The Case Against “Made in the U.S.A.”

Fear not China or any other foreign producer.

Editor’s Note: This column was first published on February 23, 2007.

The Commerce Department (whose idea was that?) routinely reports on the U.S. trade deficit–that is, the amount by which the dollar value of American imports exceeds the dollar value of American exports. China’s trade surplus with the United States is of special concern to many people.

Ordinarily, I ignore this monthly nonstory because, as Adam Smith wisely said, “Nothing . . . can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.” And how many times must it be pointed out that the current-account deficit is a mirror image of the capital-account surplus?

But in thinking about trade deficits and the Smith quote, I’ve come away with a new appreciation of what the old Scotsman was saying. Concern about imports and exports really is ridiculous.

Exports and Imports

What is an export? What is an import? These words are defined in reference to political boundaries of only one kind: national boundaries. If there were no such boundaries, there would be no exports or imports. But political boundaries are just that. They are not economic boundaries. To the extent that they can, people go about their business as though those boundaries weren’t there. People cross the Canadian-American and Mexican-American borders to transact business every day. If they give them a thought it is only because governments put up barriers patrolled my armed guards who make them wait in line. People learn early in life that they can gain immensely from trade, and with that understanding comes the insight that it doesn’t much matter on which side of a Rand-McNally line your trading partner lives.

So the very concepts imports and exports are founded on an arbitrary construct that has little practical consequence for people’s economic activities. Back in the 1980s, when neomercantilists feared Japan’s economic success at selling us stuff (seems a little crazy now, no?), I used to ask what would happen to the trade deficit if Japan were made the 51st state. Obviously, the deficit would have disappeared because we don’t reckon trade imbalances between states. Why not?

In reality there are no imports and exports. From my point of view, there is only what I make and what everyone else makes. It’s the same for everyone else. Few people would want to live just on what they themselves could make. Frédéric Bastiat pointed out that each of us daily uses products we couldn’t make in isolation in a thousand years. Talk about poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short! What makes this phenomenon stranger still is that the same thing holds true for all men, Bastiat wrote. Every one of the members of society has consumed a million times more than he could have produced; yet no one has robbed anyone else.

This is just another way of saying that the case for free trade is conceded the moment someone eschews self-sufficiency. After that, we’re just haggling over the size of the trade area. But if free trade (read: division of labor) is good, then the bigger the free-trade area the better. Globalization should be the worldwide removal of all barriers to the exchange of goods and services—rather than trade managed through state capitalism and multinational bureaucracies. Unilateral, unconditional free trade is the smartest policy.

Made Where?

There’s another way to illustrate the emptiness of the words imports and exports. This was delightfully done in a 2007 lecture given by the late Sudha Shenoy, an economist of the Austrian school who was long associated with the University of Newcastle, Australia. Shenoy showed that in a global economy, specifying where goods are made can be tricky.

Take China, for example, which keeps today’s neomercantilists up at night. Why? Because it has a big trade surplus with the United States. The Chinese do sell us a lot of clothing and other textile products. But what do we mean when we say something is “Made in China.” Perhaps not what we think we are saying.

Shenoy emphasizes that Chinese workers do the final assembly of many products, but final assembly is but the tip of the iceberg of production. When you look at the full manufacturing process, you find a system of worldwide cooperation. Most of the materials and machines the Chinese use in assembly were made somewhere else: sewing machines in Japan, Korea, and the United States; dyes in Germany; button-making machinery in the United States, Taiwan, and Hong Kong; zippers in Japan; spinning and weaving machinery in the United Kingdom; raw cotton in Uzbekistan, Egypt, and the United States (subsidized by the government); cotton gins in the United States; and steel in Japan and Korea.

Once assembled, the goods have to be moved to the docks for transport to the United States. The trucks that do the moving are made in Japan. The ships and containers are made in Korea, Japan, America, and Britain. The shipping services are Greek and Norwegian.

“When you read a label which says ‘made in China,’ it is not made in China,” Shenoy says. “It is made by the world economy, by the globe as a whole. . . . It is impossible to make anything in one country. And that is why, as Mises pointed out, the market economy does not respect political frontiers. Its field is the world.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    First!

    I also see that I, Pencil, which is appropriate here, is in the public domain.

  • Archimedes||

    You didn't build that.

  • ||

    At first I thought the President wrote that? It uses the pronouns "I" and "me" a lot.

    But I strongly suspect no one in this current administration could write the wrap: "The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth."

  • ||

    Export = Warty Pitching. Import = Warty Catching.

  • John||

    One need only look at the abaondoned factories in Japan to understand that devaluing your currency is a fool's game. When you under value your currency, you over invest in export oriented manufacturing and fail to develop your own domestic demand. Because nothing can remain undervalued forever, your currency will eventually correct itself and all of that over investment becomes surplus capacity and unemployment.

  • robc||

    Imports and Exports always balance, except in the very short term.

    For example, when we had the supposedly huge trade imbalance with Japan, we didnt really, as we were exporting ownership of Hawaiian golf courses and NYC skyscrapers.

  • robc||

  • John||

    The money has to go somehere because it can't stay home. The price of and export advantage is an underdeveloped domestic demand.

    The problem is that most of that money has been coming back lately in the form of them buying treasury notes rather than actually investing in business.

  • robc||

    So we are exporting government.

    Suckers.

  • John||

    Now we are importing government on their dime. It would be a lot better if that money were used for something productive.

  • robc||

    Nah, we are exporting ownership of government to them.

  • robc||

    But, otherwise, agreed.

    It would be better if they were buying something more productive.

  • Ted S.||

    Can we send them the politicians, too?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So we are exporting government.

    No we're exporting inflation.

  • John||

    And fuck the Reason spam filter. Apparently if you use the word investment too many times it blocks you.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The spam filter is just a shill for Big Thesaurus.

  • John||

    It is annoying enough when it blocks a website. But when it blocks a post with no links, it is just infuriating.

  • ||

    If your post is very long, copy it before hitting submit, so if it runs afoul of the spam filter, you can paste it and try to figure out what triggered the filter.

  • robc||

    Im surprised you could spell it the same way more than once.

  • John||

    Blah Blah Blah.

  • robc||

    You know, if you paid attention to the little red squiggles, the jokes would mostly end.

  • John||

    Doubtful.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Wood they? I'm knot sew shore.

  • Timon 19||

    Except I'm pretty sure "investment" doesn't have too many homophones.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Invest mint.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Spear? Pepper? Do I need to pay a monthly fee to get more detailed financial advice?

  • gaoxiaen||

    in vestment

  • ||

    "homophones" - sounds gay - NTTAWWT

  • sloopyinca||

    Homophone, as designed by the British.

  • db||

    Burn!

  • Ted S.||

    "It's damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."

    --Andrew Jackson

  • db||

    While I agree that national boundaries are merely political boundaries, and that they should mean little when considering which items to buy, governments can and frequently do subsidize industries within their own borders, which creates disadvantages to others attempting to enter their markets.

    For instance, China heavily subsidizes its commodity chemical and steel businesses (most of them are state-owned) and has been shown to dump the surpluses created by the inefficiency of their command economy into other countries at deep discounts. While this may ne good temporarily for consumers of the dumped products, it can't be denied that the dumping reward people who made mistakes and can punish those who made the right business decisions for a free market.

    Definitely, a truly free market is the way to go, but the market distorting quality of these dumpings can, if the economy doing the dumping is sufficiently large, really break down the functioning of those markets.

  • John||

    If dumping were a long term problem, then preditory pricing would be a real crime.

  • db||

    Well, dumping can cure itself, by reducing the efficiency of the command economy through shifting resources from profitable endeavors to the once that made the excess product. However, dumping seems to do more damage in the target economy than in the home economy. While a smart business might keep some cash on hand to help weather a dumping storm, in practice it usually means the affected enterprises can go out of business or curtail their production and staffing to the point of irreversibly weakening themselves. Once again, the dumping has punished the wiser for the benefit of the fool.

  • John||

    It damages the domestic industry of the product that is dumped. But it benefits the domestic consumers of that product. Seems like a zero sum game.

  • db||

    I think it's net negative. The command economy reinforces its own inefficiencies and learns no lessons. The customers get a temporary relief in price while the "domestic" producers are weakened. Agains, a smart domestic producer mqy anticipate these effects, but then its overall efficiency is reduced as well.

  • John||

    You assume consumers are always the end of the line. They are often also manufacturers. Lots of manufacturers are helped by access to things like cheap steal, something command economies always seem to be obsessed with.

  • db||

    I know; I used to work for on of those manufacturers that benefitted from cheap Chinese stainless steel a few years back. Unfortunately when prices rose again after the dumping finished, it was sad times because our idiot salespeople passed on the savings to customers and then the customers wouldn't go for price increases.

  • John||

    That is a good point. Artificially cheap products create inefficiencies in our economy as well. Cheap steal doesn't last forever and we are then stuck with the associated dislocation when the prices go back up.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Steal is very cheap.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Could be. I've seen African economists make this point about how our own dumping of free clothing and other basic goods destroys local industries.

  • John||

    And they are right. Food aid is one of the reasons Africa can't feed itself even though it is should be more productive than North America.

  • Tulpa the White||

    That's only a temporary thing, since the root cause is the subsidy which soon becomes impossible to maintain given the money lost by price dumping.

  • ||

    governments can and frequently do subsidize industries within their own borders, which creates disadvantages to others attempting to enter their markets.

    Not quite -- for a government to subsidize one or more industries, it has to steal money from the rest of that economy, hampering it. So, the subsidized industries gain a competitive advantage, but the rest of the industries are hampered by a competitive disadvantage.

    The net result is a poorer country than if they just let free trade flourish.

  • John||

    Mistakes were made

    After a more-than-two-year review, a report released last week accuses the FBI of having dropped the ball when it investigated the Fort Hood jihadist before the 2009 massacre.

    So — how many people will be fired?

    Exactly . . . none.

    That’s right: The agency might have been able to prevent the killing of 13 people by a home-grown Islamic fundamentalist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — but failed to do so.

    And yet, not a single FBI official will lose his or her job.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o.....90Hd7eMxOK

  • ||

    there were so many political considerations (read: he was a mooslim) that there was no way the fbi was going to give that scumbag anything but the benefit of the doubt unless and until he started shooting people... which he did

    they don't call them "Famous But Incompetent" for nothing

    the post article, and a host of articles have made a substantial case that

    1) the FBI was in possession of ample evidence that hasan was somebody who should be looked into further, and definitely interviewed. he didn't merely "visit extremist websites". he interacted WITH known scumbag terrorists at those websites and supported their viewpoints

    2) the fbi did jackshit

    fucking EPIC FAIL most likely based on political correctness and fear of seeming too kneejerk on a mooslim

  • John||

    They never shared their information with DOD even though we have spent billions post 9-11 to make sure such information gets shared.

  • Fluffy||

    The problem with the theory that political correctness doomed the investigation is the fact that US citizen Muslims get the shaft all the time on things like the No Fly List.

    Nobody is walking around on egg shells when telling people they get to walk home from Saudi Arabia. Why walk on egg shells with THIS guy?

    Sure, he wasn't just a Muslim - he was a pet, token Muslim. But still.

  • John||

    You forget how insane the government is fluffy. Both things are true. Muslims are routinely shafted by being put on the no fly list. And that very same government refused to take action against Hussain, even though it was clear to everyone he was barking mad, because they were too PC to go after a Muslim.

    You give the government too much credit.

  • ||

    everybody is shafted by no fly lists, so nobody can cry muslims are being singled out. hasan could have made that complaint (falsely, but it would at least have gotten traction).

    i agree with john, it was all about the PC

    setting aside that giving the govt. too much credit is not difficult to do

  • ||

    because he wasn't just a muslim. he was a ranking, intelligent muslim given a position of trust with the US military.

    we all know TSA doesn't care, even if you are the shatner.

  • John||

    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- The famed statue of Penn State coach Joe Paterno has been taken down from outside the football stadium.

    Workers lifted the statue off its base and used a forklift to move it into Beaver Stadium early Saturday as the 100 to 150 students watching chanted, "We are Penn State."

    http://espn.go.com/college-foo.....er-stadium

  • db||

    They ought to put it Sandusky's cell to stare at him forever.

  • John||

    If this had happened at some small HBC or really any school outside of the BCS conferences, the football program would already be gone.

  • db||

    I really wouldn't have a problem if the PSU football program were dissolved. If they want to restart it in a few years with new staff, etc., so be it.

    People make a big deal about how much money football brings to the university. I always thought that was mostly bullshit. Certainlythe footballl prpgram subsidizes other sports but so what? The university deserves to lose some revenue over this.

    The shitty part will be the new University president going hat in hand to the PA legislature for more tax money. Maybe they coild rehire Spanier to do the tax begging, since that was all that fucker ever did anyway.

  • John||

    My problem is that Paterno built this huge profitable program while covering up for the worst sort of monster. Now people are coming out who say Sandusky molested them in the 1970s. Now Penn State gets to keep this huge money making program built on that crime? Kill it for a few years and let them build a new one.

  • robc||

    The natural order of things may take care of that.

    Whats the best record for a coach who followed a legend?

  • John||

    Mostly mediocer. They are never bad. But rarely good. Tom Osborne and John Robinson are the only coachs I can think of who followed a legend and ended up being a legend themselves. Mostly they are fair to middling coaches like Ray Perkins or Earl Bruce.

  • robc||

    Osborne doesnt count. Devaney was only at Nebraska 11 years, if anything he set up a program for the legend.

    The best Ive found quickly searching is Earle Bruce. He lasted 9 years and had almost the same overall record as Hayes. And he was hated.

  • robc||

    John Robinson probably is the best answer.

    He is a rare outlier.

  • John||

    No Osborne is the best answer. He took over Nebraska from Bob Devaney. Devaney had built the program from nothing to win two consecutive national titles. He was to Nebraska what Paterno was to Penn State. Osborne then went on to win three national titles and win at least nine games per year for 25 straight years.

  • robc||

    Devaney wasnt a legend. 11 years isnt enough. That is like saying Schnellenberger was a legend at Miami.

    Both are program architects, but you got to stay around longer to be that legendary type, IMO.

  • John||

    Nebraska was nothing before Devany. Nothing. Devaney built the program. And he had won two consecutive national titles before in 70 and 71 before he retired after the 72 season. He was a legend. Osborne labored in Devaney's shadow as the coach who couldn't win the big one for most of his career.

  • robc||

    I know what Devaney did, but 11 years disqualifies you. PERIOD.

    I prefer 20, but will give McKay a pass at USC with only 16.

  • John||

    The problem Rob is that great coaches are very rare. It is really luck to find one. So it is very rare that a program finds a great coach in two consecutive hires. That USC and Nebraska were both able to hire two great coaches in a row is almost unheard of. The odds say you are going to get a dud most of the time.

  • robc||

    True and I think it is even harder when you have a 20+ year time frame that usually, as you pointed out below, ends with a bit of a fall off.

    NU and USCw had the advantage of only 11 and 16 years, respectively.

    GT had Dodd for 22 years, while his last season was a big one (Orange Bowl), the last 5-6 years were weak. Dooley was at uga for 25 years, they were falling off late. Ditto FSU and PSU.

    Notre Dame has never had a coach for a long period of time. Holtz was there 11 (only Rockne at 13 was longer) and look what has happened to them since him.

    I think the generational climate that builds up when a coach is there forever makes things even harder, even with a good hire.

  • John||

    Notre Dame also hired two great coaches in a row, Ara Parsigien and Dan Devine. Again in the 60s and 70s oddly enough.

  • John||

    The other problem Rob is that it is harder and harder to keep assistants at successful programs from leaving for head coaching jobs somewhere else. Mack Brown seemed like he was on his way to being an old style Bobby Bowden, Tom Osborne like career at Texas up until three years ago. Then he lost some key assistants, guessed wrong on a few high profile recruits and now it is looking pretty bad for him.

  • robc||

    Heck, when I asked the question, the very first thing I checked was "how long was Devaney at Nebraska" because I thought Osborne was the obvious counter-exception. Saw 11 years and quickly moved on.

    I get where you are coming from, what with the 2 MNCs, but like I said, Schnellenberger.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I prefer 20...

    So Royal wasn't a legend at Texas because he wasn't there long enough? Laughably wrong.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Well, hell, he slipped in just under your criterion, even though his last season was only .500.

  • robc||

    I gave McKay credit at 16, so Royal fits in too.

    Also, Royal coached 20 years. So, what was your point again?

    PS: Royal got the job when Dodd turned it down and recommended Texas hire his coordinator instead. Same for Broyles at Arkansas the next year (although I dont think they offered Dodd the job first).

    Thats why Tech was so good in the early 50s. Dodd as HC and Royal and Broyles as coordinators.

  • robc||

    Perkins only lasted 4 years and fell off 15% from the Bear.

  • robc||

    At my school, Bud Carson lasted 5 years and was off 21%, finished 27-27.

  • robc||

    Anyway, my point is, Bill O'Brien will take care of the PSU program. I like O'Brien, but I dont think he is John Robinson.

  • John||

    What people forget is that the Bear's last two teams were not that good. And Bryant's health had been failing and the program's facilities and fund raising had fallen way behind. Perkins didn't inherit the Alabama program of the late 70s much less the 1960s.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Barry Switzer and Chuck Fairbanks?

  • ||

    So you believe you should punish all (current students, players, coaches) for the acts of a few who are no longer there.

    Michael Rosenberg makes my case.

  • John||

    Yes I do. You are punishing the institution. By your logic, we should never punish unions or corporations who engage in criminal activity so long as they fire the people involved. Afterall, why punish all of the innocent employees of Bernie Madoff's financial firm for the acts of one guy?

  • ||

    So John, let me be perfectly positive in what you are advocating...

    ...you believe in punishing those who committed no crime?

  • John||

    The people are not being punished. They are free to leave and no along associate themselves with the organization.

  • ||

    So the kid right out of High School who gets picked up on a football scholarship isn't being punished? I suppose he can walk in to any other school in the nation and they'll pick up his tuition and let him play ball? His big chance is crushed because of the actions of people he never even met.

    I get it John. Because the act was horrific, ANY punishment is justified... Your need for vengeance against the shitbags has clouded your perception of right and wrong.

    I'm a Penn State alum. Class of 88. Would you like to punish me as well?

    Punish the guilty.

  • DEG||

    I thought the new coach largely replaced Paterno's staff?

    By the way, I also wouldn't mourn the program going away.

  • db||

    Are you a PSU alum? I am. Just askin'.

  • DEG||

    Yes.

  • DEG||

    I was there 94-98, all four years at University Park.

  • DEG||


    The shitty part will be the new University president going hat in hand to the PA legislature for more tax money. Maybe they coild rehire Spanier to do the tax begging, since that was all that fucker ever did anyway.

    And you know they're going to get what they want. They might have to a pay a price in more "oversight" and "openness". I'm happy I don't pay PA taxes anymore.

  • John||

    http://espn.go.com/college-foo.....ource-says

    The NCAA is going to hammer them tomorrow. They are not going to get the death penalty but instead a living death penalty of scholarship and bowl eligibility losses that will make it impossible to compete.

  • DEG||

    Which means they'll just beg for more from the state.

  • John||

    http://opinion.financialpost.c.....mite-card/

    Interesting article on Jews truning against the Democrats over Obama. According to it Jews provide Democrats with 50% of their campaign funding. Wow. I had no idea it was that high. If you cut off the public sector unions like the did in Wisconsin and if the Jews ever turned on the Democrats, what would be left? Certainly not any money.

  • ||

    That seems like a pretty vague statement. Does he have data to back this up?

  • John||

    It is the financial post. I assume they have fact checkers. That is a pretty easy fact to check. Considering that it is in a major magazine and not a blog post, I think it is a good bet it is correct. That is too easy of a fact to establish or disprove to get through the fact checkers at a reputable publication.

  • ||

    That seems like an impossible "fact" to check, since no campaign disclosure statement requires one to disclose the ethnicity or religion of the donor.

    What did they do, go through millions of campaign donations and look for vaguely jewish-sounding last names?

    I'm calling bullshit.

  • ||

    ^

  • ||

    as thomas sowell points out in ethnic america, and that it is certainly not anti-semitic to point out, jews disproportionately have much higher incomes than average

    the old joke is that jews "earn like well to do episcopalians but vote like puerto ricans"

    how does obama currently poll amongst jews? is there any data?

  • robc||

    One of the things pointed out in the article was that many Jews felt they were the target of the anti-1%ers.

  • John||

    You have to be a self hating Jew of Glen Greenwald proportions to not be appalled by the Israel hating and double standards that goes on on the Left.

  • ||

    i used to see appalling levels of it on DU. their israel palestine forum was BY FAR the most raucous. better even than their gun forum, which i greatly enjoyed.
    the left has their rachel corrie, and they've got their kneejerk sympathy for palestinians in general

    israel is framed as oppressor and palestine as underdog, and for the left, underdog gets the cred. even if underdog has a blatant terrorist organization (hamas) as their govt.

  • Fluffy||

    Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the underdog.

    The most you can say is that many Arab states are worse than Israel, and that if the Palestinians had their own government tomorrow it would be even worse.

    And that's a valid policy criticism, but it doesn't undo the fact that Israel is the oppressor. That fact is true no matter what state would succeed them, because the only valid analysis would consider the characteristics of the Israeli state and no other fact.

  • John||

    It is the double standard that is the problem. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians. What is wrong is criticizing Israel and then ignoring or excusing Fatah or Hamas from doing even worse things to Palestinians.

    We live in a world where the wife of one of the most vicious dictators in the world, Asma al-Assad, gets a puff piece in Vogue, and the Olympics won't take one minute to recognize the 20th Anniversary of the Munich massacre.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What is wrong is criticizing Israel and then ignoring or excusing Fatah or Hamas from doing even worse things to Palestinians.

    Who does this, John? Sounds like a strawman to me.

  • ||

    the FACT that israel is the oppressor? sorry, i don't see it or frame it that way.

    hamas doesn't recognize even the legitimacy of israel's existence and is behind the constant bombing etc. of israel.

    israel is the DEFENDER, not the oppressor.

    are they more powerful? sure

    but there is zero doubt in my mind that if hamas and the palestinians stopped attacking israel, israel would leave them the fuck alone, which is not what oppressors do

  • ||

    oh, and to quote ayn rand (hat-tip to volokh.com)

    "Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I
    support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They
    are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent
    Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and
    civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting
    savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."
    http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa...

    not agreein', or disagreein... just quoting

  • Tulpa the White||

    Ayn Rand was a fuckstick on many issues, this being one of them. Maybe you should quote her on an objectivist site, which this isn't.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The most you can say is that many Arab states are worse than Israel,

    Or you can accept the truth that the "Palestinians" have spent sixty years putting all their effort into hating and killing Jews. And that they would be infinitely better off if that effort had been used to build up Palestine instead.

    But that doesn't fit the narrative of blameless victims and poverty causing violence.

  • ||

    ^this

  • robc||

    If Israel had spent the last century treating all of their residents as equal citizens, things might be a bit different. In that sense, Fluffy is right, Israel has been the oppressor.

    Of course, the US doesnt have a great history with our treatment of our indigenous population either. But we stop oppressing at some point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Israel does treat all of it's citizens fairly, if not the same. There are many prosperous Arab citizens of Israel.

    The palestinians are not Israeli citizens and have spent upwards of a century demonstrating hostility to Israel.

  • robc||

    Israel does treat all of it's citizens fairly, if not the same.

    Separate but equal!

    The palestinians are not Israeli citizens

    And that is the problem. They were born in Israel, why arent they citizens?

  • Tulpa the White||

    They were born in Israel, why arent they citizens?

    Anchor baby issues, perhaps?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And that is the problem. They were born in Israel, why arent they citizens?

    People of Arab ancestry that are born in Israel are citizens of Israel. "Palestine" has never been part of Israel, the people that live in that pseudo state have never evinced any desire to become part of Israel. In fact, most of them live where they do now because they or their ancestors fled from Israel proper.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Or you can accept the truth that the "Palestinians" have spent sixty years putting all their effort into hating and killing Jews.

    1. You're lumping all Palestinians together with that remark. Very collectivist.

    2. They didn't have much chance to build up Palestine with Israel occupying that territory for 50+ years and building Israeli settlements there (which they continue to do).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes i'm lumping the Palestinians living there together. I did the same wrt germans ca 1941.

    If I were born into that situation I'd GTFO, as soon as possible and never look back. Just like millions of emigrants from fucked up European countries have done over the past couple of centuries.

  • Tulpa the White||

    John,

    If hating Israel makes you an anti-Semite, then hating Iran makes you an anti-Muslim.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Anti semites hate jews on ethnic, not religious, grounds.

    The proper analogy would be to say that hating Iran makes on anti-Persian.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    target of stupid Paultards?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Sure... but 50% of Democratic funding? I have a hard time believing that. John mentioned fact finding, but this is an opinion piece. Do they even bother for those?

  • John||

    Yes they do. I find the statement to be astounding. But the fact that it is so astounding and easily confirmed or debunked makes it hard to believe that a reputable magazine would have let it be printed without checking it.

  • ||

    i'm not going to accept 100% ANY factoid from ANY publication. let's remember, the NYT has published blatantly wrong factoids and such factoids as the superbowl sunday DV myth was published by numerous reputable sources

    given that, this comes from a reputable source, so i lean towards accepting it as more likely true than not

    iow, when a factoid comes from a reputable source, it gets the benefit of the doubt.

  • ||

    But the fact that it is so astounding and easily confirmed or debunked

    "easily"? How? Since when do campaign disclosure statements require donors to disclose religion or ethnicity?

  • Brett L||

    Procedures were followed.

    With video of cops siccing dogs and shooting beanbags at a small crowd of women.

  • ||

    right. because it's never justified to "sic" a dog, or shoot a beanbag at a woman

    that is in page 1 of my UOF manual "standard use of force guidelines do not apply if the subject is female. women have special privileges... unless they are police officers. if an officer would otherwise be justified in shooting beanbag projectiles and he can identify any subjects in the path of said projectiles as females, he must not do so lest he upset kneejerk blog commenters. see subsection 1(b) for rules regarding beangbag deployment on transexuals."

  • Fluffy||

    No, doof.

    The police are putting out the party line story that they had to break up a "riot", and that's why they needed to shoot rubber bullets and set dogs on people.

    But if the crowd members who were attacked by dogs and shot by bullets were mothers with children, that tends to make you think the cops were full of shit.

    I tend to doubt - VERY MUCH - that mothers pushing strollers were "rioting".

    I imagine they mean "We told those bitches to get off the street, and they wouldn't. So that makes it a riot."

  • ||

    i imagine nothing

    because i wait for facts. you "tend to doubt" they had to break up a riot, whereas i don't have evidence one way or the other, so i have no fucking idea.

    and if they knowingly released a dog on a mother WITH child, they were wrong

    the original claim was that WOMEN were attacked, which is entirely irrelevant as to justification, since gender is irrelevant

    again, if they KNOWINGLY released a dog on a woman WITH a child, that was wrong.

    setting aside the fact that if it WAS a riot, than any reasonable woman with child would have gotten her child the fuck out of there.

    what is clear is we have no way of knowing if the cops were right or not

    i wish they, as my agency did, had a videotaping crew as part of their riot squad

    our riot squad always sends out officers whose sole job is to videotape us during riots (WTO, N30 etc.)

    in some cases that has helped defend our action, and in rare cases, that video can be used against our actions. either way, it's a good idea.

    but your mind is already made up. as usual.

    it's just the cops putting out the "party line story" that they had to break up a riot. iow, you don't consider it might be true

    kneejerking as usual.

  • sloopyinca||

    because i wait for facts.

    Says the man who always falls back on the ATFPAPIC (or whatever the fuck acronym he uses) when the facts prove his initial assessment to be wrong...and usually proves that the story presented by the police is full of lies.

    Case in point: he was quick to condemn Andrew Scott for pointing the gun at police, causing them to shoot him dead inside his own apartment. Of course, he went so far as to call the guy a "moron" and "idiot that had it coming." But it looks like the "facts" dunphy waits for are changing as the evidence totally disproves the cops' claims that he could have, let alone did, point his gun at them. Now, they're saying he merely had a gun and are softening from the "he pointed it at them" claim.

    because i wait for facts.

    That's the funniest shit I've read in a while, mr kneejerk cop-apologist bootlicker. I'm sure it will get a lot of play the rest of the day.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But it looks like the "facts" dunphy waits for are changing as the evidence totally disproves the cops' claims that he could have, let alone did, point his gun at them

    Facts don't change.

    Lies do.

    It's telling that Dunphy has trouble differentiating the two.

  • ||

    sloopy is already lying, VG

    i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE POLICE CLAIMED HE DREW HIS GUN AND HAD IT DRAWN WHEN HE ANSWERED TO DOOR FOR POLICE

    that's an irrefutable fact. sloopy cannot support his claim with any post i made.

    iow, he's wrong

  • gulo gulo||

    i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    And sloopy never said you made those claims.

    that's an irrefutable fact. sloopy cannot support his claim with any post i made.

    Oh, see that's a lie as you most definitely WERE "quick to condemn Andrew Scott for pointing the gun at police, causing them to shoot him dead inside his own apartment." and you ABSOLUTELY called the guy "a "moron" and "idiot that had it coming."

    iow, he's wrong

    iow, you refuted claims sloopy never made about you then lied about the claims he DID make about you because you know they're true.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In that case you reflexively defended the cops, despite not knowing any of them personally nor being familiar with the culture of their department.

    And you did so in a case that was prima facie a bad shoot. Knocking on the wrong door in the middle of the night, not identifying yourself as a cop and then shooting the resident multiple times while he is still inside.

    All of that demonstrates that you see yourself as a member of team cop that reflexively supports his brothers officers.

    You could have said some version of sounds terrible but lets wait to make a judgement until all the facts are known.

    But instead you said Yeah the fucker deserved to get shot, confronting cops with a gun, what does the dummy expect. If he was afraid he shouldn't have answered the door. RAH RAH RAH

  • ||

    i didn't reflexively defend anything. i merely said atfpapic, that IF he came to the door with the gun drawn, he had only himself to blame for getting capped.

    and i explained why

  • robc||

    If you say "atfpapic" you arent "waiting for the facts".

  • ||

    the facts don't prove anything here, because there are barely any facts

    i never claimed scott pointed a gun at police, sloopy. you are SO consistently wrong on the facts.

    what i claimed was this. that the police claim he DREW his gun on them, NOT that he pointed it at them

    when you can either

    1) present ANY quote where i claim he pointed the gun at police

    or

    2) admit you were wrong, that i never claim that he (or more specifically) that the police CLAIMED that he (see ATFPAPIC) POINTED a gun at police

    my prediction

    you will neither admit error nor support your claim

    again, to make this crystal clear, i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE POLICE CLAIMED HE DREW HIS GUN AND HAD IT DRAWN WHEN HE ANSWERED TO DOOR FOR POLICE

    those are irrefutable facts, supported by my posts.

    that you keep bringing up old shit is amusing, but if you do, get your facts right

  • sloopyinca||

    again, to make this crystal clear, i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    Oh, really? From the original linked article: "When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said. "Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy's shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide."

    Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons.

    And all you're trying to do now is parse words and backtrack your earlier contentions. Why don't you go ahead and tell us the difference in "drawing a gun on someone" and "pointing a gun at someone."

  • ||

    no, YOU claimed i said he pointed his gun at police.

    i never claimed he did that.

    again, cite where i did!

  • sloopyinca||

    when you can either

    1) present ANY quote where i claim he pointed the gun at police

    or

    2) admit you were wrong, that i never claim that he (or more specifically) that the police CLAIMED that he (see ATFPAPIC) POINTED a gun at police

    From the original article: ""When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said. "Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy's shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide."

    Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons."

    my prediction

    you will neither admit error nor support your claim

    Protip: don't quit your day job and open up a bookie operation.

    You based your entire argument on what the police said. And the police said (initially) that he pointed the gun at them. Of course, they are walking that back now that the evidence shows it to be a physical impossibility.

  • ||

    To be fair, in that post, Dunphy was very careful to always say drawn and not pointed at. Tulpa on the other hand....

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, he kept referring to "the fact pattern as presented," and that goes back to the cops saying pointed (on two separate occasions). Somehow the word drawn got used interchangeably with pointed, and dunphy ran with it.

    Besides, all I was pointing out was what he asked me to do: find a case where he or the cops said it was pointed at them. Which I happily did...over and over and over again. He parsed his words and the cops' words so as to not look like suck a fuckbag for calling the guy a dumbshit, idiot, etc.

    Fuck him. He knows what they said, what he said and what was meant. And so do I.

  • ||

    Oh I totally agree, he was deliberately saying drawn but basing his argument off the facts as they were presented by the cops.

    And I love that he completely ignored the part where you pointed out his despicable words like it was ok for him to say it.

  • Chris Mallory||

    He was in his home. He had every right to be armed. The police had a duty to retreat. They are murderers and should ride the needle after a quick and speedy trial.

  • Brett L||

    Or, you know, you could identify that a team of two to three officers could easily go into a crowd of 20 women and arrest the single person who threw the water bottle. I like how you guys go to max allowable as standard.

  • ||

    they could flap their arms and fly to the moon.

    the idea that they could "easily go into " a crowd that you define as 20 women (wihtout evidence) and arrest a single person amidst a riot is not supported by evidence.

    i've been in riots, and i know how dangerous and difficult an action like that can be (N30, WTO, etc.)

    a bunch of "oh noes they used beanbags" and other such crap as well as the video doesn't establish whether the police were right or wrong.

  • Brett L||

    Dogs attacking a lady with a stroller, dude. Was she in more danger from the "riot" or the cops? But that never matters. Officer Safety!

  • ||

    if they knowingly released a dog on a woman with child, they were wrong to do so.

    that's irrefutable

    did they knowingly do so?

    i have no idea.

    officer safety matters, but the constitution matters more

    otoh, if there was a riot, and a woman remained there within a crowd with her child, then she should be charged with whatever relevant child endangerment charges apply.

    the OWS movement had some odious examples of using small children as "shields" during several of their actions

  • sloopyinca||

    First off, they had no right or reason to go onto private property to disperse the protesters. If there were people in the street, they could be cited for jaywalking. But the people on private property are free to exercise their constitutional rights free from intimidation, and certainly free from being shot with rubber bullets and having K9's loosed on them. The fact that the police's default action was to pull out the shotguns and start pointing them at people says a lot more than I ever could about the mindset of cops in America today.

    People have a right to be pissed when cops shoot a man for simply walking away from an illegal stop in the first place, as I do not believe talking to someone else in an alleyway is a criminal offense. And when that protest becomes larger than 2 or 3 people, the cops still have no right to break it up until it spills out into a public area. And based on the video, the aftermath interviews and the statements by several people that the cops tried to buy their video of the incident, these were non-violent protesters that police set upon like the royal fucking dragoons.

  • sloopyinca||

    otoh, if there was a riot, and a woman remained there within a crowd with her child, then she should be charged with whatever relevant child endangerment charges apply.

    So your solution is to curtail her 1A Rights because the cops there might overreact and therefore her child could get hurt?

    There is a fine line between a protest and a riot. And from my experiences, a protest only becomes a riot when the police show up and escalate the situation by doing something stupider than what caused the protest in the first place.

    Cops create more violence and mayhem than they could ever hope to contain in situations like this. Every. Fucking. Time.

  • ||

    there is no first amendment right to child endangerment

    by definition, a riot is a hazardous situation for an infant (person in a stroller) who does not have the state of mind to DECIDE to take that risk upon themself

    ASSUMING there was a riot, assuming the woman recognized that, and assuming she remained there with her child, yes that should be criminally charged.

    you have no 1st amendment right to endanger your child

    btw, since YOU brought it up

    i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE POLICE CLAIMED HE DREW HIS GUN AND HAD IT DRAWN WHEN HE ANSWERED TO DOOR FOR POLICE

    again, you make false accusations, so put up or admit error

    i admit error when i am wrong ,and did so just yesterday

    can you.

    I NEVER CLAIMED HE POINTED HIS GUN AT COPS NOR DID I CLAIM THE COPS MADE THAT CLAIM

    you made false accusations in your above post

    hth

  • sloopyinca||

    I NEVER CLAIMED HE POINTED HIS GUN AT COPS NOR DID I CLAIM THE COPS MADE THAT CLAIM

    From the original article : ""When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said. "Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy's shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide."

    Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons."

    You persistently claimed ATFPAPIC, which meant you were presenting the police's point of view. Sorry, asshole, but if you keep referring to their narrative, then you are acknowledging that the cops said he pointed a gun at them. Liar.

  • sloopyinca||

    there is no first amendment right to child endangerment

    One is entitled to take a child to a protest while they are exercising their 1A Right to peacefully protest. There is no exemption in the 1A that makes one criminally liable for the actions of others around them, you idiot.

    by definition, a riot is a hazardous situation for an infant (person in a stroller) who does not have the state of mind to DECIDE to take that risk upon themself

    Unless the mother was actively committing a crime, she had every right to be on private property, protesting. If others were acting criminally, they should be charged with child endangerment. If her mother was doing nothing wrong, she should not be guilty by association. That's not even bringing up the fact that the cops were shooting at people that had not committed an overt act but were huddling over children, as the video evidence clearly shows.

    ASSUMING there was a riot, assuming the woman recognized that, and assuming she remained there with her child, yes that should be criminally charged.

    That's a lot of assuming, especially when the video shows clearly that she was not an active participant in any criminal behavior.

    you have no 1st amendment right to endanger your child

    But you do have a 1A Right to free speech, regardless of the criminal behavior of those around you.

    You have no idea what the constitution means because you are a cop, and cops don't give a fuck about the Constitution anymore.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    there is no first amendment right to child endangerment

    So you're saying the cops that sicced the dog on the women with the small child should be prosecuted for child endangerment?

  • sloopyinca||

    right. because it's never justified to "sic" a dog, or shoot a beanbag at a woman

    It's never justified to corral people or shoot rubber bullets at them if they are protesting on private property.

    You fucking animal. They were standing in the street shooting at people on private fucking property huddling over their children.

    If this isn't ADW or at least reckless endangerment by every cop on the scene, I don't know what is.

    Evil. Just pure unadulterated evil.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Only an uncivilized thug would physically attack a woman in anyway. So yes, women should be off limits to dogs and beanbags. But I don't expect a thug like you to understand that.

  • Brett L||

    It gets better... the dog, now that there is video, was "deployed accidentally".

  • General Butt Naked||

    The euphemism is the last refuge of the liar.

  • johnl||

    The dog got away from its handler who frantically ran after it and eventually got it under control. It was a bad situation to bring a dog to, and a big mistake to let go of the dog. But it wasn't sent into the crowd on purpose.

  • Brett L||

    Is anyone else getting the extremely homoerotic Febreeze banner ad?

  • ||

    No, I'm getting hammered with Chili's "Order Chili's Online" ads. Maybe the ads are in response to our secret weaknesses. :)

  • db||

    WTF have you been searching for on Google?

  • Brett L||

    I blame Troy upthread.

  • Ted S.||

    I visit reason with only cached images set to load, so I don't get the banner ads.

  • John||

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io.....-that.html

    Readings from the Book of Barrack. Iowahawk is great.

  • ||

    Baracksheit?

  • ||

    (Beresheit = Genesis)

  • ||

    speaking of israel (and fres speech) hyoooooooooge!!! free speech victory in new york city.

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/.....qus_thread

    "The policy banned exterior bus ads that supposedly “demean an individual or group on account of ‘race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation,’” and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority cited the policy in refusing to run this ad:"

  • ||

    per the comment thread, the advertisement NYC attempted to ban is based on an ayn rand quote: "Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I
    support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They
    are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent
    Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and
    civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting
    savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."
    http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa...

  • John||

    I spent six months in the Sinai back in the late 1990s. The difference between Egypt and Israel is amazing. On the Egyptian side of the border everything is trashed out. Hell there are still burned out tanks from the 72 war sitting around. Israel is just like America or Europe in most ways. Everything is clean, well run and maintained.

    I remember one day standing at the Israeli border with my Egyptian translator. You could see over the border. On the Egptian side it was just shitty desert. On the Israeli side the desert bloomed with fields and roads and such. The contrast was striking. My translator looked over and went on a rant about how much he hated Jews and Israel. All I could think of but didn't say was "it is your own damned faults Egypt doesn't look like that. It is the same desert on both sides of the border".

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well, Egypt has a national debt of $390 per capita (14%gdp)and Israel's is $12,070(42%gdp). So you're just seeing a government living beyond its means.

    Kinda like when liberals come back from quasi-socialist european nations and bitch about America's crumbling infrastructure(especially trains for some reason).

    I guess all those beautiful ROADZ are admirable... if yer a commie*!

    *joking, don't get all bent out of shape, john

  • General Butt Naked||

    If you're interested here's the wiki where I got the numbers.

    Go Denmark! Zero debt. Nice.

    Luxemborg fails at over $3million, that's right million, per citizen.

  • ||

    3 Million per? That's criminal.

  • ||

    note for sloopy: i NEVER CLAIMED THAT SCOTT POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE, NOR DID I EVER CLAIM THAT POLICE CLAIMED THAT HE POINTED HIS GUN AT POLICE

    WHAT I CLAIMED WAS THAT THE POLICE CLAIMED HE DREW HIS GUN AND HAD IT DRAWN WHEN HE ANSWERED TO DOOR FOR POLICE

    we will see if he has the intellectual honesty to admit he is lying or mistaken when he said "he was quick to condemn Andrew Scott for pointing the gun at police"

    i never said (NEVER) that he pointed his gun at police.

    all i said was that the police claim he had his gun drawn and that ASSUMING that was correct, bla bla

    ....

    waiting for sloopy to apologize or provide ONE QUOTE (just one) where i did what he claims i did

  • sloopyinca||

    You kept saying ATFPAPIC, and that "fact pattern" was that the cops said he pointed his gun at them. I've made several links to it above. Your entire narrative was based on the "fact pattern as presented," and that fact pattern was that he pointed his gun at deputies. Unfortunately for you, that fact pattern has evolved since photos were released showing that is a near impossibility based on the swing of the door and the angle of entry of the bullets. (I'll leave alone for now that the deputy who shot him was well to the right of the door from the victim's perspective, and if he were the only one with a flak jacket with "POLICE" emblazoned on it, he would have been intentionally out of the field of view of the peephole.

    Did you know, by the way, that the officer that shot him was at the scene of another shooting by police four days ago and should have been on desk duty, by departmental policy? Oops! Can you say negligence?

  • General Butt Naked||

    What the fuck is a fact pattern?

  • sloopyinca||

    It's a construct that cops who post on message boards use to backtrack their positions when the real facts of the case come out and totally contradict what the police initially say.

    For instance: Cops say they shot man who pointed gun at them. Badass cop goes on message board and says the guy was an idiot and moron who got what was coming to him based on "the fact pattern as presented." Facts come out that totally disprove claim that man pointed weapon. Cops change story to "drew gun," which most people consider pointing. Badass cop commentator walks back claim police made and mysteriously disappears when other commentator he calls a liar backs up his claim with supporting link and quotation multiple times.

  • ||

    i haven't backtracked

    you lied.

    you said *I* claimed that he pointed his guns at the cops

    i made no such claim, and you will not provide a cite to prove it

    hth

  • Tulpa the White||

    Facts come out that totally disprove claim that man pointed weapon.

    When did this happen?

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, the first one is that the cops have changed their story to "drew" as opposed to the very specific "pointed" in the initial report.
    The second one is the entry angle of the bullets makes it nigh impossible for them to have shot him after he opened the door and pointed the gun at police. He couldn't have done so based on the angle the bullets entered the door because he could not have both opened the door and pointed the gun unless he was both less then 6 inches wide and deep and had a right arm a foot longer than the left.
    The third (and this is merely a strong likelihood), is that the gun would have had to have been in his left hand for it to have been pointed at the cops. This is due to the door being a RH Inswing and the angle of entry. 90% of people are right-handed and the vast majority of people hold a gun with their strong-hand, making it highly unlikely the victim did what the cops initially (but later have walked back somewhat) claimed that he did.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The "left hand" thing is totally unconvincing. We'd have to know what's inside the door to know how difficult it would be to open the door with your left hand. If it's a narrow hallway perpendicular to the door, it might be difficult to quickly open it with your left hand and immediately face whoever's outside. If it's an open space on the inside, it would actually be quite easy if you stand to the left of the door.

    Not sure where you're getting the conclusions on the angle of entry analysis either. A major problem with your analysis is that the bullets that went through the door may not be the bullets that hit him, a difference your analysis ignores.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Well, the first one is that the cops have changed their story to "drew" as opposed to the very specific "pointed" in the initial report.

    Is this the cops or is this the reporters writing articles?

    In any case, the two are perfectly consistent phrasings. Pointed at implies drawn.

  • sloopyinca||

    Pointed at implies drawn.

    Then explain that to dunphy, who tried to parse his phrasing all morning.

    Either way, I cannot for the life of me reconstruct a way for him to have "flung open the door" and "pointed a gun at the deputy" and have those entries be at such a steep angle in the door. Perhaps if he was six feet into his apartment he could have flung the door open and a cop shot him...only there's a bullet that went through the door jamb that's entry angles perfectly match the rest of them, meaning if he was shot, it was through the door, which had to have been within 6 inches to a foot of being closed.

    If this were a civilian, the police would be destroying his story right now and any prosecutor in the nation would be licking his chops because the claim that the door was flung open flies in the face of common sense, forensic science and basic physics.

  • sloopyinca||

    I wonder what happened to dunphy? He asked me to cite a few things and then he disappeared when I did so. Gee, I sure hope he's OK.*

    *Actually, I hope he just answered his door with his gun pointed, or drawn or at his side. It would be funny to see other cops come on here and call him an idiot and a moron that got what he had coming to him.

  • ||

    you are still an intellectually dishonest, putz, sloopy/

    you claimed *I* said that he pointed a gun at the cops

    i never said that

    i said THE COPS said that he came to the door with guns drawn.

    i said atfpapic, and he came to the door with gun drawn, and he got capped, tuff shit

    i stand by that

    you have yet to quote where i said he pointed a gun at the cops:

    here's your quote about what *i* said: "he was quick to condemn Andrew Scott for pointing the gun at police"

    i never even claimed he did that, so how could i condemn him for it. i said assuming he came to the door with his gun drawn (not the same thing as point a gun at the cops), and he got shot... tuff shit.
    cite it here:

    (hint: i never said it)

    and you still can't admit you lied.

    oh, and for the sexist moron who thinks that women get some special privileges vis a vis UOF's - yer a sexist moron

  • sloopyinca||

    Every logical person in the world equates "draw" with "point." The cops in the Scott case sure have in the way they have been claiming he pointed and drew in the same press release. I think it's fair to assume when you said he drew it on cops, we could all surmise you meant he pointed it at them.

    You kept going back in the original thread to the "fact pattern," which used the words "drew" and "aimed" interchangeably. Now you're trying to act like there's a difference between the two when you never, ever did that in the original thread. That just proves you are a disingenuous fuck that will parse words in an effort to soften your initial position because it is becoming more and more apparent that the cops murdered this man who may or may not have even shown a weapon (unlikely unless he is a left-handed man that opens the door with both hands equally extended, which would make it less likely he could see outside).

    Dude, seriously, you can try to wriggle out of this all you want, but you just can't. Sorry, but we're not the media that believes the shit police spoonfeed them. I guess the "fact pattern" has shown us that police lie to cover up their crimes...and those facts are borne out a lot more often than otherwise.

  • ||

    it's 10:09 am PST. sloopy has still not provided a cite to support his claim of what i said, and he's still evading admitting he falsely claimed that i said that dipshit (who has nobody to blame but himself IF he came to the door with a drawn gun) who got capped by the cops) pointed a gun at the cops

    i never claimed it, and nobody here can provide one quote where i claim dipshit moron dead dude pointed the gun at the cops

    hth

  • robc||

    But you are still claiming he is a moron? Despite the current fact pattern pointing to him being murdered?

  • sloopyinca||

    Fuck him. He never argues in good faith and parses words when they contradict with his fellow officers. The facts, as they continue to come out, show that this was cold-blooded murder, yet he can't bring himself to condemn the cops who killed a man on his own property for merely opening a door when they knocked on it at 1:30 am, did not identify themselves and hid to the side of it (based on the entry angle of the multitude of shots fired-even though their report says it was 4).

    Lies, lies and more lies. But Buckaroo won't bring himself to call them murderers "based on the facts as they are presented." I guess he wants to wait for more information now, doesn't he? What a scumbag.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Here's the most recent Sentinel article, and it's still saying Scott pointed the gun in the deputy's face.

  • Tulpa the White||

    googling "andrew lee scott entry angle" gives me a bunch of links unrelated to the shooting. So this change in the known facts is a well-kept secret.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here's a Daily Mail article that shows a screencap of the door and the markings of the shots into evidence.

    Notice the very steep angle? That may have been fine except for the one that goes through the left doorjamb as well. No way he could have opened the door and pointed the gun at officers.

  • sloopyinca||

    And here's a follow up article on what happened.

    The money quote FTA (emphasis mine): 'When the person came to the door, the door was flung open and the occupant in that apartment pointed a gun at the deputy's face ... At that point, the deputy took the action he took, obviously he was in fear for his life, and at that point he shot Mr. Scott,' Herrell said.

    Look at the photo and explain to me how that door could have both been flung open yet almost completely closed at the same time, because that's the only way this cop isn't telling a bald-faced lie.

    Also FTA (emphasis mine again): Ware said the deputy who shot Scott had witnessed two other Lake County deputies shoot a suspect four days earlier, and should have been placed on desk duty to recover from the trauma.

    Whoops! First off, it's obvious that his story is in conflict with the physical evidence. Well, maybe "in conflict" is the wrong phrase. Perhaps "totally contradicts" is better. Now ot looks like, by departmental policy, the man should not have even been there that night because he had just witnessed an incident that may have made him a bit trigger-happy.

    If a full investigation is done, this guy should be spending a long time behind bars.

  • Tulpa the White||

    There was more than one officer, of course, so not all the shots came from the same location. One of them could have been on the left while the officer who had the gun pointed at him was directly in front of the door.

  • sloopyinca||

    There was more than one officer, of course, so not all the shots came from the same location.

    But they did, based on the angle of the bullets entering the door and door jamb.

    One of them could have been on the left while the officer who had the gun pointed at him was directly in front of the door.

    Only, that's not what the cops are saying.

    FTA (emphasis mine):Deputy Richard Sylvester opened fire on Scott about 1:30 a.m. July 15 after Scott flung open the door and pointed a gun in the deputy's face, according to Sheriff Gary Borders. Sylvester and two other deputies were on the hunt for an attempted-murder suspect but mistakenly went to Scott's apartment after they saw the suspect's motorcycle and a footprint nearby.

    Again, whoopsie! Looks like the facts contradict the official police narrative they've been trotting out. Also note the "drugs were there" is gone from their comments as well? Wonder why?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Uh, that doesn't contradict the narrative at all.

    Three cops were there, and one of them had the gun pointed in his face. No mention of where the other two cops were.

  • Tulpa the White||

    But they did, based on the angle of the bullets entering the door and door jamb.

    All the shots that went through the door came from the same location. Not the same thing as all the shots.

  • sloopyinca||

    All the shots that went through the door came from the same location. Not the same thing as all the shots.

    Can't you fucking read? The official version of the story is that he flung the door open and pointed his gun in the face of Deputy Sylvester, who shot him dead. It doesn't say any other officers fired a single shot.

    But let's assume they did so you can play out your scenario. If they did, they would have shot him in the open doorway (which contradicts their claims, and then the door would have closed instantaneously so the bullets from some other deputy, not Deputy Sylvester, whose face he allegedly pointed the gun at, were able to penetrate the door and jamb at the severe angle which is obvious from the photo of the door.

    Now to recap: you think the door came open and Deputy Sylvester was in front of it (since the police claim he shot the man after he flung open the door and pointed a gun at his face), was able to fire the deadly shots just before the door closes so fast that the other officer that shot (even though the cops only say Deputy Sylvester fired his gun) leaves bullet trajectories that are only possible if the door is 6 inches to a foot ajar.

    That's one magical door.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm googling Andrew Lee Scott like crazy here, and coming up with a lot of very anti-shooting articles which don't present any evidence that he wasn't brandishing the gun.

    You guys have any links?

  • sloopyinca||

    Dude, drew=pointed according to the cops in that case. You kept referring to the "fact pattern" as being correct. Well, the fact pattern proposed by the cops was that drew=pointed. You can try to wiggle out of it all you want, but every person here the thread took the cops at their word that drew=pointed...at least those of us that actually read the linked articles.

    I'm done with you. You can parse words to somebody else, but we know what they meant, we know what you meant (since you kept referring to "the fact pattern as presented") and we were all discussing it with that in mind.

    You're a joke. You have no credibility on here because you are an apologist and an enabler. You don't respect the Constitution when it conflicts with policy. You support police having extra-judicial power and the double standard that places yourself above the law. You are scum.

  • sloopyinca||

    it's 10:09 am PST. sloopy has still not provided a cite to support his claim of what i said, and he's still evading admitting he falsely claimed that i said that dipshit (who has nobody to blame but himself IF he came to the door with a drawn gun) who got capped by the cops) pointed a gun at the cops

    Then you obviously can't read. Seriously, dude. Just walk away from the abuse you're subjecting yourself to by parsing words.*

    *One thing you are not parsing is what you think of the victim here. You have been pretty clear and consistent in calling him "moron," "idiot" and "dipshit." Yeah, we get you there. Classy to call the victim names as opposed to critically analyzing the situation where the facts keep changing as evidence that contradicts the police claims comes to light.

    Funny, as well, that the "we found drugs there" claim seems to have been dropped from their narrative. I wonder why that is...

  • sloopyinca||

    NOR DID I SAY THE COPS MADE THAT CLAIM

    The cops claimed he pointed at them. You kept referring to "the fact pattern as presented". Therefore, any reasonably intelligent person would surmise that you were acknowledging that the cops had, in fact, made that claim.

    It was in the linked article and the reason HyR piece. No way in hell were you not implying that they said he pointed the gun at them. In fact, if you were saying anything else, it would have run counter to "the fact pattern as presented," which was the basis for your entire argument.

    Worms squirm, worm.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Don't waste your time on him, sloop.

    He'll parse words until they have no meaning Why do you think he uses ambiguous phrases like "fact pattern"? It lets him be a liar without technically being a liar; it's the police way.

    The other night he insulted Jim and put words in his mouth then spent an hour denying it when the post was only like three up. You'll get more honesty out of Tony for your HandR dollar.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Unintentionally Hilarious Religious Paintings

    Funny article. And no I am not trying to start some religious flame war; I liked this article and think christians could chuckle at this piece as well. If you are offended then lighten up.

  • John||

    Bad art is always worthy of scorn.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I just didn't want to be accused of being someone who would deny a piece's value just because it was inspired by religion.

  • Tulpa the White||

    In reality there are no imports and exports. From my point of view, there is only what I make and what everyone else makes. It’s the same for everyone else. Few people would want to live just on what they themselves could make.

    This is a red herring. If we take Mr Richman's version of the "individual trade deficit" and add it up for every American, it's in the red. That's an indication of a problem... probably not one remediable by protectionist measures, but a problem nonetheless: we're not producing enough that other countries want, we're just living on the economic fat past Americans built up before us.

    Frédéric Bastiat pointed out that each of us daily uses products we couldn’t make in isolation in a thousand years. Talk about poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short! What makes this phenomenon stranger still is that the same thing holds true for all men, Bastiat wrote. Every one of the members of society has consumed a million times more than he could have produced; yet no one has robbed anyone else.

    And this is a strawman. No one is arguing for economic isolation, just concerned over the fact that our trade relationships have become one-sided. You can have a vigorous trade relationship with a zero trade deficit.

  • ||

    No one is arguing for economic isolation, just concerned over the fact that our trade relationships have become one-sided.

    The point of the article is that you are wrong to use that collectivist "our" -- if you try to substitute an individualist term, the fallacy of your sentence becomes obvious.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Looking at data in aggregate is not collectivist.

    If you want to individualize everything, then it's clear that there are a lot more individuals who are in the red on their personal trade deficit than are in the black (unless there's a few individuals who are waaaay in the red, but that's dubious).

    Same conclusion, but harder to measure. Which is why we use the aggregate data.

  • ||

    Ordinarily, I ignore this monthly nonstory because, as Adam Smith wisely said, “Nothing . . . can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.”

    Probably should not use Adam Smith on this one.

    Smith believed in the doctrine of absolute advantage when it came to trade...he was proven wrong with the law of comparative advantage which prove the advantages of trade this article is trying to make.

    Give neglected David Ricardo his due.

  • sloopyinca||

    PoliceOne's take on the Andrew Scott killing.

    First comment: What a stupid title to a stupid story. They shot the right suspect, the one that was pointing a gun at them. Granted it may not have been the guy they wanted, nonetheless, it is done, and our brothers/sisters are safe.

    The mindset of today's police officers in America: Justice may not have been served, but all the cops are safe, so it's just fine with us.

    Pigs.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It's not about "serving justice"...they weren't out to execute the suspect.

    All this "wrong guy" / "wrong door" stuff is a red herring. They had every right to knock on random doors unannounced while pursuing a suspect. If the story is correct that he pointed a gun at them, shooting him was perfectly legit. Period.

  • sloopyinca||

    All this "wrong guy" / "wrong door" stuff is a red herring. They had every right to knock on random doors unannounced while pursuing a suspect. If the story is correct that he pointed a gun at them, shooting him was perfectly legit. Period.

    Only, there's virtually no way he pointed his gun at the cop that shot him. The angle of entry of the bullets, the fact that the door is a RH Inswing (unless he was left-handed..a 10% possibility) and the fact that he would have had to have had about a 6 inch wide chest to have done what the cops accused him of doing. Based on his picture, he doesn't fit that description.

    The cops are lying. A kid on his first-day of forensics inspection classes can see that the facts (real physical evidence) run counter to the claims of the cops. Why can't you?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Frédéric Bastiat pointed out that each of us daily uses products we couldn’t make in isolation in a thousand years.

    How to build a toaster

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw

  • ||

    ic Bastiat pointed out that each of us daily uses products we couldn’t make in isolation in a thousand yea http://www.ceinturesfr.com/ceinture-lee-c-28.html

  • Your Old TV||

    You have to love it. The spam filter marked my intended post as spam, but let this ^ one through.

  • coma44||

    "Fear not China or any other foreign producer."

    I don’t fear them, but I do fear that we don’t try to compete with them they will eventually out do us at too many things. Like it or not we are all still in the same rat race. Compete or go extinct it just is how life is at any level.

  • daltonallan||

    what Troy responded I am dazzled that someone able to get paid $7546 in one month on the computer. have you seen this web link makecash16com

  • Custom Beats By Dre 2012||

    Chinese-made most use of foreign equipment for production .

    Welcome to our custombeatsbydredanmark.com and purchase your favorite custom beats by dre!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement