officers treat drivers of different races.

It’s not a perfect solution but it would answer a lot of questions.


This entry was posted in Bad Cop No Donut and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to Racial Profiling

  1. Lulu says:

    About ten years ago the small city I live in had a rash of rich, crazy, drunk white women claiming police brutality when they were pulled over for driving while drunk and not following police instructions. At the time they had one police car with a camera. They had to rush the camera car over to record the nitwits taking the field sobriety test after one of their husbands made a stink. Now they all have the cameras and we have no more police brutality. It suddenly disappeared. The police are better behaved and the nitwit’s attorneys can view how they behave when asked to follow simple instructions. Just because you have $30,000 worth of jewelry on doesn’t mean you can spit on a cop.

  2. DeniseVB says:

    My husband knows what it’s like to be profiled when he had his zippy little Corvette years ago. We called that the Blue Light Special years. You just can’t go slow in those things 😉

  3. DeniseVB says:

    I’ll admit, soon after 9-11, young men of middle eastern decent made me nervous. I was cured of that after an incident on the train when a passenger had a medical problem the conductors were calling for “is there a doctor on board?”. All the young men who came forward to assist…..were of middle eastern decent. When the train was met by an ambulance, two of them stayed with the stricken passenger and accompanied him to the hospital.

  4. votermom says:

    OT. Labor Dept is about to ban kids from doing farm chores on their own farms

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/

    The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

    Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

    Ok, so Michelle is telling kids “Let’s Move!” but Obama’s admin is saying “As long as you don’t do anything to help out the family biz!”

    • elliesmom says:

      Pretty much kills 4H.

      • WMCB says:

        Oh, it very specifically kills 4H and FFA,and replaces some of their functions with a new federal govt training agency. No more raising a calf and showing it, no more of any of that.

        And it will further kill off family farms – which is very nice for big agriculture.

        Our govt is fucking out of control under Obama. And no that doesn’t make me a backward tiny govt winger. It makes me a sane person who recognizes what is happening right in front of my face. (Unless it’s now been decided that the only “liberal” position is that there is no such thing as too much govt or govt overreach.)

        • elliesmom says:

          All that will be left for kids is to join the lesbian Girl Scouts.

        • DeniseVB says:

          How about the trend towards smaller, more free range humane and organic farms, surely these are family ventures and you’d think the left would embrace this. Not only better for the environment, but the animals and humans too.

          This defintiely sounds like pandering for votes and donations from BigAg 🙂

        • WMCB says:

          DeniseVB, our govt is cracking down on local organic as well, under the guise of “safety”

          It has been a long long time since the Democratic Party was about serving the people. They still mouth the same words, but it’s a cover for the aggressive amalgamation of power in their grasping Statist little hands. The fact that they keep claiming that they need all that power to protect us from the big bad corporations is the biggest scam of the century.

          The solution to too much power in the hands of the corporate monster is sane laws that protect the little guy and his little businesses. Somehow, the left has convinced people that a massive State is the solution. So we end up with TWO massive entities with way too much power instead of just one.

          The Left’s statists never want to give power back to the little guy as the logical fix for too much corporate power. They want to grab all the power themselves, and assure us they will be benevolent masters.

          Fuck you. I ain’t buying that bait and switch.

    • DandyTiger says:

      This will kill the dwindling family farms. The big corporate farms must be dancing in the streets.

    • WTF???

      “Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

      Half our country buys our meat from the annual 4-H livestock auction! We have been buying a lamb and/or a hog every year forever! I like supporting these kids and I LOVE that their meat is hand raised and drug free.
      oh wait

      • oops- “county” not country.

      • WMCB says:

        Our govt is filled with power-hungry monsters. They cannot create the perfect and just society that exists in their heads, because us little people keep being unpredictable and spoiling their perfect social equations. Their models don’t work with those pesky real people with their own ideas, desires, and free actions throwing the process off.

        The solution is obvious – take over everything so that they can perfect society without all those unhelpful individuals harshing the mellow.

    • Karma says:

      We are in a group of people who help sponsor a young teen’s efforts in TX. She has this huge steer named Diesel and shows him often. She sends everyone updates on her progress with him and her other animals. It is her goal to be a vet and is learning new things daily.

      Who knew they had sweat collars for steers to make their neck more attractive for show? We just learned that ourselves.

      She is a family member so it is nice to see the pictures of her beaming with pride along side this huge animal. He really is a handsome guy.

      To think of all that effort taken away and the valuable information she is receiving gone, it’s sad. She received her steer at a discount because someone had such faith in her and her skills at showing other smaller animals.

      Sad.

      At this rate the Dems are going to touch everyone with their policies that hit the little guy vs their corporate masters. Apparently Michigan is getting weird with small farmers and unapproved pigs.

      • JeanLouise says:

        Raising a steer or any other kind of animal for 4H is not “employment”, therefore, it’s not prohibited. Participating in a 4H auction would not be prohibited either as long as it was not an employment situation.

        • WMCB says:

          Baloney. Working on the farm without pay is not “employment” either. There is nothing in these new regulations that specify paid employees.

          Again, congresspersons from farm states on both sides of the aisle are very upset over this – and they are more familiar with farm regulations, and have looked into it more thoroughly than you or I can.

    • Erica says:

      More dismantling of our country from the inside out. No understanding of the hard work, skills training, values teaching, and bonding that happens when kids contribute to the family’s well-being, whether on a farm or not. Not to mention creating a generation that will be more other-dependent than independent. But I guess that’s a plus from the Dem party’s point of view. (still registered dem, too). Makes me sick.

    • DeniseVB says:

      LOL…..just saw MO’s schedule for next week, and this stop was on it:

      5:40 PM MST Arrives at Tucson International Airport where she will be greeted by youth volunteers at Tucson Village Farm, a working urban farm built by and for the young people of Tucson

    • JeanLouise says:

      Family farms are exempt.

      • WMCB says:

        I know that’s being reported by some, but I just watched South Dakota Senator John Thune talking about it, and there is a lot of weasel language in there. The original minor regulation that has existed for years exempted family farms, but it is not at all the case that this huge expansion does.

        He’s been speaking to the Sec of Agriculture and the Labor Dept about it, and seems to have some pretty severe concerns. I think that if family farms were flatly exempt, a US Senator intimately involved in farm legislation, consulting with the Sec of AG, would be aware of that.

      • WMCB says:

        OK, just heard more info. The exemption would apply to a farm wholly owned by the parent. It specifically would not apply to any farm which is a business entity, corporation, or partnership.

        Almost all family farms are LLC’s or some other kind of corporate entity. Families set them up that way for tax reasons. So the “exemption” is worthless.

        • JeanLouise says:

          It wouldn’t matter what the kind of corporate entity the farm was if the corporation were wholly owned by the child’s parents. Perhaps that should be discussed further or expanded to include farms that are jointly owned by family members but, in fact, wholly owned family farms are exempt.

        • WMCB says:

          VERY FEW family farms are wholly owned by the parents alone. That is what I am saying. Often several family members are on the corporation papers.

          Also, in farming communities, cousins and friends and all sorts of kids join in doing a harvest or a major cattle drive or whatever. The regulations, even on those few farms wholly owned by only the parents, would stop that. Farming communities are tight knit – people help their neighbors, kids included.

          Tell you what – why don’t you take a minute to listen to people (and their spokespersons) who actually LIVE and WORK on family farms about what their lifestyle is, and how these regs might affect them, before breezing in to poo poo their concerns?

        • JeanLouise says:

          I come from a long line of farmers and have cousins who still farm. I haven’t “poo-poo’ed” anyone’s concerns. I made a rational non-confrontational statement relating to the fact that farming is one of the most dangerous occupations in the country and that reasonable regulations relating to children’s safety are not necessarily irrational government interference.

          Please, take and Ex-Lax because you’re full of shit.

        • WMCB says:

          Only IF the parents had a history of complete neglect and reckless endangerment, yes. Otherwise, leave parents the fuck alone.

          See, there is a big difference in thought process between you and I, I think. Even if, by govt controlling and regulating almost every aspect of my life, myself and my children could live in perfect safety and comfort – I would find that life abhorrent. It’s not worth it to me.

          And if my govt could keep me completely safe from terrorists and other dangers, at the cost of having their noses in everything from my emails to my shampoo, IT IS NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

          See the consistency there? Power grabs to keep me safe from tractors are NO different in kind than power grabs to keep me safe from Terrah.

          Govt busybodies are worse than the freaking fundies. At least I only have to fight the fundies on a few issues. Statists want to “do good” for me in every aspect of life til I just want to scream: LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE.

        • WMCB says:

          Aw, c’mon, crawdad. I was enjoying knocking down each brand new objection as she backed off the previous one that got shot down.

        • WMCB says:

          The progression is really funny. It’s making me laugh.

          It started out as a flat declarative: Family farms are exempt.

          Shot that down. Well, most family farms would be exempt. Shot that down. Well, it wouldn’t affect 4-H. Shot that down. Well, even so, it’s a good idea because…… the children. Yeah, and I think those farm families have a better idea of what’s best for their children than you or the govt do, so maybe you need to step back.

          I KNOW SOME FARMERS , AND YOU ARE A POOPY BUTT WHO MUST WANT CHILDREN TO DIE!

          Okay, whatever.

        • angienc says:

          Thank you crawdad — I could smell the Kool Aid on her breath.

        • votermom says:

          Jeeze I aways miss the fun around here. LOL.

          Like WMCB said, a lot of family businesses (including farms) choose to incorporate because there are a lot if pitfalls in owning a biz outright – liabilities, no bankruptcy protection, inheritance if the head of family dies, etc.

  5. yttik says:

    I don’t see a problem with cameras on police cars. I once worked at a hotel that has so many cameras it was really annoying, but they were quite useful when we had a case of employee theft or a bad customer. People didn’t lose their jobs over false allegations. After a while employees started to appreciate the cameras.

  6. WMCB says:

    The cameras help. As for profiling, the line between that and sensible police work is sometimes blurry.

    If you are looking for a meth shop in SC, it’s possible that it’s a black guy, but it’s much more likely to be a poor white guy or woman. A crack house is more likely a black guy. If you are looking for the perpetrator of a random violent crime, chances are it’s a man, not a woman. Members of a drug transporting pipeline from Mexico are more likely to be…. hispanic. If you are looking for a ritualistic serial killer, it is almost always a white dude.

    I don’t have a big problem with race or sex or nationality being part of the picture along with other factors when deciding whether to pay a little closer attention to this or that potential suspect. I do have a problem with race or nationality being the only factor triggering stops.

    I think you need to root out the bad cops that excessively profile. But I also think you have to give local cops a little credit for knowing their neighborhood, and having an instinct for the non-verbal intangibles about this person in this setting walking in that particular way, that raise the hairs on their neck and make them look twice. That requires trust. Cameras would help that trust.

    • votermom says:

      If you are looking for terrorists at the airport, they are almost always preschoolers or senior citizens. /tsa

      (Airports are where they SHOULD start profiling like Israel does instead of this fake random stuff)

  7. HELENK says:

    Update: Gingrich to leave presidential race May 1, sources tell Fox News http://fxn.ws/JA1ziJ

  8. HELENK says:

    Cameras and microphones in police cars are a good thing, for both the cops and the suspects. But there has to be a way for the whole story to be told. Sometimes a video only shows part of the story and things happen off camera that figure into what happened.

  9. OT: Here’s the latest weasl excuse for Obama’s/Holder’s prosecution of owner of pot dispenseries on CA and elsewhere: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/obama-clarifies-his-stance-on-medical-marijuana-121598.html

    When he said he wouldn’t prioritize prosecutions, he meant medical marijuana users, not dispenseries. So welcome the newest group to Under the Bus. It’s a party now! LOL

    • elliesmom says:

      I spent 10 years of my life teaching public school. I’ve lived in a town with open enrollment in their six elementary schools. The only negative thing that I can say about school choice is that parents often spend a great deal of time choosing the right school for their oldest child and then just send their younger children to the same school out of convenience. That’s really the only bad thing I can say about it.

  10. WMCB says:

    Oh, great – earworm!

  11. HELENK says:

    Several US Supreme Court justices express support for Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration – @Reuters

  12. WMCB says:

    So who looks like the adult in the room while people are hurting, here?

    • WMCB says:

      LOL! I saw that.

      Also – “Can I get a Mittness?!” Holla!”

      These are not your grandfather’s conservatives. And Obama is trying to run a “I’m the new cool fresh hip guy” 2008 campaign in a country where the political landscape has drastically changed.

    • angienc says:

      While Obama Jumps the Shark.

  13. HELENK says:

    In a call, Newt Gingrich says he will give Mitt Romney an endorsement if he would like to have it, Gingrich spokesperson says – @AlexNBCNews

  14. myiq2xu says:

    NYT:

    “You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal-leaning justice and the first Hispanic appointed to the court, told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli. Mr. Verrilli, representing the federal government, was seeking to strike part of the law’s requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if the officials have reason to believe that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Seems to me, said Chief Justice Roberts, the federal government doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally or not.

    • WMCB says:

      I’m betting that the part that requires state law enforcement to check status of those actually detained for other reasons will stand, because it’s reasonable. Cops run a license check, warrant check, etc when you are arrested, so adding checking “whether or not this person has also broken immigration law” is not a big stretch.

      I think the “can stop on suspicion of being here illegally” part will get struck down. But I could be wrong.

      I have mixed feelings on the AZ law. I think it could easily be abused. But I don’t think it was passed out of racist racist racist xenophobic motivation. I think it was passed out of sheer frustration, in a state being overwhelmed, and their struggles IGNORED by the federal govt.

  15. WMCB says:

    Oh, and I am henceforth calling our juvenile, unserious president “Preezy of the United Steezy”, every chance I get.

    And I dare the Obots to call me racist for it, since Obama himself was perfectly fine with that moniker on national TV with Fallon.

    What a childish little American Idol preznit we have. I’m going to rub his nose in it.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Preezy may be in trouble ?

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/04/25/Obama-Fallon-Appearance-Violated-Law

      I hope so 😀 Though I wonder if this is why SNL offered Romney to host?

      • angienc says:

        Dems, including Obama’s communications director Brad Woodhouse, are having a meltdown on Twitter over the #NotFunny hashtag — yes, let me repeat, a hashtag is causing Obama’s communications director to have a meltdown. He also lies shameless, the Mormon religion & Romney personally has always supported abortion in cases of rape, incest & life of the mother (not that I agree that there should be any limits on a woman’s right to choose, but don’t effing lie about it). Twitchy encapsulates the back & forth.

        http://twitchy.com/2012/04/25/rncs-notfunny-hashtag-in-response-to-obama-is-a-hit-causes-democrat-meltdown/

        • myiq2xu says:

          Obots never could take a joke

        • angienc says:

          Better than that, neither can a narcissist like Obama. I’ve said it before, the best way to get under a narcissist’s skin is to mock him. I want to see a complete meltdown by Obama on TV, with finger pointing, crying and screaming before November 6th & I will not be satisfied with anything short of that. I was worried the GOP wouldn’t be able to keep it up after the thrilling spectacle of #Obama8Dog, but #NotFunny merely one week later has made me more optimistic. I only hope we can look forward to a new one each week.

        • JeanLouise says:

          That’s not true.

          “Then the woman’s doctors discovered she had a serious blood clot in her pelvis. She thought initially that would be her way out—of course she would have to get an abortion. But the doctors, she said, ultimately told her that, with some risk to her life, she might be able to deliver a full-term baby, whose chance of survival they put at 50 percent. One day in the hospital, her bishop—later identified as Romney, though she did not name him in the piece—paid her a visit. He told her about his nephew who had Down syndrome and what a blessing it had turned out to be for their family. “As your bishop,” she said he told her, “my concern is with the child.” The woman wrote, “Here I—a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church—lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus—not for me!”

          Vanity Fair, Feb 2012

        • WMCB says:

          JeanLouise, the spokesman on twitter was talking about support of legislation, not some personal incident with a woman that can’t be proved either way. He accused Romney of trying to ban all abortion and birth control. Which is patently untrue.

        • angienc says:

          JeanLouise — Learn to read because your alleged “rebuttal” has nothing to do with banning all abortions even in the case of rape, incest & life of the mother. So your “not true” is patently UNTRUE.

        • JeanLouise says:

          WMCB, I was replying to angienc’s post where she stated that Romney has always supported abbortion in cases where the life of the mother was threatened.

          The woman, who is still a member of the LDS Church, has spoken publicly about the encounter and not hidden her identity. Romney has stated that he doesn’t remember the incident but did not deny that he made the statement.

          Who has the most to gain here? A woman who had no reason to reveal such a personal story other than to express her anger that she was treated as less-than-a-human being or the politician who is documented all over YouTube lying about his positions on various issues for political reasons?

        • WMCB says:

          JeanLouise, cut the crap, you are being disingenuous. Angienc’s comment was in regard to Mitt being accused of seeking to ban all abortion as well as birth control. In context, that is what she was talking about – LEGISLATION, not a private conversation that may or may not have happened. It was very clear in context.

          As for whether a woman would lie – it’s entirely possible. Happens in politics all the time, for all kinds of reasons. I have no idea if the woman is telling the truth. I don’t care. It has nothing to do with what Romney was being accused of in that twitter thread.

        • JeanLouise says:

          As I said, I was rebutting your statement, angienc, that Romney “has always supported abortion in cases of rape, incest & life of the mother “. I provided a specific incidence where that had not occurred. With politicians, I’ve always found what they do as opposed to what they promise to do to be more instructive.

          WMCB, of course, you’re free to believe anything that any politician says. I’ve learned not to do that. That poor woman’s recitation of the encounter has been in the public domain for some time and no one has stepped up to say that she’s a publicity hound or unbalanced or in the pocket of Romney’s opponents.

          As to who needs to “cut the crap”, I stand by my previous recommendation. Some nice chocolate-flavored Ex-Lax would do you a world of good.

        • WMCB says:

          JeanLouise, you can take your ExLax and shove it up past your small intestine, where your multiple strawmen reside.

        • angienc says:

          And again I say — learn to read JeanLouise — context clues are part of reading comp. skills 101. The tweet from Brad Woodhouse stated that Romney supported banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest & life of the mother. In response to that tweet, I was obviously (to those with competent reading comp. skills) talking about Romney politically.

          When I wrote “The Mormon church and Romney personally” the “personally” was only used to distinguish Romney’s political position from that of the Mormon church’s, not to reference his private life because (1) his private life isn’t part of the discussion and would be absolutely ridiculous & irrelevant to bring up in response to the Woodhouse tweet and (2) I don’t give a FUCK what he does in his PRIVATE life.

          Although I truly, truly believe you are too ignorant to comprehend that — hence my advice: LEARN TO READ.

    • gxm17 says:

      God bless the terrible child.

  16. WMCB says:

    What, the child had huge ears and a petulant pout? Poor kid.

    • angienc says:

      Excuse me, but I’m missing the point of this — is Obama claiming paternity of this child? Seriously, WTF?

  17. WMCB says:

    Sarah weighs in on farm chores:

    The Obama Administration is working on regulations that would prevent children from working on our own family farms. This is more overreach of the federal government with many negative consequences. And if you think the government’s new regs will stop at family farms, think again.

    My family is a commercial fishing family, and commercial fishing in Alaska is much like the family farm (but the year ’round farmers no doubt work harder than we do!). I guarantee fishing families wouldn’t stand for this nonsensical intrusion into our lives and livelihoods, and, as a former 4-H member, I don’t believe farm families will either. Our kids learn to work and to help feed America on our nation’s farms, and out on the water.

    Federal government: get your own house in order and stop interfering in ours.

    – Sarah Palin

    • yttik says:

      Another side of this debate, some people think they’re protecting kids with labor laws. But if you’ve ever worked with street kids, you realize pretty quick you aren’t protecting them. Kids that can’t do any legal work are often forced into prostitution. Some kids HAVE to be able to put food on the table either because of poverty or being estranged from their families and out on their own. What we wind up saying is that it’s illegal for you to wash dishes in a restaurant until ten PM because that’s cruel, so you’ll just have to sell drugs or become a prostitute if you want to eat.

    • zaladonis says:

      Can’t work younger than 18 years old?

      What is wrong with these people?

      I started working on a farm during the summer I was 14, so did my brother. We weren’t poor and I didn’t have to work but I wanted to do it and my parents thought it a fine way to learn responsibility. With money I saved I bought my first (used) car at 16, which I drove to the first job that deducted FICA from my paycheck (I preferred the farm job but that’s another story). If anything damaged me as a teenager it sure wasn’t working and saving money.

      • JeanLouise says:

        Only a small part of the law applies that age limit. It’s clearly not a perfect law but when kids working on farms die at 4X the rate of all kids, surely some rational regulations are warranted.

        • WMCB says:

          No, they are not. Deaths on farms are going down, not up. If someone is being grossly unsafe and really endangering their kids, then get social services involved via existing laws on child endangerment.

          NO, we do not need regulations on families and parents teaching their kids a work ethic, or kids contributing to the family business. It is not the federal governments fucking business if I want to teach my kid to help load hay, or to bus tables in my small family restaurant (which will likely be next). I am sick and tired of the ceaseless busybodying of our govt.

        • 1539days says:

          If we make it illegal for kids to have guns, I’m sure all that inner city violence will end as well.

        • JeanLouise says:

          So, when the 12-year-old is crushed to death when he turns over the tractor, social services should step in to save the younger kids?

          That’s the ticket!

        • WMCB says:

          Yes, JL. You’ve found me out. I’m all in favor of crushing children with tractors and taking away the rest as wards of the state for any accident at all.

          That’s exactly what I said. How perspicacious of you to catch on to my evil plan.

    • angienc says:

      Of course he didn’t “buy into the notion of a post-racial America” — sure he sold that snake oil to the ignorant rubes to get their votes, but he didn’t actually believe it.

      And now that his re-election depends on race warfare he can shameless come clean with that nugget of truth the rest of us knew. And the Obots will all shout in unison “Of course he didn’t buy it; it was just ‘rhetoric’ duh!” and give him a 100% pass on it because he can lie boldly knowing that the Brain Dead Left will not hold him accountable. In fact, most will deny on the point of death that he ever even said it in the first place and call the rest of us r@cist for daring to point out his own words.

      PS — I’m not questioning the honor of Obama & the Obots. I’m deny its existence.

  18. HELENK says:

    THIS JUST SUCKS

    This man did more for this country than backtrack ever thought of doing

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/25/marine-booted-from-corps-for-criticizing-obama-on-facebook/

    • HELENK says:

      everyday I despise backtrack more and more

    • JeanLouise says:

      In what military do you permit soldiers to insist publicly that they will refuse to follow any orders from their commander-in-chief and not suffer some consequences for it?

      • WMCB says:

        I agree with you on this one. IF all he had done was complain about policies, voice political opinions, I’d have more sympathy – because other soldiers have done that. But he actually posted that he would not obey all orders of Obama.

        Sorry, you don’t have the right in the military to publicly say you’ll disobey orders.

        • JeanLouise says:

          The guy didn’t make a distinction between legal and illegal orders. His problem is with Obama and not the quality of the orders. It doesn’t matter if you like or agree with the person who is giving you the order. If you’re in the military and it’s a legal order, you obey it.

        • angienc says:

          Sell it somewhere else, JeanLouise. You’ve proven your logical reasoning and reading comp. skills are seriously flawed enough as it is. Obama took away habeas corpus & is detaining Americans without charges (when he isn’t killing them with drones) and you & the rest of his supporters are running around acting like he is handing out chocolate bars & hand jobs.
          Seriously, you’ve got the nerve at this point to try to say W was worse? SMH.

  19. SHV says:

    This is crazy:

    “By a 4-1 vote, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved the rules for employers who use criminal background checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the workplace because of their potential to be biased against certain groups, such as racial minorities.”
    ***
    “This is a major change for the good in how employers review prospective employees,” said Samuel Miller, a labor attorney who has litigated criminal background suits on behalf of employees.

    “It creates presumption that consideration of criminal history is illegal,” he explained. “And it is backed up by thorough documentation of racial disparities. So it should be given much more credence by employers and judges.”

    http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11394190-new-rules-set-on-background-checks-for-job-seekers?lite

    • WMCB says:

      Yes, it is. Everything is force and “shove it down your throat via a regulation” with these guys. EVERYTHING is coercion. They love them some coercion.

      I understand that it’s good for society that people who have been incarcerated, especially for minor crimes, be able to find employment. But can we not develop some voluntary programs? Can we not do a PSA and informational push, and highlight employees with a previous criminal history who are exemplary employees?

      Why must everything always be a one-size-fits-all authoritarian solution, that causes as many problems as it solves?

    • votermom says:

      So employers can’t do criminal background checks but they CAN do credit score checks? Huh.
      I guess there can never be an innocent reason to have a low credit score but it’s impossible for honest people to stay out of jail.

  20. DeniseVB says:

    A good breezy read by Janine Turner …. not so much about converting but differences from conservative women.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/girlfriends-lets-talk-about-how-to-convert-a-democrat/?singlepage=true

    • elliesmom says:

      One of the things that she said that rings true to me is that in a group, unless they are sure that they are in friendly territory, conservative women tend not to challenge what others say. The conservative women in my knitting group “count their rows” when the liberal women get political.

    • JeanLouise says:

      I suppose you could take that tack if you don’t mind spreading a bunch of lies. The Republican Party of today is not the Republican Party of 1919 or, even, 1980. The Republican Party of today believes in making it as hard as possible for women to sue for wage discrimination or to get contraception or an abortion. The Republican Party, today, is run by religious zealots who can’t bear the idea of women escaping from under men’s thumbs by controlling their own reproduction and earning a fair wage.

      As to the truly offensive “war of religon” crap, Quakers have to pay income taxes which support a military and wars that they oppose on religious grounds and Christian Scientists have to pay income taxes that support medical research and services that they oppose on religious grounds. I don’t give a flying f*** what a bunch of supposedly celibate old men in the Catholic Church believe. Their religious tenets do not trump my right to equal access to basic medical care which has been deemed as such by a non-partisan group of public health professionals. The Constitution does not give any religion the right to veto public health or employment laws.

      • elliesmom says:

        The constitution doesn’t give secular people the right to infringe on the rights of the religious, either.

        • gxm17 says:

          These circular arguments are quite silly. The religious do not have a right to impose their “ethics” on those who do not share their religion. This fact, in and of itself, is not “infringing” on the rights of the religious, it just makes it clear that the one right the religious do not have is to force their religious tenets down other people’s throats. It’s really quite simple until absurdities like “if I can’t tell you what to do then you’re infringing on my religion” arguments are brought into play and then everyone starts running around in circles.

      • WMCB says:

        You’re asserting motivation: “can’t bear the thought of women escaping from under men’s thumbs” etc, on the part of people who have said quite simply that they believe they are fighting for the right of a human being not to be killed. They are no less determined than those who kept insisting that black people were human beings.

        You can disagree with them. I do. But I’m not so bigoted and foolish as to think that the OVER HALF the women in this country who identify as pro-life take that stance because they are all spineless doormats beholden to evil men, and are too confused and oppressed to know their own mind. Or that they are on the side on non-empowerment for women in general, and want women to earn less than men.

        We can’t have a rational discussion about the issue so long as you insist on responding to a caricature of these women that exists nowhere except in your own head.

      • angienc says:

        Well, the men in the Dem party — the alleged “Women’s Party” — don’t give a f*** about you, either, sweetie. If you haven’t noticed, in the last 40+ years (since Roe v. Wade & Griswold v. Conn.) women are still making 77 cents for every dollar a man makes in the exact same job. As long as you allow the Dems to use the fake scare tactic of Roe, contraception & SCOTUS on you to distract you, you will never get the one thing that will truly level the playing field: ECONOMIC PARITY.

        And you know what, after what we saw of Obama’s treatment of Hillary & Palin in 2008 if you actually can seriously contend that the Dems are still the “Women’s Party” then all I can say is: Screw you easily distracted/frightened dimwits — I know how to not get pregnant even if you don’t and I’m smart enough to realize that ECONOMIC PARITY will take care of all those other issues.

        PS — I know you’ve already proven your lack of reading comp. skills but Ledbetter doesn’t do anything to help women earn a fair wage — the Fair Wage Act that was up for a vote at the same time as Ledbetter failed. All Ledbetter does is extent the time to file a wage discrimination claim from the time of the first discriminatory pay check to the most recent discriminatory paycheck. It doesn’t make proving the “claim” any easier. And it applies to both men and women who may have a wage discrimination claim — It isn’t even gender specific (as you seem to think).

      • elliesmom says:

        A church excluding contraceptive coverage from its insurance plans isn’t forcing its tenets down anyone’s throats. Employers provide health insurance voluntarily. People go to work for religious organizations voluntarily. Personally, I don’t want to work for a religious organization, but if it was the only job available to me, and I took it, I would do so with the understanding that the bill for my choice of contraception was mine.

  21. 1539days says:

    I saw Tweety today, interpreting Romney’s speech as the Republicans siding with the wealthy and successful, while the Democrats are supposedly for the downtrodden. He went so far as to say that Romney thinks that the people who didn’t make it should revere the people who did.

    You know what? He’s right. Shouldn’t the people who are struggling find an example in the people who succeeded? It sounds like Obama hopes we fail. He said that he was “given” and education but paradoxically he claims that he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Obama doesn’t just want to help the poor, he wants to give free crap to the lower class and when they make it, he wants to “spread the wealth.”

    Contrast that with Romney last night, who talked about his father becoming governor as an adult of the same state where he sold paint out of a truck as a young man. Obama’s father was a dilettante, spreading his seed across the world. His grandmother was Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii. His mother chose to live in strange places because her family could support her. Nothing about Barack Obama is even close to the American Dream.

    This time, Obama is going to be the loser.

    • angienc says:

      Ah, yes, all those Horatio Alger stories are totally about the downtrodden revering the successful and had nothing to do with the downtrodden being inspired by others who were like them who “made it.” Changing your destiny despite whatever the circumstances of your birth via hard work & will power is totally not the American dream whatsoever. /rolls eyes

      • myiq2xu says:

        Class resentment has never sold very well in this country. That was one of many mistakes made by OWS.

        • 1539days says:

          Rich people aren’t evil. If a rich person is doing wrong, that’s what federal prosecutors are for. In the Obama administration, those prosecutors have been replaced by $40,000 dinners with George Clooney.

          • myiq2xu says:

            Rich people aren’t evil.

            Some are. But the Obama/OWS position is that the rich only got that way by exploiting other people.

        • angienc says:

          Well, some poor people are evil too. Some middle class people are evil as well. Evil is not exclusive to the rich and being poor isn’t a guarantee of virtue. That’s the problem with trying to paint things with such broad brush strokes as Obama is attempting to do.

        • WMCB says:

          Americans resent people cheating or making a dishonest buck. But they have no problem with wealth itself. Probably because, unlike Europe, wealth here was never historically associated with nobility and lineage and absolute privilege of birth. We do not have that resentment in our cultural history, so it’s not part of our collective psyche.

          One of the biggest mistakes that European-style socialists and communists have always made here is they assume that the same levers that work in Europe will work here. Not necessarily. Culturally speaking, Americans are NOT Europeans. At all. Politicians and activists fail who have no clue what a unique culture America is, that we are ourselves, not something else.

          This is why I think it was smart for Romney to not back off and try to downplay his wealth. “Yeah, I’m rich, and I worked for it, and I’m damn proud of it. You gotta problem with that? ” is more effective.

          The next step is going to be attacks on Bain as completely predatory (i.e. a dishonest buck), since plain old “he’s a rich bastard” isn’t working. Romney began to preemptively undercut that a little last night, by pointing out the big-name companies that Bain was successful with, and admitting openly that some didn’t make it. That’s how investment companies work – you invest in lots, some do well, some you cut your losses.

          Mitt is playing this smart. Very smart.

    • JeanLouise says:

      1539days, Are you serious? “Revere the rich”? Rich people are no more to be respected than the hard working social worker or teacher or waitress. They certainly aren’t to be “revered” by mentally healthy human beings. Kim Kardashian is rich and she got that way by her own effort. So, what? She’s done nothing to contribute to the betterment of society. Quite the opposite, imo.

      The belief that wealth is an indicator of one’s value as a human being is a huge part of what is destroying America. People like Romney will do anything to anyone else if it will make them a buck. They have no conscience or sense of community. It’s all about who has the biggest pile of dollars.

      • WMCB says:

        Again with the strawmen, and arguing against what you imagine to be in people’s heads, rather than what they have told you.

        1539 never sad that wealth was the indicator of one’s value as a human being. Never said anything close to that. She also never said that wealthy people were better than a teacher or social worker. It was merely pointed out that financial success is not evil in itself, and indeed can be an inspiration to others.

        Mentally healthy human beings don’t rail at what they imagine other people are thinking and feeling, JL.

        • 1539days says:

          Kim Kardashian is right out of the OWS handbook. Apparently, you can be liberal about people’s lifestyles up to a particular net worth. By way of the wealthy having money, everyone else is worse off. That’s Obama’s America.

          The “One Percent” can make as little as $250,000 per year. The ones who make above $300,000 regularly pay a third of that in federal taxes because of the alternative minimum tax. If they are self-employed, they pay 12% in Social Security on the first $100,000. If they have employees, they have to pay 6% of each one’s Social Security.

          The top 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but they also account for 40% of the income tax revenue as it currently stands, even with the Bush tax cuts. Their taxes pay for the social workers and the teachers. This isn’t about moral superiority. I would imagine most waitresses would like to be in an economic position to not be waitresses anymore.

          The people who gained careers because of Bain Capital probably don’t revere Mitt Romney, but they respect him. Barack Obama’s story is of a upper middle-class kid who was revered because of his racial identity and never created a job for anyone. He is a teacher I don’t have respect for.

  22. myiq2xu says:

    In today’s oral arguments before SCOTUS the government’s attorney tried to argue that Arizona’s immigration law would lead to racial profiling of Hispanics.

    But aren’t Hispanics white?

  23. angienc says:

    WTF? Am I a victim of spammy?

Comments are closed.