Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-22-2011, 11:17 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-22-2011, 11:48 AM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Great DV

Good to see an all female DV for a change. Regarding the Death Penalty here is Coulters great column.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2011, 12:49 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Good jobs vs. bad jobs

As any good economist will tell you, the issue is always about wages not jobs. If, and when, wages go down, the volume of employment will go up. Now the volume of employment, strictly speaking, is measured in man-hours per week, not in the number of "jobs," even though conventionally, since the days of the New Deal, Americans think of 40 hours of payed work per week as a standard full-time job

It used to be much higher, by the way: ten- and twelve hour days six days a week; and before that, in the earliest days of the factory system, when orphans as young as eight were whipped through the streets of London at dawn and forced to work 14 hours a day six and a half days a week. Stuff like this still happens in underdeveloped countries like India and China, with whom we trade and therefore with whom American workers are now forced to indirectly compete.

So what our national conversation should be about right now is not jobs per se but the trade-off between real hourly wages and the total volume of employment. I can assure you these are the terms in which Ben Bernanke is thinking, as are a growing body of mainstream economists. They correctly understand our situation: wages in the United States are currently too high to sustain full-employment, i.e., to provide opportunities to work for all our citizens who want and need to support themselves and their dependents.

This is not because American wages have gone up in recent years. They have been falling steadily for decades. Rather it is because American workers' wages have failed to fall far and fast enough to compete in the new global economy of free trade and mass immigration with with populous, low-wage countries like China and Mexico. These trade and immigration policies, it should be noted, got started during the first Bush and Clinton administrations and are now strenuously supported by the governing elites in both political parties, Democrats and Republicans alike (see yesterdays WSJ on e-verify for instance). Our economic elites have ordained them as that which is best for the American economy "as a whole" (by which they mean their share of the whole).

What happens next is entirely predictable. The money supply will expand greatly over the next several years (under QE 3, 4, and 5!), which will cause money wages to rise (hooray!) but not as fast as the prices of everything else (boo!). Thus, as if by magic, real wages will fall further in America even as money wages expand and the total volume of employment in America goes up, perhaps dramatically so if and when it takes more than two jobs to support a family. The headlines will read, "Rate of Unemployment Falls."

Now American workers are going to accept these changes in part because they have no choice. But they will also accept them because they will be beguiled by the "money illusion" as economists call it: so long as their bosses don't "announce" actual wage cuts (which of course they won't because they don't have to) the poor ignorant slobs will barely notice that their real hourly take home pay along with their standard of living is gradually being eaten away and will continue to be eaten away unless and until the day finally arrives when our governing elites are forced to abandon the treasonous trade and immigration policies which they have foisted upon the American people.

And that, my fellow Americans, is just the way it is. Enjoy the future and pray for your children.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 09-22-2011 at 01:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2011, 02:52 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Ms. Mangu-Ward gives people a lot of credit for thinking.
Considering some of the things many people believe, this is not that far fetched.
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-22-2011, 03:18 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post

And that, my fellow Americans, is just the way it is. Enjoy the future and pray for your children.
grim. Since you have obviously been looking at the big picture, can you tell me how you think working women have affected the American economy since women were expected to work full time for their whole lives, say since the mid- 1960's?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-22-2011, 03:58 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
grim. Since you have obviously been looking at the big picture, can you tell me how you think working women have affected the American economy since women were expected to work full time for their whole lives, say since the mid- 1960's?
Good question. America's wage decline began in the early 1970's, which is when American housewives started entering the labor market in large numbers. As a simple matter of supply and demand, this was obviously a major contributing factor, the most important factor in my opinion, and it obviously had nothing to do with trade and immigration.

Thus you have put your finger on the third factor driving American wages down: labor-saving machinery (or "changing technology" as economists like to phrase it), in this case the massive introduction of modern household appliances into the American home in the decades after WWII. I would say that this was probably the biggest example of that kind of thing since the introduction of the tractor, combines, and other labor-saving machinery in agriculture in the 19th century.

But in both cases these changes have largely run their course. The process of automation continues of course, but mostly in industry nowadays -- computerized machine tools, scanners, etc. -- but nothing on the scale of what happened in the home. So, yes, it is not just trade and immigration. Trade and immigration are unique only because they were the result of deliberate policy decisions taken in Washington and are therefore reversible. We could restore tariffs on low-wage imports (reverse Nafta and Gatt), we could have an immigration pause or time-out, thus reversing the 1965 Immigration Act, and we could enforce our existing immigration laws with e-verify.

Let me also note that trade played a part, though a lesser part, in what happened in the 1970's. Those were the days when imports from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore -- the little Asian tigers -- first became noticable. In the case of Japan Reagan actually threatened to impose tariffs unless they started building their cars here in the U.S.A., which they promptly proceeded to do. They may now own the American automobile industry, but that is ok: this is about employment and wages, not who owns the factories.

In any case keep in mind that China is ten times bigger and poorer than all the Asian tigers plus Japan put together. Thus the "deindustrilization of America" which these smaller countries began will be magnified many times over. If we let it happen, it will wipe the better part of our entire industrial base, which is already a shrunken image of what it used to be.

Likewise with immigration from Mexico, which is now completely out of control and amounts to a demographic invasion. Look at what has happened to Texas and California. Is that what we want to happen throughout the United States? The politicians and businessmen like it, but it is not so good for everybody else. California, in particular, as gone from number one in public education to number 49, and can no longer pay its bills.

I would argue for an across-the-board moratorium on immigration, from all countries, until we can return our wages and standard of living to what they used to be as well as assimilate and integrated the 30-to-40 million immigrants we already have. Something similar was done between 1920 and 1965. It could be done again.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-22-2011, 04:20 PM
Cain Cain is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Um, did Erica Grieder attend the Obama School of Extemporaneous Public Speaking?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-22-2011, 05:29 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
We could restore tariffs on low-wage imports (reverse Nafta and Gatt),
Yes. We should go a step further and bring back the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The problem with these damn imports is that they make everything so cheap it's hard for Americans to compete. We'd all be better off if Americans paid 200-300% more for everything they buy now.

NAFTA was also devastating to the American economy. It was enacted in 1994. Just look at the American economy during those Clinton years. Horrible.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-22-2011, 06:51 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Good question. America's wage decline began in the early 1970's, which is when American housewives started entering the labor market in large numbers. As a simple matter of supply and demand, this was obviously a major contributing factor, the most important factor in my opinion, and it obviously had nothing to do with trade and immigration.
I presume you would not be against doing away with the minimum wage. If I am correct, do you think this would stop the devaluation of the dollar which is currently underway?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-22-2011, 06:52 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Um, did Erica Grieder attend the Obama School of Extemporaneous Public Speaking?
Please explain your meaning.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:29 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Good question.
and here's another one.

I always read what you write and I have trouble figuring out where you're coming from. It appears that we may have entered an age of irreconcilable differences between the way things were and the way things are going to be in a global economy. It also seems to me that you advocate for several things. One is a more isolationist policy because there is no way the America we know can compete with what we would consider slave wages and besides our economy won't work with slave wages. Also based on a website you linked several months ago, you seem to advocate for something like a downsizing of our expectations...kind of like we've got all the comforts, why do we insist on growth for growth's sake. Maybe we can do with less growth and maintain a good standard of living, we don't really have to work so hard.

I'm sorry if I've simplified too much or misinterpreted but here's my question...is there a name for your unique perspective on the economy?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:29 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Yes. We should go a step further and bring back the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Sorry, Surgarkang, the alleged perfidiousness of Smoot-Hawley is an overblown urban myth. Remember when Gore brought this up in his debate with Ross Perot? Right-thinking people everywhere considered Gore's brilliant reference devastating.

Poor, ignorant Ross Perot! A mere businessman. No knowledge of history, no training in economics. All he could do was sputter incoherently something about a "giant sucking noise, a "race to the bottom," and how the average American worker was like "a straw in the wind."

Clearly subsequent events have vindicated the brilliant Senator from Tennessee. The straight-talking redneck from Texas, we can now see, was talking through his hat.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:40 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

The question "Is a bad job better than no job?" listed as the first topic kind of sums up the problem. Rather it should be "is a bad paycheck better than no paycheck?".

I've worked some pretty crummy jobs and they didn't make me want to quit, they made me want to find better jobs. As long as the statists are willing to extend beyond what a worker pays into a pool for unemployment insurance (I read some people were up to 90 weeks I think), there is no incentive to grow skills, make yourself a valuable employee, even go out and look for a job.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-22-2011, 07:55 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
(I read some people were up to 90 weeks I think),
99
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-22-2011, 08:31 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I'm sorry if I've simplified too much or misinterpreted but here's my question...is there a name for your unique perspective on the economy?
Lukism?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-22-2011, 08:54 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Good jobs vs. bad jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Lukism?
Oh yeah! That's the guy's name (maybe your name?) Can I have the link again?

Did I summarize anything correctly?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:44 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

This was an interesting, intelligent, discussion by a couple of right thinking ladies. And was nice to watch too. Mangu-Ward's enthusiasm for 'sweat shops' was enough to warm the heart of any compassionate conservative like myself. Spoken honestly, unapologetically, and ending with a beautiful smile.

Mangu-Ward makes a great point about how folks vote more, in an indirect way, according to who they best identify rather then directly with who they think takes the best moral stand on particular issues. This is certainly how I find myself identifying strongly with the right while agreeing with the left on some important issues such as illegal immigration, strong EPA, etc.

An example of this is the liberal reaction to the execution of Troy Davis. Huffpo had its large photo/headliner at top of page showing Mr. Davis with a sweet expression on his face, along with his birth and death dates. As if he was a beloved celebrity to be mourned. Which of course, he was -- to the leftist HuffPo patronage. This is a guy who shot a security guard who chased him away from robbing a homeless man, shot him down, then walked up and shot him in the head to make sure he was dead. Unbelievable; disgusting even. I don't celebrate anyone's death. I think the death penalty should be used more restrictively and everyone on death row, for whom it is applicable, should have dna testing. But I much more identify with the crowd who cheers the execution of murderers like Davis then I do with the crowd who mourns it.

Greider, to my surprise, expressed some confusion as to why folks get extra vindictive over cop killers. It seems obvious to me that this is because people see cops as those who risk their lives to keep them safe. Killing a cop not only takes a life, it makes more hazardous the lives of anyone who might choose an occupation in protecting us from murdering, raping, thieving, scum.

Lastly, the discussion regarding the inexcusable state of our school systems is always welcome. I do agree nothing is more critical for a learning environment then the culture of the classroom. Unfortunately, the unconscionable alliance of the left to special interests of the status quo in our education system will continue to fight even the slightest questioning of the status quo, much less every inch of progress towards what studies and actual experiments have shown are possible solutions.

Last edited by whburgess; 09-23-2011 at 12:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:46 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
An example of this is the liberal reaction to the execution of Troy Davis. Huffpo had its large photo/headliner at top of page showing Mr. Davis with a sweet expression on his face, along with his birth and death dates. As if he was a beloved celebrity to be mourned. Which of course, he was -- to the leftist HuffPo patronage. This is a guy who shot a security guard who chased him away from robbing a homeless man, shot him down, then walked up and shot him in the head to make sure he was dead. Unbelievable. I don't celebrate anyone's death. I think the death penalty should be used more restrictively and everyone on death row, for whom it is applicable, should have dna testing. But I much more identify with the crowd who cheers the execution of murderers like Davis then I do with the crowd who mourns it.
I can assure you that none of the people mourning Troy Davis's execution think that he actually committed the crime for which he was executed.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:48 AM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Great DV

Ann Coulter said:

"Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years."

Nice job on Troy Davis, Ann. Now, can you give us a column on Cameron Willingham? Oops, Willingham was executed in 2004, that's a little bit beyond Coulter's magic 5-year statute of limitations event horizon of sympathy/compassion for innocent, wrongfully executed people.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:05 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I can assure you that none of the people mourning Troy Davis's execution think that he actually committed the crime for which he was executed.
I honestly appreciate your attempt to reassure me, but I don't believe the presentation on the front page of HuffPo was primarily about the innocence of Davis. It uses the perceived innocence (by some), of Davis, as a proxy for those who are sincerely grieved by the execution of any murderer.

Of course, they know they couldn't use the guy who was further down the page and executed the same day; the racist 'Rick Perry executed' for dragging James Byrd to death behind his truck, because he was a racist murderer -- which makes him a uniquely difficult murderer for a liberal to sympathize with.

Any other murderer probably would have sufficed though as long as a easily repeatable narrative regarding his possible innocence could have been sold to a receptive media.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:38 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I honestly appreciate your attempt to reassure me, but I don't believe the presentation on the front page of HuffPo was primarily about the innocence of Davis. It uses the perceived innocence (by some), of Davis, as a proxy for those who are sincerely grieved by the execution of any murderer.
Why don't you believe this? If Davis innocence wasn't the issue, then why have liberal discussions of his execution harped upon the disgracefully weak case, the witnesses recanting their testimony, the alleged police misconduct, and so forth? Why have I seen Scalia's money quote ("There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.") plastered all over my RSS feed today? It seems like some awfully ambitious mind reading on your part.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:39 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Great DV

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
Ann Coulter said:

"Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years."

Nice job on Troy Davis, Ann. Now, can you give us a column on Cameron Willingham? Oops, Willingham was executed in 2004, that's a little bit beyond Coulter's magic 5-year statute of limitations event horizon of sympathy/compassion for innocent, wrongfully executed people.
so ann coulter must think there's some serious debate as to whether or not space aliens have walked among us, right?
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:45 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I can assure you that none of the people mourning Troy Davis's execution think that he actually committed the crime for which he was executed.
I don't get how you, or anyone else, is so sure. To put my cards on the table, I suppose I'm pro-death penalty, but after reading a bunch last night I was pretty well persuaded that we don't really know who killed the policeman. It seems like it was either Davis or the other guy with him, but that establishing which one it actually was (this seems to hinge on the color of t-shirts, a lot of eyewitness testimony, and how you evaluate the other guy ratting Davis out) seems damn near impossible. And obviously, the whole procedure turned into a clusterfuck, what with allegations of police intimidation and people recanting statements left and right.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, I might just have read the wrong stuff. I read a blog post (don't remember where now) that reconstructed the actual scene using google maps, I read the New Yorker piece, and I skimmed an Ace of Spades summary. Is there a case conclusively lays out his innocence somewhere? In a lot of ways this almost doesn't matter, since executing someone for a crime we aren't sure he committed is bad enough as it is. But I'm curious nonetheless.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:56 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
If Davis innocence wasn't the issue, then why have liberal discussions of his execution harped upon the disgracefully weak case, the witnesses recanting their testimony, the alleged police misconduct, and so forth?
Because, as I said, the sympathy as I see it, based on long experience in discussion with lefties, is not determined by whether or not he is actually innocent, but on the fact that a human being is being executed. The so-called problems that were sold to the media were an attempt to propagate more adversity to the death penalty in a larger audience.

Quote:
Why have I seen Scalia's money quote ("There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.") plastered all over my RSS feed today?
I don't think this is Scalia buying into the idea that there was newly discovered evidence of innocence, but he's saying that someone's claim that they have new evidence of innocence does not entitle them to a stay by the SCOTUS.

Quote:
It seems like some awfully ambitious mind reading on your part.
No, it's based on considerable experience talking with lovely lefty friends and neighbors.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:04 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
I don't get how you, or anyone else, is so sure. To put my cards on the table, I suppose I'm pro-death penalty, but after reading a bunch last night I was pretty well persuaded that we don't really know who killed the policeman. It seems like it was either Davis or the other guy with him, but that establishing which one it actually was (this seems to hinge on the color of t-shirts, a lot of eyewitness testimony, and how you evaluate the other guy ratting Davis out) seems damn near impossible. And obviously, the whole procedure turned into a clusterfuck, what with allegations of police intimidation and people recanting statements left and right.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, I might just have read the wrong stuff. I read a blog post (don't remember where now) that reconstructed the actual scene using google maps, I read the New Yorker piece, and I skimmed an Ace of Spades summary. Is there a case conclusively lays out his innocence somewhere? In a lot of ways this almost doesn't matter, since executing someone for a crime we aren't sure he committed is bad enough as it is. But I'm curious nonetheless.
Eric Erickson at Redstate writes a good post on it.

Federal and appellate courts have repeatedly gone over all the 'new evidence', the 'recantations' etc. None of them bought it. I think we should go with the consensus of the authorities and experts who have actually done the research on this.

Last edited by whburgess; 09-23-2011 at 02:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:05 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
I don't get how you, or anyone else, is so sure. To put my cards on the table, I suppose I'm pro-death penalty, but after reading a bunch last night I was pretty well persuaded that we don't really know who killed the policeman. It seems like it was either Davis or the other guy with him, but that establishing which one it actually was (this seems to hinge on the color of t-shirts, a lot of eyewitness testimony, and how you evaluate the other guy ratting Davis out) seems damn near impossible. And obviously, the whole procedure turned into a clusterfuck, what with allegations of police intimidation and people recanting statements left and right.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, I might just have read the wrong stuff. I read a blog post (don't remember where now) that reconstructed the actual scene using google maps, I read the New Yorker piece, and I skimmed an Ace of Spades summary. Is there a case conclusively lays out his innocence somewhere? In a lot of ways this almost doesn't matter, since executing someone for a crime we aren't sure he committed is bad enough as it is. But I'm curious nonetheless.
If this distinction is important to you, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the people mourning Davis's death are motivated by the likelihood of his innocence, or perhaps just the strong possibility of his innocence, depending upon who you talk to. Now it's certainly possible that in fact these people are wrong, and in fact Davis really is guilty. We'll never know for sure. But a Free Mumia rally this ain't.

This is why I find whburgess's preference for the execution-cheering crowd at the Tea Party debate to be pretty mystifying. There's no way that a fair observer could look at this case and reasonably conclude that the state proved Davis's guilt, just as no reasonable person could reach that conclusion about Cameron Todd Willingham or the many other cases that have had questions raised about them in the press. But that that uncertainty, which is an awfully generous way of describing the overwhelming likelihood that the evidence available implies, about the guilt of those that we execute doesn't appear to bother the Tea Party crowd at all.

Like Rick Perry, they might deny that reasonable doubts exist in the face of so much damning evidence. Even more disturbingly, they might just not care that the state is, in all likelihood, imprisoning and killing innocent men. I'll grant that death penalty critics can sometimes be too willing to trust in the excuses and alibis of men guilty of horrible things, but I don't understand how whburgess can be more bothered by that than by the blithe disregard with which so many treat strong claims of wrongful execution.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:09 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Eric Erickson at Redstate writes a good post on it.

Federal and appellate courts have repeatedly gone over all the 'new evidence', the 'recantations' etc. None of them bought it.
Those courts aren't retrying the case, they're reviewing the trial court's findings. The law requires them to give considerable deference to the trial court's findings of fact, so this is not at all equivalent to getting a new trial with new evidence and being found guilty again. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his innocence. There's no way the state would have reached the required evidenciary standard if the recantations of testimony, the allegations of police misconduct, and the expert opinion on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts had been presented at the original trial.

P.S.: Stephanie, you've passed the bar. Am I stating the legal procedure correctly?

Last edited by Don Zeko; 09-23-2011 at 02:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:10 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Because, as I said, the sympathy as I see it, based on long experience in discussion with lefties, is not determined by whether or not he is actually innocent, but on the fact that a human being is being executed. The so-called problems that were sold to the media were an attempt to propagate more adversity to the death penalty in a larger audience.

I don't think this is Scalia buying into the idea that there was newly discovered evidence of innocence, but he's saying that someone's claim that they have new evidence of innocence does not entitle them to a stay by the SCOTUS.

No, it's based on considerable experience talking with lovely lefty friends and neighbors.
Well I dunno about your lefty friends and neighbors, but my lefty friends, family, and neighbors all hone in on the question of innocence.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:15 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Those courts aren't retrying the case, they're reviewing the trial court's findings. The law requires them to give considerable deference to the trial court's findings of fact, so this is not at all equivalent to getting a new trial with new evidence and being found innocent. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his innocence. There's no way the state would have reached the required evidenciary standard if the recantations of testimony, the allegations of police misconduct, and the expert opinion on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts had been presented at the original trial.
The question is not whether or not he would be convicted in a new trial. They don't, and shouldn't, have to consider how the new evidence would fare with a jury and lawyers. That isn't the issue. The question is whether or not he was guilty. The courts had a chance to review the new evidence, etc, and didn't find it compelling.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:31 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
If this distinction is important to you, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the people mourning Davis's death are motivated by the likelihood of his innocence, or perhaps just the strong possibility of his innocence, depending upon who you talk to. Now it's certainly possible that in fact these people are wrong, and in fact Davis really is guilty. We'll never know for sure. But a Free Mumia rally this ain't.

This is why I find whburgess's preference for the execution-cheering crowd at the Tea Party debate to be pretty mystifying. There's no way that a fair observer could look at this case and reasonably conclude that the state proved Davis's guilt, just as no reasonable person could reach that conclusion about Cameron Todd Willingham or the many other cases that have had questions raised about them in the press. But that that uncertainty, which is an awfully generous way of describing the overwhelming likelihood that the evidence available implies, about the guilt of those that we execute doesn't appear to bother the Tea Party crowd at all.

Like Rick Perry, they might deny that reasonable doubts exist in the face of so much damning evidence. Even more disturbingly, they might just not care that the state is, in all likelihood, imprisoning and killing innocent men. I'll grant that death penalty critics can sometimes be too willing to trust in the excuses and alibis of men guilty of horrible things, but I don't understand how whburgess can be more bothered by that than by the blithe disregard with which so many treat strong claims of wrongful execution.
I don't believe that you think the tea party crowd was cheering the execution of innocent people. They weren't thinking of innocent people when they cheered, they were cheering the executions of guilty people.

On the other hand, I do believe that most lefties who oppose the death penalty oppose it even for people who are guilty. In other words, if someone records themselves on video killing someone, even they should not be executed. And these people were disturbed by the cheering of the tea party crowd, not because they think the tea party crowd wants to execute innocent people, but because the tea party crowd was cheering the execution of (guilty) people, period.

I know that there are some on the left who would be for executing the man who videos his own murders, but would be against the death penalty because of the risk to innocent people. I'm not talking about these lefties; i think they are a minority. I think there are equal number of people on the right, who oppose the death penalty for this reason. And while I don't oppose it, I'd be fine if it was ended for this reason.

Last edited by whburgess; 09-23-2011 at 02:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:54 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
If this distinction is important to you, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the people mourning Davis's death are motivated by the likelihood of his innocence, or perhaps just the strong possibility of his innocence, depending upon who you talk to. Now it's certainly possible that in fact these people are wrong, and in fact Davis really is guilty. We'll never know for sure. But a Free Mumia rally this ain't.

This is why I find whburgess's preference for the execution-cheering crowd at the Tea Party debate to be pretty mystifying. There's no way that a fair observer could look at this case and reasonably conclude that the state proved Davis's guilt, just as no reasonable person could reach that conclusion about Cameron Todd Willingham or the many other cases that have had questions raised about them in the press. But that that uncertainty, which is an awfully generous way of describing the overwhelming likelihood that the evidence available implies, about the guilt of those that we execute doesn't appear to bother the Tea Party crowd at all.

Like Rick Perry, they might deny that reasonable doubts exist in the face of so much damning evidence. Even more disturbingly, they might just not care that the state is, in all likelihood, imprisoning and killing innocent men. I'll grant that death penalty critics can sometimes be too willing to trust in the excuses and alibis of men guilty of horrible things, but I don't understand how whburgess can be more bothered by that than by the blithe disregard with which so many treat strong claims of wrongful execution.
I disagree with at least part of this. I think a reasonable person could read through the case (at least everything I've read) and come to the conclusion that David is guilty. I came away with at least some doubts, which was enough for me to feel uneasy about the whole thing. But I have no idea how people think he's likely to be innocent. It seems like those people probably haven't read much about the case. From what I understand, there's a 50% chance or higher that Troy Davis is guilty. That isn't nearly enough to execute him, but it's also not nearly enough to proclaim that he was obviously innocent.

p.s.: this liberal meme about "cheering executions" is incredibly annoying, just like the brand new meme we're about to get regarding "booing gay soldiers". Both of these things happened, and both of them are reprehensible. But there seems like several obvious explanations of this behavior: these events are on T.V., and believe it or not, humans sometimes engage in attention seeking behavior. I bet if you went up to these people and actually asked them about these things, they wouldn't be so mean spirited. But that point is almost irrelevant, because even if they were, it's like two or three dudes shouting this shit. Somehow two assholes becomes "the audience". This is annoying, intellectually lazy, and dishonest.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.

Last edited by chiwhisoxx; 09-23-2011 at 02:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-23-2011, 07:26 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Because, as I said, the sympathy as I see it, based on long experience in discussion with lefties, is not determined by whether or not he is actually innocent, but on the fact that a human being is being executed. The so-called problems that were sold to the media were an attempt to propagate more adversity to the death penalty in a larger audience.
This may be true of a small portion of lefties, but it's not true of most people in this case.

You're conflating a bunch of different people who happen to agree in this case- the set of people who oppose the death penalty generally. The larger set of people who believe that this case was resolved injustly. The people who had placards with his picture on them, who may fall into either of the two groups. And you have no way of knowing which they are, or even if the people who oppose the death penalty generally ALSO happen to believe that this individual was innocent. That's also possible, you know.

You have to make a whole set of ungenerous assumptions to get to your "monstrous."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-23-2011, 09:21 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Any other murderer probably would have sufficed though as long as a easily repeatable narrative regarding his possible innocence could have been sold to a receptive media.
Dick Gregory had no doubt that Brewer killed Byrd and yet he protested his execution. He is against the death penalty in any case.
I'm with him on this one.

This quote from the Coulter article was just stupid,

Quote:
I notice that the people so anxious to return this sociopathic cop-killer to the street don't live in his neighborhood.
There's a big difference between life without parole and returning a sociopath to the streets.

Hey, WH, with your stand on illegal immigration and my stand on the death penalty we might end up making at least a quarter of a liberal.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-23-2011, 09:47 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
You're conflating a bunch of different people who happen to agree in this case- the set of people who oppose the death penalty generally. The larger set of people who believe that this case was resolved injustly.
There are lots of people who think the case was settled unjustly who don't know anything about the case except what has been reported by some pretty sketchy people like Al (where's the camera?) Sharpton.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-23-2011 at 10:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:18 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

I think Don Zeko is right here about the motivation of people who "mourned" Troy Davis being based on a belief in his likely innocence, and that the expression of sentiment would be quite different if he were believed by them to have been properly proved guilty. I base this on my lefty friends, I suppose, and I do know a number of people who are pretty strongly against the death penalty (as am I).

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I don't believe that you think the tea party crowd was cheering the execution of innocent people. They weren't thinking of innocent people when they cheered, they were cheering the executions of guilty people.
On this, what bothers me about it -- although I take chiwhi's point -- is that there's an unwillingness to consider the issue of possible innocence, just a dismissal of that concern, even when there's obvious evidence that it's a genuine concern.

Quote:
On the other hand, I do believe that most lefties who oppose the death penalty oppose it even for people who are guilty. In other words, if someone records themselves on video killing someone, even they should not be executed. And these people were disturbed by the cheering of the tea party crowd, not because they think the tea party crowd wants to execute innocent people, but because the tea party crowd was cheering the execution of (guilty) people, period.
This seems to me not responsive to DZ's argument about why people were focused on Troy Davis, the particular nature of the focus and concern there. I do think, of course, that most people who oppose the DP are against it in all cases, not merely when they think the evidence doesn't support a finding of guilt. (However, there are also plenty of people who are against the DP due to problems of the justice system -- Scott Turow wrote a book about the evolution of his views that reflected on this, and I happen to know many others who have some form of this view, so I think your assumption that this is an insignificant part of the death penalty opposition on the left is wrong.) But in any case, as someone who disapproves of the DP in all cases, I don't think the normal reaction is to mourn the execution of specific killers, although some few may do that for religious reasons or the like. I think it's more a focus on the policy in general, that it's wrong for the state to do it, not that one feels bad for the murderer.

On the other hand, I do think it's callous to cheer on deaths, to speak about them lightly, even if you think the person deserves to be executed. Not so much because I have sympathy for the person in question, but just as a matter of human dignity, of how our public discourse should go. The state taking a life is a serious thing and should be talked about as such.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:26 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Those courts aren't retrying the case, they're reviewing the trial court's findings. The law requires them to give considerable deference to the trial court's findings of fact, so this is not at all equivalent to getting a new trial with new evidence and being found guilty again.
Right -- it's going to be somewhat different state to state, but you have to show that the new evidence establishes a substantial basis for a belief in actual innocence to be entitled to post-conviction relief on that basis.

(I'm no expert, though.)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-23-2011, 10:47 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Those courts aren't retrying the case, they're reviewing the trial court's findings. The law requires them to give considerable deference to the trial court's findings of fact, so this is not at all equivalent to getting a new trial with new evidence and being found guilty again. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his innocence. There's no way the state would have reached the required evidenciary standard if the recantations of testimony, the allegations of police misconduct, and the expert opinion on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts had been presented at the original trial.
"In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to consider whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence". "

In this case, the Supreme Court wants evidence to show Davis's innocence. In a normal trial, the objective is to prove guilt. I guess appeals are a different animal.

As far as the other evidence you mention, they were presented in an appeal but the petition was denied.

Quote:
The appeal stated that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses had been coerced by law enforcement personnel. The petition was denied in September 1997, with the court ruling that claims of improper law enforcement approaches should have been raised earlier in the appeal process, and the court could not usurp the jury's role to evaluate the evidence offered during the trial.[45] The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of state habeas corpus relief on November 13, 2000.[46]
It seems like everything humanly possible was done to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-23-2011 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:55 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
In this case, the Supreme Court wants evidence to show Davis's innocence. In a normal trial, the objective is to prove guilt. I guess appeals are a different animal.
In a criminal trial the prosecution must prove guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). You can appeal a trial, of course, but generally based on what are mistakes of law or evidentiary decisions or the like. You can also argue that no reasonable jury could have found the way the jury did.

What we are talking about here is post-conviction relief. It's much rarer, in theory, and the basis on which it can be granted is limited. Basically, that the process involved the violation of a right or, in certain restricted situations, new evidence that establishes innocence.

What the Scalia writing that gets talked about in these kinds of cases is about is related to the reason why the standards tend to be quite high before new evidence is allowed -- there's generally a need for finality. It's extremely rare that new evidence is permitted to overturn a civil judgment, for example, and I know in Illinois there's a time limit after which new evidence can't be presented in a non-DP case, although people on death row weren't bound by the deadline.

I'm not speaking about the Davis case, but in general.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:23 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I don't think this is Scalia buying into the idea that there was newly discovered evidence of innocence, but he's saying that someone's claim that they have new evidence of innocence does not entitle them to a stay by the SCOTUS.
The quote is from a different case (Herrera v. Collins) and relates to the argument that there is a Constitutional right that provides the protection that the rules of a number of states due -- that newly discovered evidence can be a basis for overturning a conviction. One of the issues in these cases (although I don't think in the Davis case so much, although I haven't been following it closely so would like to be corrected if I'm wrong) has to do with whether the new evidence gets presented at all, because the law traditionally had deadlines that precluded it. I think a number of states have made the presentation of new evidence of innocence easier as more wrongful convictions have been discovered, especially for people on death row.

Scalia is saying that there's no inherent violation of right -- and thus no basis for a reconsideration of the verdict -- even if the evidence actually did establish innocence. It's up to the states to pass laws allowing such post-conviction relief if they want to.

He suggests that where such evidence exists and no avenue for reconsidering the verdict is possible, executive clemency would be the result.

To the overarching point, an aim that new evidence be permitted to be offered and considered is an important aim for people involved in these arguments -- and something that state law can address -- so again it's why I think your dismissal of the innocence concern is wrong. People are focused on that as part of their reaction to the cases, and there does seem to be a difference of opinion between liberals (on average) and conservatives (on average) with respect to this question too -- how important is finality vs. the risk of a false conviction. I think people concerned about the DP question overall do tend to think also that evidence of innocence should be permitted, regardless of the policy issues that weigh the other way.

Last edited by stephanie; 09-23-2011 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-23-2011, 02:32 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Riding the Metaphor Train (Katherine Mangu-Ward & Erica Grieder)

A couple good posts on the matter from LG&M.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.