As you read this story, please keep the title question in mind. What would the penalty be if this was conducted by a private company? What accountability would you demand? Walter Ogrod was just set free after spending 3 decades on death row. The reason he was there in the first place underscores everything that is wrong with the justice system. In July of 1988, a 4 year old girl named Barbara Jean went missing in Philadelphia. Her body was found wrapped in a garbage bag inside of a TV box, about 1000 feet from her home. 4 years later, Philadelphia police arrested one of her neighbors, Walter, charged him with sexual assault and murder, and forced him to confess. While he was in jail awaiting trial, they enticed jailhouse informants to fabricate statements against him in exchange for immunity from charge for their upcoming cases. Let me repeat that: the police got people in jail to lie about an innocent man, in exchange for letting them free from things they were possibly guilty of doing. Walter's "confession" was riddled with errors that didn't line up with the facts of the case. For one thing, his "confession" was that he beat her to death, but she died from asphyxiation. During the trial, prosecutors withheld exonerating evidence from the defense, which at this point is something we've all become used to hearing, even though it's illegal. There was, of course, zero physical evidence. The prosecution's case was so terrible that Walter's first trial ended in a mistrial. Even still, they were able to successfully convict him in 1996, and he was sentenced to death. The Philadelphia DA and police were more concerned about pinning Barbara's death on someone, anyone, than they were about doing the harder work of actually finding the person who raped and murdered her. Let's recap: the people in charge of protecting the people of Philadelphia focused their efforts on framing an innocent man, and even setting other suspects free in exchange for lying about him, rather than trying to find a rapist and murderer who may still be walking the streets today. Thankfully, even though it took nearly 30 years, a Philadelphia judge finally set Walter free, and the DA's office is filing to refuse to retry him. Unfortunately, many other people have been executed despite similarly terrible cases against them, including Nathaniel Woods earlier this year (link to my post about Nate's case in the comments). Jo Jorgensen and I are staunchly opposed to the death penalty. We believe that when government is given power, they often use it in the most cynical, abusive and inequitable ways. The death penalty gives government the power to decide if any of us are allowed to live or die, and we see often what giving them that power leads to. Thankfully for Walter, after losing over half of his life on death row, he is home with his loved ones. Thanks for Spike Cohen for posting about this atrocity. The Libertarian Party of Texas opposes the Death Penalty as a form of punishment by the state, as well as any other unnecessary use of force by state agents in response to criminal action. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
Start at EXPOSE CNN Part One here.
Some of the key findings of today’s video: • Rick Saleeby, Senior Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, States Steve Brusk, CNN Politics Supervising Producer, Made ‘Advances’ on Female Employees During ‘Social Gatherings’ and Would “Put His Arm Around Them, Try and Touch Their Leg.” • Saleeby Believes That Steve Brusk is “Protected by Certain People…Like Other Higher Ups” Within CNN. • Rick Saleeby Recalls Incident with a Young Female Colleague: “She Had a Skirt on. I Could See the Hand. I Like Grab Her. It Looked Like I Was Being the Assaulter Because I Grabbed Her So Aggressively…to Keep Her from Him.” • Saleeby: “He Had Already Been Accused of the Things Prior… Which I Found Out…” • Saleeby Acknowledges the Gravity of the Situation: “I’ll Tell You This, In the Climate That’s Going Now, He Definitely Would Have Been Fired.” • Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, Says It is “Open Knowledge” That a Female Colleague Got a Job Working with Steve Brusk That “Appeared Out of Nowhere,” “…It Was Never Posted Online…” • Neville Refers to Allegedly Untoward Behavior from Brusk With the Young Female Employee: “…I Mean, He Emails All of Us, But He Would Email and Was Very Friendly to Her. And Then She Just Like Got a Job Like Working on His Team and She Was Like, Oh, It’s Hush-Hush. The Job Was Never Posted Anywhere.” • Neville: “…I Just Thought It Was a Little Strange.” • Christian Sierra, Media Coordinator at CNN, Continues: “That’s Unethical…That’s Unethical.” • Steve Brusk Tells Project Veritas Journalists to Speak with CNN’s PR Team About Sexual Misconduct Allegations; When Approached in DC, Refuses to Watch Footage. • Rick Saleeby and Jake Tapper Refuse to Speak with Project Veritas Journalists in DC When Approached for Comment. • Project Veritas Calls CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office for Comment on Last Week’s Multiple Releases Regarding Anti-Trump Bias in the Network; Zucker’s Administrative Assistant Replies: “We Don’t Have Any Comment, Thanks for Calling.” Support the whistleblower here. Support Project Veritas here. How much longer will CNN’s parent company, AT&T, allow Zucker, and CNN, to refrain from commenting on what has been uncovered? The public has a right to know AT&T’s official position. Will you demand a response from AT&T and CNN? Here is how: AT&T Phone Number: (210) 821-4105 Warner Media/CNN Phone Number: (404)827-1700 Without CNN Insider Cary Poarch, the American people wouldn’t have known about any of this information. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
South Korea's foreign minister has said she believes President Donald Trump is largely responsible for bringing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.
Hopefully someone in the state department will give Trump cue cards to read from so he doesn’t mess this up. Here’s a few talking points to start from:
1992: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#1) 1994: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#2) 1999: North Korea signs historic agreement to end missile tests 2000: North Korea signs historic agreement to reunify Korea! Nobel Peace Prize is awarded 2005: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2005: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program and "denuclearize"! (#3) 2006: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2006: North Korea again support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2007: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#4) 2007: N&S Korea sign agreement on reunification 2010: North Korea commits to ending Korean War 2010: North Korea announces commitment to "denuclearize" 2010: North Korea again announces commitment to "denuclearize" 2011: North Korea announces plan to halt nuclear and missile tests 2012: North Korea announces halt to nuclear program 2015: North Korea offers to halt nuclear tests 2016: North Korea again announces support for "denuclearization" Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
Thomas Sowell is one of a handful of people whose prose I genuinely envy.
He's also brilliant, of course. Milton Friedman, whom I disagree with on some things, was known for being an effective debater, but I think Sowell has even him beat: anti-capitalist platitudes don't stand a chance against the Sowell meat grinder. And now, just today -- at age 87! -- Sowell has released a brand new book: Discrimination and Disparities. I haven't read it yet, but I will. From what I've seen of it, the new book reminds me of Sowell's criminally neglected work Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, which I've been recommending for as long as I can remember (my Amazon review from 2001 is still up). One by one, the standard platitudes about discrimination and poverty fall before Sowell's relentless statistical assault. Discrimination causes poverty? How about the Chinese minority in Southeast Asia? Discrimination against the Chinese minority is actually written into the Malaysian constitution. And yet the Chinese minority still dominate the economy. Likewise, Japanese-Americans were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were forcibly relocated during World War II. Yet by 1959 they had equaled whites in income, and by 1969 were earning one-third more. Politics is the only way for a minority group to advance? To the contrary: the general pattern in the United States has been for a group to become wealthy first and only then to enter politics (if at all). The Irish, on the other hand, who placed such emphasis on political action, lagged behind other ethnic groups. The book is filled with information like this. Page by relentless page, Sowell relentlessly undermines the idea that outcome differences must be of sinister origin. If Polish-Americans are 25 years older, on average, than Puerto Ricans, is that not going to be reflected in greater work experience, higher net worth, etc.? Yet nobody even bothers to consider age differences. If half of Mexican-American women are married by age 18, but only 10 percent of Japanese-American women are, won't their life trajectories be radically different -- even if they were identical in all other traits? By the end of Sowell's book, any reasonable person has to understand how cartoonish and silly it is to expect identical outcomes from different groups across a wide range of human experiences. Of course, today the very existence of an intergroup disparity is made the subject of hysterical denunciations by campus demonstrators who aren't exactly known for appreciating subtlety. All the more reason to cheer the truly great Thomas Sowell, and the unexpected gift of his new book. -Tom Woods Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Last September, Economic Freedom of the World was released, which was sort of like Christmas for wonks who follow international economic policy. I eagerly combed through that report, which (predictably) had Hong Kong and Singapore as the top two jurisdictions. I was glad to see that the United States climbed to #11. The good news is that America had dropped as low as #18, so we’ve been improving the past few years. The bad news is that the U.S. used to be a top-5 country in the 1980s and 1990s. But let’s set aside America’s economic ranking and deal with a different question. I’m frequently asked why European nations with big welfare states still seem like nice places. My answer is that they are nice places. Yes, they get terrible scores on fiscal policy, but they tend to be very pro-market in areas like trade, monetary policy, regulation, and rule of law. So they almost always rank in the top-third for economic freedom. To be sure, many European nations face demographic challenges and that may mean Greek-style crisis at some point. But that’s true of many developing nations as well. The Humans Freedom Index. Moreover, there’s more to life than economics. Most European nations also are nice places because they are civilized and tolerant. For instance, check out the newly released Human Freedom Index, which measures both economic liberty and personal liberty. As you can see, Switzerland is ranked #1 and Europe is home to 12 of the top 16 nations. And when you check out nations at the bottom, you won’t find a single European country. Instead, you find nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Indeed, the lowest-ranked Western European country is Greece, which is ranked #60 and just missed being in the top-third of countries. Having now engaged in the unusual experience of defending Europe, let’s take a quick look at the score for the United States. As you can see, America’s #17 ranking is a function of our position for economic freedom (#11) and our position for personal freedom (#24). For what it’s worth, America’s worst score is for “civil justice,” which basically measures rule of law. It’s embarrassing that we’re weak in that category, but not overly surprising. Anyhow, here’s how the U.S. score has changed over time. Let’s close with a few random observations. Other nations also improved, not just the United States. Among advanced nations, Singapore jumped 16 spots and is now tied for #18. There were also double-digit increases for Suriname (up 14 spots, to #56), Cambodia (up 16 spots, to #58), and Botswana (up 22 spots, to #63). The biggest increase was Swaziland, which jumped 25 spots to #91, though it’s worth pointing out that it’s easier to make big jumps for nations with lower initial rankings. Now let’s look at nations moving in the wrong direction. Among developed nations, Canada dropped 7 spots to #11. Still a very good score, but a very bad trend. It’s also unfortunate to see Poland drop 10 spots, to #32. Looking at developing nations, Brunei Darussalam plummeted an astounding 52 spots, down to #115, followed by Tajikistan, which fell 46 spots to #118. Brazil is also worth highlighting, since it plunged 23 spots to #120. P.S. I don’t know if Moldova, Ukraine, and Russia count as European countries or Asian nations, but they all rank in the bottom half. In any event, they’re not Western European nations. P.P.S. I mentioned last year that Switzerland was the only nation to be in the top 10 for both economic freedom and personal freedom. In the latest rankings, New Zealand also achieves that high honor. Reprinted from International Liberty. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Do you trust "The Government" or "The Market" more?
I have no doubt that Comcast and other large Internet Service Providers do not have MY personal best interests in mind. Not exactly. They have this thing called 'profit motive'. But in a Free Market, if they continue to screw someone over or charge too high of prices, people will stop using their services and it’s an opportunity for another business to undercut them. They go out of business if they can’t offer the best product at the cheapest prices, because someone else will. Because "Profit Motive". There are entire YELP-like industries designed around measuring how well companies This entire Net Neutrality Debate is simplified in one question.Do you trust "The Government" or "The Market" more? This is the only question you need ask yourself. Let's discuss all these atrocities they are saying 'could occur'.... Why haven't we seen them from 1994-2014, twenty years with NO NET NEUTRALITY at all, and none of these horrors occurred. Sure some companies had some fights and guess what they all solved it and moved on. It never affected you for a moment, you didn't even know it happened until the TV or the great Facebook told you about it. The internet is the most awesome tech ever created, why?More than two decades to evolve free of regulation, that is why. Some are too young, you don't remember how regulation has always been the problem and never once been the solution. When phones were highly regulated, great screams poured out when deregulation was proposed. They said it would be 'suicide for our communication networks and capabilities'. "The corporations will charge you for every feature", "Long distance will triple!", "They will shut your phone off if you say something they don't like!", "they will tap your phone", on and on it went....any of this sound familiar? Jack Spirko reminds us what telephone service was like before DEREGULATION?
I’m talking about back in the good old days when it was highly regulated?
Here are some facts about that time...
The sheep are so easily led by a terms "net neutrality" and “free and open internet”, it all sounds so nice right?
It actually amounts to one thing "government regulation of the internet", every time you hear or read the term “net neutrality”, translate it in your head to read"government regulation of the internet" and see how much support you have for it in a week or two. Go check out these and other chunks of wisdom at The Survival Podcast.
But what about GEOGRAPHICALLY disparate communities with only one provider?!First research this: Why aren't there competing ISPs where you live? Does your local ISP have a monopoly that was granted to them from government regulation? Or does the cost of internet infrastructure truly outweigh the population in an area? If there is no incentive to bring a second company into such a small population, chock that up to your 'cost of living in the boonies." The argument that "Cheap Abundant Internet is a Right because everything we do is online" will be withheld for another time (it's not). There are never really any true monopolies, even Standard Oil would see competitors the moment they increased prices. The ‘out in the boonies’ problem you have can probably only be fixed with a US Postal Service-style monopoly. But then you’d be getting USPS Government quality Internet. The problem we have in this case (geographically, only one provider) is the kind of problem that the market corrects for, over time, though. It spurs the next innovation that will reduce the cost of DSL/Satellite solutions which will free us of the old physical fiber lines. Just think, the 'telephone poles' we are so accustomed to seeing in our neighborhoods are 99% obsolete for telephone connectivity these days. Who has telephones in their house anymore? Let the market innovate out of your problem. Yes, I know that means it sucks in the meantime. Final Thoughts
If the internet would be SO AWFUL without net neutrality why was it awesome from 1994-2014 when we had nothing even approaching "net neutrality" for those 20 years?
If it’s meant to help ‘the little guy’ compete with large media, then why is large media lobbying to get it passed? Could it possibly be that large media LOVES legislation that they can lobby for that helps them and hurts others? Could it be that large media firms can afford the teams of lawyers needed to comply with large regulation, knowing that the startup “little guy” can’t? Most people who hate big business these days don’t even understand that these big businesses have politicians in their pockets in order to protect their market share and protect them from the ‘little guy’ who can innovate to make things better and cheaper for us. Just think, if government started regulating the net in 1994, you'd still hear modem noises followed by "YOU'VE GOT MAIL" every time you logged on 23 years later! Thanks Free Market! Don't Fall for the Following Scare Tactics in Hopes Government can get Involved
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |