Something Is Happening Here, But You Don't Know What It Is…

Seems to me the media accounts of this story are missing the point. Yes, it's amusing and a bit surreal to picture Bob Dylan wandering around a local neighborhood near where he's giving a concert. But now everyone's having a good laugh about how two local police officers had no idea who Dylan was when they stopped and detained him after some residents reported an elderly man acting "suspiciously."

I don't know.  I find it pretty depressing. There was a time when we condescendingly used the term "your papers, please" to distinguish ourselves from Eastern Bloc countries and other authoritarian states. Post-Hiibel, America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities, despite having committed no crime.

I guess I just don't see the punchline.

Comments

[kevrob]

From the linked article:

How did it feel? A Dylan publicist did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday.

Like a complete unknown?

Kevin

[Greg N.]

Is this stop justified under Hiibel? Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought the state was only allowed to require ID under Terry stop conditions (i.e., the stop was based on some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity). Dylan seems to have been stopped because he was "wandering around a neighborhood." That can't be reasonable suspicion, can it?

[kevrob]

Scruffy-looking, older white guy in a a low-income, predominantly minority neighborhood probably translates as senile granpa on the loose or somebody's trying to cop drugs in cop-think.

Kevin

(Who can't believe he had a fit of MEGO about the Like A Rolling Stone reference in the AP article!)

[George Miller]

Too bad he's not black; the "racist" obsessed press may have given a shit.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

I thought the state was only allowed to require ID under Terry stop conditions

Be careful with your language here. Many authoritarian government humpers want you to read it as requiring you to produce papers, but the language from the decision (linked above) is rather more limited.

Consider:

"requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself"

and

"permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity"

In particular, the court did not overturn an earlier case (Kolender v. Lawson) which found that requiring a suspect to provide "credible and reliable" identification was unconstitutionally vague. In short: you may have to tell the nice officer your name, but you don't have to produce papers.

Of course, in this age of new professionalism, failure to do so may result in unwanted holes, 'ya know.

[Tulpa]

Assuming Dylan talks like he sings, I can see how a cop would think he was a confused Alzheimer's patient recovering from a stroke.

To quote an ubiquitous soda commercial, "may you stay forever young."

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

At five o'clock in the afternoon? WTF?

Plus, what everyone else said.

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

To quote an ubiquitous soda commercial, "may you stay forever young."

Always amuses me how all those sixties rebels who would never sell out to corporate America did.

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

And who the heck doesn't know who Bob Dylan is? That's like not knowing who Sinatra or Bogart was. Come on.

[massrepublican]

Bob Dylan should have talked trash about the cops' "mamas".

[Bean Counter]

I am familiar with Bob Dylan's early body of work, from my youth (I get into movies at a discount). I liked the music, if not always the message, but I wouldn't recognize him if he walked up to me and started singing "Blowin' in Wind". Of course, you shouldn't need to be a music legend to be allowed to go out for a stroll without being questioned by police. And, George, you're right. Had this been Bo Diddly, I wouldn't have been surprised to see this headline the nightly news.

[J sub D]

And who the heck doesn't know who Bob Dylan is? That's like not knowing who Sinatra or Bogart was. Come on.

These two obviously didn't pass the intelligence cutoff point that disqualifies you from police work.

I do soooo hope that Bob will pen a song detailing the incident.

Title suggestions anyone?

[hmm]

Terry doesn't require self identification or ID. In my city if I am walking I am not compelled to identify myself. My state only has a self ID law that applies to one city, which is weird, but how it is.

The sad thing is all that had to be done was to assess his A&O and investigate anything obvious like theft. If he is of sound mind they have no further job.

I have to hope that the article contains a bit of hyperbole to make stopping Bob dylan look funny and that the officers approached the situation as a potentially medically ill elderly person. I guess I can hope.

[John]

"Always amuses me how all those sixties rebels who would never sell out to corporate America did."

Dylan was never a 60s "I hate capitalism" rebel. He did some work for the civil rights movement when he started. But, he stopped doing that after the folkies turned on him when he went electric. If anything Dylan was creep out by the 60s hippie cult that idolized him. He once confronted some wierdo hippie stalker with a rifle outside his Woodstock home. I don't think Dylan ever made any secret about the fact that he was an entertainer and wanted to make money. And he found the hippie rebels who idolized him at best bemusing and at worst downright dangerous.

As an aside, in the Scorcazi documentary No Direction Home, Dylan said one of the best things I have ever heard an entertainer say. When ask how it felt to be booed (after he went electric), Dylan said it never bothered him because he knew that "they can kill you with cheers to."

[Bean Counter]

HEY!!!! 68 is not "ELDERLY"!
although the last picture I saw of him, he looked a tad older than 68.

[Tricky Prickears]

...under suspicious circumstances...

Define "suspicious circumstances". I'm sure any cop would by happy to provide a definition in a court of law. And then apply that definition to a specific circumstance. It all comes down to, your word against his. Those who can afford private attorneys have a better shot. Those who can't, are fucked.

It's an old trick used by anti-abortion protesters. They intentionally don't carry ID, so the cops are forced to detain them until they can establish identity. Why? Who knows.

[John]

I blame the media for this. Crime reporting has made people so fucking paranoid they think anyone walking down the street is "acting suspicously". I blame the the dipshit who called the cops as much as I blame the cops. The cop didn't just roll up there. He was called. And once called he has an obligation to look into it. Yeah, that shouldn't mean you have to produce an ID. But, the cop after being called was forced to at least talk to Dylan. But, really, what kind of paranoid fuck calls the cops everytime they see someone they don't know walking through the neighborhood?

[John]

And why the hell does Radley use lyrics from a Steven Stills song as a play on an incident involving Bob Dylan? Get your song writers straight Radley. Tim Cavenaugh or Jesee Walker would never use such a mixed metaphor.

[Fascitis]

John - the lyrics are from Ballad of a Thin Man.

You're thinking of "For What It's Worth", which ends with "... but what it is ain't exactly clear."

[Eryk Boston, Esq.]

Hiibel is one of those cases which is dangerous because authorities read into it what they want and no one calls them on it.

The ruling doesn't say police can demand ID. The ruling says that police, when authorized by an existing law, may demand a person provide their name when public safety requires it.

Then again, paper ID may be needed in this case since no one has ever understood a word Bob Dylan has said.

[Seamus]

This is what happens to a Jewish man in America.

[Art-P.O.G.]

But, really, what kind of paranoid fuck calls the cops everytime they see someone they don't know walking through the neighborhood?

I do wonder. Also, I realize I was way too hard on the lady that called the cops on Gates when she saw him forcing the door. At least she had reason to believe something was going down. Some people will call the cops if they see a person "wandering".

[Seamus]

Dylan was never a 60s "I hate capitalism" rebel. He did some work for the civil rights movement when he started. But, he stopped doing that after the folkies turned on him when he went electric.

I've read that once when some magazine was interviewing him back in the early 60s, and was asking him all about politics instead of about his (or anyone else's) music, Dylan replied by musing, "I wonder if Tony Bennett gets a lot of questions like these."

He's always been about the music, not music as a vehicle for political activism.

[Some Chick in Ohio]

The hubby and I are fans of Bob's Theme Time Radio Hour on XM's Channel 40 (Sirius 16) - "Deep Tracks" - so we know he can speak intelligibly, yea even articulately, when he's a mind to.

I think his real problem in this case stems from the fact that every year he's looking more and more like Vincent Price.

[Peter K.]

Lucky for him and us the death panel is not in place yet.

[Peter K.]

How many roads did he walk down?

His ancient footprints are everywhere.

He was sleepy and there was no place he was going to.

If it's information you want, you can get it from the police.

The cops don't need you, and man, they expect the same.

[Spartacus]

But, really, what kind of paranoid fuck calls the cops everytime they see someone they don't know walking through the neighborhood?

I live in a subdivision with a lot of retirees. Any collection of two or more teenagers walking down the street (or just hanging out) gets reported to the police as "possible gang activity".

[Anonymous]

He's always been about the music, not music as a vehicle for political activism.

I didn't always realize the division there. Recently I was listening to some shitty local Clear Channel station online because the reception is so bad at home, and trying to see what they did differently on the stream

Well, when some local commercials came on they switched to "two minutes of peace and music" Woodstock commercial, sometimes in the middle of it, which included somebody (I don't know them by their speaking voice) from CSN&Y talking over their music. They said something like playing that music at Woodstock was "all they knew how to do" (emphasis in the original: a fucking whiny castrato; it was probably Young).

It was a long morning show, and after about the fourth or fifth commercial break they played that on, I wanted to punch him in the face there and then more than I've ever wanted to molest a signer-songwriter in my life (and that include Britney Spears). Fucking dirty, whiny, commutard hippies.

[brotherben]

Fucking dirty, whiny, commutard hippies.

Expressing opinions which, although different from yours, aren't wrong. They are just opinions. Which can still be freely expressed here. Vulgar language never strengthens a position.

[anarch]

Tulpa @ 10:59am, Seamus @11:58am share the thread-prize.

Mr. Balko, were he eligible, would have gotten the prize for guiding us through the episode's risible incongruity to its ghastly implications.

[Young Lady Cop]

That's like not knowing who Sinatra or Bogart was.

Who cares who they was?

[Seamus]

I live in a subdivision with a lot of retirees. Any collection of two or more teenagers walking down the street (or just hanging out) gets reported to the police as "possible gang activity".

Time to report the neighbors for suspicion of growing hydroponic marijuana in the closet. Two can play that game.

[Nipplemancer]

John & Art-P.O.G. - i work in a large co-op complex and we have a crazy old hag who calls the cops for everything. Just recently we had the hallway stairs rebuilt, when the contractor got to her hallway she called the cops because they were stealing her stairs. Then she called the managment office to let us know that she called the cops, wondering if perhaps they might be working for us.

This is a Jersey Shore town, cops down there spend most of the summer busting drunks and breaking up fights between opposing groups of guidos.
A crazy looking mumbling old guy (Bob Dylan) would definitly arouse some suspicion amongst the locals as either a drunk or a wandering alzheimer's sufferer. That they didn't recognize me isn't all that surprising. They're Shore townie cops - the only requirements seem to be an extra chromosome.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Fucking dirty, whiny, commutard hippies.

Expressing opinions which, although different from yours, aren't wrong. They are just opinions. Which can still be freely expressed here. Vulgar language never strengthens a position.

It is possible that in this case "fucking" wasn't invective, but a simple descriptive...you know, free love and all that.

I'll be here all week.

[BakedPenguin]

Title suggestions anyone?

"Interrogation Row?"
"Don't Tell Him, Tell the Cop"
"My Rights, They Are A'Changing"
"Cellblock 61 Revisited"

[Anonymous]

Vulgar language never strengthens a position.

Now I've heard fucking everything.

[John C. Randolph]

He once confronted some wierdo hippie stalker with a rifle outside his Woodstock home.

Buy me a flute, and a gun that shoots...

-jcr

[Lowdog]

I wouldn't have recognised him if he was just walking down the street, but then, I'm only 35 and I've never really been into Dylan.

The fact that cops can now detain people without ID sucks though.

[Mo]

This doesn't surprise me. Back in 2002, my friends and I had the cops called on us for playing football, in a park, because we were making noise. Not unreasonable noise, mind you, but the normal noises that a bunch of people in their early 20s make when playing football in the park. As we walked away, I said, loud enough for the officer to hear, "God forbid, we're outside getting exercise instead of in a basement smoking pot." That same day, we got kicked out of another park for the exact same thing, but at least that cop was cool enough* to tell us of a park that would annoy people. WTF?

* He thought it was ridiculous that he had to boot us too, but said that he was required to respond to the call.

[Oh, come on!]

America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities

Sure, he "can be stopped," but seriously, how often does this happen in America? Like Radley's celebrated dog-shooting cops, this incident is extraordinary precisely because of its rarity.

[Oh, come on!]

John | August 15, 2009, 11:33am | #
And why the hell does Radley use lyrics from a Steven Stills song

Because it's Woodstock Weekend??

[BakedPenguin]

Edward / Lefiti / William, you don't know how "rare" these events are, because most people who get stopped aren't rock stars, and it doesn't get written up in the paper when they're stopped.

As always, the root of this is the War on Drugs. Stop it, and the assault on the rights of Americans diminishes greatly.

[Oh, come on!]

Anyway, the correct lyrics begin:

There's something happening here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a cop shooting dogs over there,
And Radley says you got to beware...

[Tricky Prickears]

Vulgar language never strengthens a position.

But, Fuck, has become the most important word in the English language.

Suffer through the first couple minutes, it's worth it.

[Suki]

HEY!!!! 68 is not "ELDERLY"!

Is so and he looks creepy too.

[Suki]

Like Radley's celebrated dog-shooting cops

Dogs were shooting cops? Now that is news!

[Oh, come on!]

BakedPenguin | August 15, 2009, 2:13pm | #

Edward / Lefiti / William, [nope, sorry] you don't know how "rare" these events are, because most people who get stopped aren't rock stars, and it doesn't get written up in the paper

So how would you know how common they are? Because such incidents are greatly exaggerated on The Blogs? Talk about naive!

[de stijl]

How many IDs must a man produce before you can him a man?

Dylan now knows what it feels like to be a complete unknown.

I'd like to hear about the celebrated cop-shooting dogs.

[Oh, come on!]

Suki | August 15, 2009, 2:19pm | #

"Like Radley's celebrated dog-shooting cops"

Dogs were shooting cops? Now that is news!

That's what is called a compound modifier, Suki. Perhaps you missed the hyphen in "dog-shooting." Or perhaps you're just not very bright.

[Garth Srait]

Had this been Bo Diddly, I wouldn't have been surprised to see this headline the nightly news.

Neither would I, seeing as how Bo died in 2008.

[brotherben]

He once confronted some wierdo hippie stalker

Any man that would stalk hippies is a weirdo.

[de stijl]

Bo knows ID.

[Tricky Prickears]

That's what is called a compound modifier...

I've modified a few compounds, back in the day.

[Suki]

Or perhaps you're just not very bright.

Ew! Mister humorless is extra grumpy today.

[Suki]

Any man that would stalk hippies is a weirdo.

If the hippie's name is jack would that make him a bean stalker?

[brotherben]

It may be a little early in the day for a fella to go wigglin his bean.

[Tricky Prickears]

If the hippie's name is jack would that make him a bean stalker?

You've got your metaphors all mixed up.

If the hippie's name was Mr Bean...

[Warty]

Good thing the police were there to protect us from that fascist old man.

[Suki]

If the hippie's last name was Sprat then we could have a whole new thread tangent.

[Episiarch]

Are they sure it wasn't actually Neil Young?

[PantsFan]

Dylan knockin' on Neil Young's door

[Tricky Prickears]

OK. This is just getting silly 🙂

[J sub D]

Vulgar language never strengthens a position.

I'm known as a civil person who never stoops to profanities or obscenities in my comments. For some people however, purple prose is the best way to express their outrage.

[Tricky Prickears]

purple prose is the best way to express their outrage

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck all of you mother fuckers and the mother fucking horse you rode in on and fucked up the ass

Ahhh, shit. Fuck it. I'm about all fucked out.

OK I'll stop.

[joshua corning]

America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities, despite having committed no crime.

There are plenty of parts of America that are not NJ.

[John]

One thing is clear from this. Bob Dylan is much less of an asshole than Skip Gates. Yeah, the cops sucked and were in the wrong. But, Dylan didn't use that as an excuse to go bizerk and be a bigger asshole.

[Tricky Prickears]

There are plenty of parts of America that are not NJ.

Actually, there are parts of NJ that are not like NJ. Mainly, South Jersey. Sure, the affluent sections of Western Camden County are fucking Police States, but the more rural parts of Cumberland and Salem Counties don't even have local police. It's all handled by the State Police, if you can find them. No body really fucks with you unless you give them a reason.

[anarch]

Dylan didn't use that as an excuse to go bizerk and be a bigger asshole.

Would'a been great if he'd shouted, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?"

[Forbes]

Who (in their right mind) expects cops in their 20s to recognize a 68-year old musician whose best music was playing on the radio before the cops were born?

Boomer narcissism.

Other than their two-way, the cops probably don't even listen to the radio, with ipods and mp3 filling the niche.

[MNG]

The Dylan parody in Walk Hard is fucking hilarious.

[Jerry]

How did Dylan manage to skip Woodstock 40 years ago?

[anarch]

He didn't manage it; his karma managed it.

Well, maybe he managed his karma's managing of it.

Lucky for ol'Bob he didn't start going off about Jesus on public property

[Mallet Diction]

And, George, you're right. Had this been Bo Diddly, I wouldn't have been surprised to see this headline the nightly news.

Headline: ZOMBIE BO DIDDLEY DETAINED BY COPS FOR ACTING "SUSPICIOUS."

[Doctor Duck]

Title suggestions anyone?

"Held Down by Big Police"

Obscure is ok, right?

[ransom147]

oh come on me!:

"this incident is extraordinary precisely because of its rarity."

tell that to people who get caught "being black in the wrong neighborhood".

[Suki]

Headline: ROB ZOMBIE DETAINED BY COPS FOR ACTING "SUSPICIOUS."

Would never be a headline.

[Suki]

tell that to people who get caught "being black in the wrong neighborhood".

Yea, right, like being Muslim after 9/11. Move along please.

[Um]

ransom147 | August 15, 2009, 6:17pm | #
"this incident is extraordinary precisely because of its rarity."

tell that to people who get caught "being black in the wrong neighborhood".

Bob Dylan is black?

[ransom147]

Um:

is that a serious question? is it that difficult to see the parallel?

[Um]

Radley is a talented propagandist. He stirs up the yokels here like no other. Nothing wrong with that. Propaganda in the right hands is a useful political tool. But the yokels here should recognize propaganda when they see it, instead of obediently dancing to Radley's tune. When they dance, they're no better than all the other yokels whom they mock daily. I have spoken.

[ransom147]

if all things MUST be equal for an example, then apparently all we can take from the statement -

""this incident is extraordinary precisely because of its rarity."

is that it is rare for bob dylan to be detained while "wandering around a local neighborhood near where he's giving a concert."

ridiculous.

pedantic bs.

[PantsFan]

Shut the fuck up, um

I have spoken.

[ransom147]

i smell a rat...er, i mean pig.

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

That's like not knowing who Sinatra or Bogart was.

Who cares who they was?

Did she really say there is never a bad time for a tase?

Not caring who they was is different than not knowing who they was. 🙂

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

I wouldn't have recognised him if he was just walking down the street, but then, I'm only 35 and I've never really been into Dylan.

Low, I wouldn't have recognized him neither. However, the article said they asked him his name and he responded: BOB DYLAN.

Now, I could understand if the cops said something like Yeah, buddy, sure ya are. But the name had no effect at all.

That's what I was getting at.

[Suki]

Bob Dylan is black?

I thought he was Jewish and his real name was German or something.

[SusanM]

Title suggestions anyone?

"Suburban Unidentified Blues?"

(okay that was a reach)

I'm sure all the cops were doing was trying to find out how he became an enduring singing legend with a voice that sounded like a dying giraffe.

[The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)]

Dylan was never a 60s "I hate capitalism" rebel.

Lyrics from It's Allright Ma I'm Only Bleedin':

Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won

Now he's Tangled Up In Boobs at Vicky's Secret, selling crappy Escalades and the idea that soda can make you Forever Young.

I don't care, cuz money talks and all that. And, you're right, Dylan wasn't as rabid as some, but Bob Dylan pretty much symbolized the counter culture. I loved all of his stuff and I was one who didn't get all petulant when he went electric.

And, the entire mid sixties-to-early seventies rock culture was anti-corporate, top to bottom. The fact that they all got rich exploiting the anti-capitalist meme is part of the delicious irony.

BTW, Reason's Brian Doherty had a nice piece on Dylan.

[Tase, Lady, Tase]

Not caring who they was is different than not knowing who they was. 🙂

Not knowing different from from different than is different from not caring from the difference. 😉

[Fluffy]

I'm with TWC.

The amazing thing isn't that they didn't recognize him. It's that they didn't recognize the name and say, "The fuck you are."

It's as if he had said:

"I'm Neil Armstrong."

or

"I'm President Jimmy Carter."

or

"I'm Muhammad Ali."

or

"I'm Mick Jagger."

[John]

TWC,

First, I don't know that Dylan meant every word he ever wrote literally. He will be the first to admit that he was throwing words and phrases up on the wall to see what stuck. Further, you can never be sure quite what Dylan thinks. That is part of the act. He really sees himself as a joker and prankster and troubador. He has written so much music, you can find something to support about any view of him. What of it he actually meant, and what of it he was just playing a role is pretty hard to tell.

[John]

"The fact that they all got rich exploiting the anti-capitalist meme is part of the delicious irony. "

I think Dylan understood and exploited that irony perfectly well

[MNG]

"Post-Hiibel, America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities, despite having committed no crime."

As I always, I must fulfill my duty to point out which justices fell on the anti-individual pro-government side (the conservative ones) and which ones fell on the pro-individual anti-government side in that case:

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

[Seamus]

Now, I could understand if the cops said something like Yeah, buddy, sure ya are. But the name had no effect at all.

Actually, it turns out that the cops weren't quite as clueless as they appeared to be at first report:
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/38231949.html

But this Dylan story is even better:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032007/gossip/pagesix/easily_scared_pagesix_.htm

[Seamus]

The amazing thing isn't that they didn't recognize him. It's that they didn't recognize the name and say, "The fuck you are."

As the story I linked to explains, they thought that, but humored him and didn't say so out loud.

[anarch]

I wonder whether he said he was Robert Allen Zimmerman.

[LarryA]

Some people will call the cops if they see a person "wandering".

I have to play Devil's advocate here.

Back in the day when my father-in-law was in the middle stages of Alzheimer's I was really grateful to a couple of such people. Particularly the time he slipped out of his San Antonio apartment intending to walk to Pittsburg.

[del]

Beer Summit anyone?

[zoltan]

ell that to people who get caught "being black in the wrong neighborhood".

Yea, right, like being Muslim after 9/11. Move along please.

You're a fucking moron if you think common, suburban blacks don't get pulled over more for DWB than their fellow suburban whites. Top that off with the contempt and vitriol cops think they can treat black people with (though it's usually spread pretty thick across the races).

[BeesinTheBrain]

Lets see someone from the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" generation is not trusted when they get older. Sounds poetic to me.

[Elemenope]

Now if only the guy could sing...

[Warren]

Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didnt you?
Peopled call, say, beware doll, youre bound to fall
You thought they were all kiddin you
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin out
Now you dont talk so loud
Now you dont seem so proud
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be without a home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

Youve gone to the finest school all right, miss lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it
And nobody has ever taught you how to live on the street
And now you find out youre gonna have to get used to it
You said youd never compromise
With the mystery tramp, but now you realize
Hes not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And ask him do you want to make a deal?

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns
When they all come down and did tricks for you
You never understood that it aint no good
You shouldnt let other people get your kicks for you
You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat
Aint it hard when you discover that
He really wasnt where its at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

Princess on the steeple and all the pretty people
Theyre drinkin, thinkin that they got it made
Exchanging all kinds of precious gifts and things
But youd better lift your diamond ring, youd better pawn it babe
You used to be so amused
At napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you cant refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
Youre invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

[*]

???? Well they'll stop you when you're tryin' to be so good,
They'll stop you when you're walkin' in the hood.
They'll stop you when you're driving in your car,
They'll stop you no matter who you are.
But I would not chance to dis a cop, no,
Everybody must get stopped. ????

[Art-P.O.G.]

Back in the day when my father-in-law was in the middle stages of Alzheimer's I was really grateful to a couple of such people

Fair enough. And I don't know enough about the similarity in comportment between Dylan and an Alzheimer patient to say how off-base the concerned citizen was.

You're a fucking moron if you think common, suburban blacks don't get pulled over more for DWB than their fellow suburban whites.

True, it's happened to my family members and to me, "Um," you fucking tool.

The Dylan parody in Walk Hard is fucking hilarious.

+1. The most awesome part of the movie, along with the part where one of his bandmates tells him (paraphrasing) "Nobody wants to hear you screaming into the microphone like some...punk."

[robc]

As I always, I must fulfill my duty to point out which justices fell on the anti-individual pro-government side

Always?

Ive never seen you point it out for Kelo, or Raich, or Lopez.

[Wicks Cherrycoke]

For the record, Long Branch is not "nearby" Lakewood.

[John]

In more important news, the great Jim Dickson has died. First Les Paul and now this. Any guesses on who will be the third cult music legend to go?

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/15/memphis-musician-jim-dickinson-dies-67/

[Elemenope]

Always?

I interpreted that to mean "always, when it otherwise goes unsaid". Folks here are generally quick to note when the "conservative" justices end up on the pro-liberty side of things, but strangely silent when the "liberal" justices do. Hence MNG's duty.

[John]

"Folks here are generally quick to note when the "conservative" justices end up on the pro-liberty side of things, but strangely silent when the "liberal" justices do. Hence MNG's duty."

It is not hard to figure out. The leftists justices have an undying faith in the goodness and rightousness of bureaucrats. The rightwing justices have an undying faith in the rightousness and goodness of cops. When it comes to a liberty case, look to see who is restricting the liberty. If it is bureaucrats, chances are the left wing justices will think it is just dandy. If it is cops, the right wing justices will think the same.

[John]

Make the bureaucrats and judges. Leftists love bureaucrats and judges.

[Elemenope]

Leftists love bureaucrats and judges.

I am constantly overwhelmed by the leftist love for judges.

It is not hard to figure out. The leftists justices have an undying faith in the goodness and rightousness of bureaucrats. The rightwing justices have an undying faith in the rightousness and goodness of cops. When it comes to a liberty case, look to see who is restricting the liberty. If it is bureaucrats, chances are the left wing justices will think it is just dandy. If it is cops, the right wing justices will think the same.

I basically agree with your analysis here. It does not, though, diminish the bare fact that one gets prominently mentioned and one generally stays unmentioned...until MNG, or occasionally me if I'm feeling saucy, feel the need to point it out.

[Fluffy]

It is not hard to figure out. The leftists justices have an undying faith in the goodness and rightousness of bureaucrats. The rightwing justices have an undying faith in the rightousness and goodness of cops. When it comes to a liberty case, look to see who is restricting the liberty. If it is bureaucrats, chances are the left wing justices will think it is just dandy. If it is cops, the right wing justices will think the same.

I think this is because conservatives have a view of liberty that basically considers it a luxury experience, like an expensive exotic drink one enjoys on a verandah at a country club on a summer afternoon. This luxury is "earned" by cracking the skulls of people who don't belong to the club. You can see this in the war on terror just as much as you can see it in the war on crime. As long as the clubs are coming down on the "right" heads, the conservatives don't care. It's the kind of incongruous combination of civilization and savagery, the refined and the inhumane, that you used to see in British colonial regimes.

[John]

"I think this is because conservatives have a view of liberty that basically considers it a luxury experience, like an expensive exotic drink one enjoys on a verandah at a country club on a summer afternoon. This luxury is "earned" by cracking the skulls of people who don't belong to the club. You can see this in the war on terror just as much as you can see it in the war on crime. As long as the clubs are coming down on the "right" heads, the conservatives don't care. It's the kind of incongruous combination of civilization and savagery, the refined and the inhumane, that you used to see in British colonial regimes."

Bullshit. Most conservatives are very law abiding people. They never have any real experience with police and when they do it is always pleasent. They have no idea how the police actually treat anyone who doesn't look the part or is a real criminal. They are naive.

[alice bowie]

He (Bob Dylan) was probably out Smoking a joint man.

...Keep Dope Alive...

[alice bowie]

Bullshit. Most conservatives are very law abiding people.

Bullshit John. Most conservatives are NOT necessarily law abiding citizens. They are given professional courtesy and are not picked on by police. Officers see their own grandmothers and ants and uncles...so they have compassion and understanding a are a lot more forgiving to them. This is not necessarily rasim...and, in most cases, it isn't.

If you are a Conservatives that is White...you have a completely different experience than being a Conservative that his Hispanic or Black.

Bob Dylan, on the other hand, is white...but looks like a burn-out. And the 'hippie-thing' transends race. In fact, during my time, hippies and long haired white people and poor people in general were treaty very badly where I grew up in 70's/80's ... Jersey City. In fact, the police department would treat these people worst than they treated me...because I was pretty clean cut. If u were a long haired/poor white boy in Jersey City back in the 70's/80's...as far as the Police and polite society was concerned...u were an 'Honorary Nigger'.

[edna]

You're a fucking moron if you think common, suburban blacks don't get pulled over more for DWB than their fellow suburban whites.

i don't think any whites have ever gotten pulled over for dwb.

they do, however, get pulled over for dww in predominantly black neighborhoods. the last two times it happened to me, the cops (various races) explained that a white person in this neighborhood is usually up to no good, buying teh cracks or something. when they determined that i worked there, they ended the interviews. pita, fer sher, but no tasing or dog-shooting, so i got that goin' for me.

these days, i live in an asian area, and the cops are so grateful that they don't have to deal with my driving, they leave me alone.

[Elemenope]

Most conservatives are very law abiding people.

Most people are pretty law-abiding. I doubt highly there is a statistically significant difference in the law-abidingness of conservatives as opposed to moderates, liberals, or any other political denomination (excepting, perhaps, violent revolutionaries). I imagine, though, that psychologically their desire to uphold the law is justified by somewhat different mechanisms.

Where the blindness comes from is a variation of what fluffy identified. Conservatives, in my experience, are psychologically motivated to be law-abiding not by a sense of Kantian duty but rather by personal pride, and a complementary sense of disgust for those they think of as not law-abiding. The laws themselves are almost an afterthought. Hence, the laws themselves are really only for "other people" (read "little" people), and the actual notion of punishment for those laws is likewise for "other people".

This leads to the phenomenon of epic, stupefying quantities of cognitive dissonance generated by conservatives who are not law-abiding and are confronted with their hypocrisy.

Liberals have their own wacky psychology for convincing themselves to follow the law.

[Thruway Cop]

May I see your drivers license and voter registration, Sir?

Thank you.

They are given professional courtesy and are not picked on by police.

Oh, I see you're a member of the Conservative Party. Very Good, Sir. Thank you very much. Sorry for the inconvenience.

By the way, you might want to get that tail-light fixed, replace the tinted windows, update your emissions inspection sticker, remember to signal when you turn, slow down to the speed-limit in a school-zone, and keep that bong in the glove compartment, eh?

And have a nice day.

[anarch]

How about this to throw in the mix?

Conservatives value individual liberty for its potential for virtue [as they define it, of course], and are ready to suppress what they see as others' misuse of liberty to engage in and promote vice [as they define it, of course]. Since the harm vice inflicts is immediate - consistent with the immediacy of its temptations to those with poor impulse-control - conservatives support front-line, on-the-spot enforcement to nip in the bud, ie, coppers as agents of law-enforcement to suppress eg, "quality-of-life" infractions.

Liberals value group liberty for its potential to improve the mores of society-as-a-whole, or the benighted sections of society, which enlightenment they hope to effect through administrative methods such as government schooling, busing, Public Radio.

There are also cross-overs, such as in the controversies over abortion, WOD, safety legislation.

Now someone please curse me out for not getting it quite right. Thanks.

[Elemenope]

i don't think any whites have ever gotten pulled over for dwb.

Well, if they were wearing blackface! [rimshot]

But seriously, the dwb phenomenon is driven only partly by overt racism, and driven more by the fact that cops are trained to look for "anything out of the ordinary" for incredibly small values of "out" and relatively narrow definitions of "ordinary". Since they rely on what they see, visual cues are weighed heavily in their analysis (and analysis is a very generous word here, since cops are generally not well trained in critical thinking).

[Elemenope]

Now someone please curse me out for not getting it quite right. Thanks.

No, I think that was actually fairly close to the mark.

[anarch]

visual cues are weighed heavily in their analysis

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Fat Man in the Buffet Line?

[anarch, pursuing chimeras as u]

LM, thank you, but only unanimous agreement counts among libertarians.

[John]

Elenope and Fluffy, that is the most whacked out bunch of pschobabble horseshit I have ever read on here. Why don't you just write "conversitives are icky and I don't like them so therefore I feel free to make the most rediculous unfounded generalizations as I possible can couched in pschyobabble language with the name of a philosopher I once saw on wikipedia thrown in for good measure"

Alice you are a bigger fucking moron than they are. Conservatives get away with crime because they are related to or know the cops? WFT? Conservatives are just as likly to get caught for DUI or speeding or whatever other bullshit crimes we have in this society. Cops do not give people breaks. It just doesn't happen, unless the person is some hot blond they think they can bang. Conservatives just generally don't commit crimes or have many run ins with the law. Thus someone like Scalia can comment on the "professionalism of law enforcement" having no idea what he is actually talking about.

In the end it is a question of who you trust to use power. Conservatives trust cops. Liberals trust bureaucrats and judges. Also, not all conservatives think the same way. I am a conservatives and don't trust cops at all. That is because I have worked in the criminal justice system and have a lot of experience with them and understand who they are good bad or indifferent. In short, unlike someone like Scalia who has never worked in the criminal justice system beyond the highest levels, I am not naive. So take my distrust of cops and mix it with bullshit psychobabble and shove it up your ass sideways.

[Tee-hee]

And conservatives are more refined.

[MNG]

"The leftists justices have an undying faith in the goodness and rightousness of bureaucrats."

That's too broad a generalization. Take, for example, the use of standing doctrine by conservative justices to deny suits by citizens against governmental bureaucrats and agencies. The liberals usually want to allow such suits. Or take the many administrative law cases where individuals challenge the decisions of bureaucrats that they allege deprive them of their liberty or property without due process. The tendency has been for the conservative justices to side with the bureaucrats and agencies while the liberals demand more due process protections.

[Elemenope]

...only unanimous agreement counts among libertarians.

LOL.

Elenope and Fluffy, that is the most whacked out bunch of pschobabble horseshit I have ever read on here.

Hit a nerve.

Why don't you just write "conversitives are icky and I don't like them so therefore I feel free to make the most rediculous unfounded generalizations as I possible can couched in pschyobabble language with the name of a philosopher I once saw on wikipedia thrown in for good measure"

Uh, cause for one, I meant what I said, and not what you "interpreted" it to mean. I don't think conservatives are "icky", and I don't like them less than liberals (or on some dark days, libertarians). It was simply an armchair theory for why a particular group (in this case, conservatives) psychologically justify their generally expressed orientations to both freedom and law, and not so far as I could tell a particularly offensive one. Guess I was wrong about that last part.

Conservatives just generally don't commit crimes or have many run ins with the law.

You claim that we are just spouting psychological crapbabble, and you may in fact be right about that opinion, but the above there is a pretty wild *factual* assertion that you keep making, and for which I have never seen any evidence. So, back it up or stuff it.

That is because I have worked in the criminal justice system and have a lot of experience with them and understand who they are good bad or indifferent. In short, unlike someone like Scalia who has never worked in the criminal justice system beyond the highest levels, I am not naive. So take my distrust of cops and mix it with bullshit psychobabble and shove it up your ass sideways.

"I'm different! I'm not the same! Don't lump me in with those others!! I...am enlightened!"

But seriously, of course not all conservatives are the same. It's a pretty large group, after all. When we (humans, using language) speak about groups generally, we are talking about tendencies and trends that seem to hold mostly true across the group. You know that, right?

[MNG]

In the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case the conservatives were very friendly to non-police government employees and bureaucrats (what would you call a school principal?), ditto in the 13 year old strip search case. There are many other examples of this conservative deference to educational bureaucrats over and above individuals.

And, don't get me started on the deference paid by the conservative justices to bureaucrats in the defense department...

[MNG]

So I think a better generalization (which, like lots of generalizations about classes of people, will of course not be perfect) is that liberal justices defer to liberal bureaucrats and agencies and conservatives defer to conservative bureaucrats and agencies. Plus conservatives defer to law enforcement.

But even this is confusing: if the EPA is trying to do something liberal under a liberal administration, the liberals on the court often defer while the conservatives have a heightened sense of being critical; of course if a conservative administration comes in and hte EPA tries to move in a conservative direction then everyone plays musical chairs and lines up the other way...Cynicism abounds, and the disinterested rule of law takes a kick in the nuts...

[Elemenope]

...ditto in the 13 year old strip search case...

IIRC, that was an 8-1 with only Thomas dissenting, on his usual line that he believes students have no constitutional rights whatsoever. I believe that places him far outside of mainstream conservative legal thought.

Even Scalia (who I agree, is normally derential to school officials) agreed that strip-searching kids for ibuprofen was right out.

[edna]

driven more by the fact that cops are trained to look for "anything out of the ordinary" for incredibly small values of "out" and relatively narrow definitions of "ordinary". Since they rely on what they see, visual cues are weighed heavily in their analysis (and analysis is a very generous word here, since cops are generally not well trained in critical thinking).

well, in the cops' defense (a phrase that i don't think i ever typed before), they have to decide action/inaction on the basis of very limited information. so, yes, they'll probably err on the side of "too much action," given the consequences of the other error. the systematic racism thing is idiotic- police come in all colors and their principal prejudice is "not blue."

in dylan's case, i wouldn't have recognized him (despite me being an over-50) and may well have wondered if this was a crazy old man who needed help. can't really criticize the cops for this one (again, maybe the first time i've typed those words).

[BakedPenguin]

And, the entire mid sixties-to-early seventies rock culture was anti-corporate, top to bottom.

Wasn't CCR kind of an exception to this? I thought I remembered hearing about how they took shit for having a Rolls in one of their album photos, etc. They weren't afraid to flaunt a bit of the wealth they were making.

Also, while is it a much less frequent occurrence than DWB, Driving While White is a pullover offense if you're driving out of a "known drug area", especially one where whites are a negligible portion of the population. One of the regulars here recently described being pulled over by a cop because he was leaving Camden, NJ.

[MNG]

LMNOP
I think most people do naturally obey the law, but I think straight out fear of reprisal from their government and embarrassment from society are the main motivators. This is true for conservatives, liberals etc.

Think about the shit panic that most people feel when they are driving along and see a police car. For most people, even if they are obeying the law, the first thing they feel is fear. Ever been on the interstate with a slow police cop, and everyone is afraid to pass the guy even though it would be perfectly legal to do so?

And that says something awful imo...

[MNG]

"that was an 8-1 with only Thomas dissenting"

That would be Clarence Thomas, who is often extolled on this web site as the most libertarian or liberty loving justice. A claim so ignorant and stupid I sometimes want to literally print it out on paper and take a shit on it.

Liberal stalwarts Stevens and Ginsburg dissented in part LMNOP on a rather important aspect, the qualified immunity of the education bureaucrats.

[Elemenope]

That would be Clarence Thomas, who is often extolled on this web site as the most libertarian or liberty loving justice. A claim so ignorant and stupid I sometimes want to literally print it out on paper and take a shit on it.

Come now. So long as you don't consider children to be people, he *is* the most liberty loving justice! 😉

Liberal stalwarts Stevens and Ginsburg dissented in part LMNOP on a rather important aspect, the qualified immunity of the education bureaucrats.

This is true.

I think most people do naturally obey the law, but I think straight out fear of reprisal from their government and embarrassment from society are the main motivators.

Well, yes, and yet I think those two motivations actually motivate in different ways (and they break down into the two general groups). Liberals are "afraid of the man", whereas conservatives are more afraid of the *social consequences* of being accused (much less convicted) of violating the social order. This might also play into John's (completely bullshit) understandable perception that conservatives commit less crimes than liberals; conservatives are fucking embarrassed by the very notion, and so go to extraordinary lengths to hide it when it does happen.

[anarch]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and everyone else.

[MNG]

I dunno LMNOP, maybe you're right, but I tend to try to accept simpler, more broad based reasons for similary behavior by different groups. Most of conservatives and liberals obey the law despite any philosophical differences on the proper nature and goals of that law. I think both are just afraid to get in trouble, both legally and socially, in equal amounts, and of course with some laws (say rape or murder) people don't break them because most people are well socialized and profoundly sympathetic to the moral of the law itself.

Liberals and conservatives are all human beings and I think they share more than they differ, with this caveat, the former tend to be much more smart and handsome! 😉

[MNG-type liberal]

And if I were humble, I'd be perfect.

[MNG]

"So long as you don't consider children to be people, he *is* the most liberty loving justice! "

Well, if you add to children "anyone accused of or thought to have been involved in crimes" or anyone fighting a government agency trying to make a conservative policy decision, then you're on to something...

[Elemenope]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and everyone else.

I am reminded of that Tool song Right in Two.

I tend to think that there are 6.5 billion sorts of people in the world, but for sanity's sake whenever we talk about social effects or phenomena observable on a scale larger than a small village, we have to talk in terms of groups, with the implicit understanding that the groups are defined only as a certain number of standard deviations from some artificially-defined norm.

And anyway, there are only 10 kinds of people in this world: those who get this, and those who don't.

[Fluffy]

Fuck you, John. My statement was not unfounded at all.

My statement needs no further "founding" beyond the disgusting spectacle of the way all the "mainstream" GOP Presidential candidates spooged all over themselves talking about 24 during the primary debates. And the way their audience roared its approval.

It would be really tedious for me to have to comb through Google looking for every quote where a famous Republican talked about how liberty had to be set aside in order to fight terrorism, John.

[Jim Treacher]

I consider this payback for Masked and Anonymous.

[Elemenope]

To be fair, fluffy, a whole lotta famous Democrats talked about how liberty had to be set aside in order to fight terrorism. Of course, the difference was most of them eventually came to their senses. And a few of each party (like Ron Paul and Russ Feingold) never really lost them to begin with.

[Elemenope]

The 24 fawning, on the other hand, is damning. It frightens me that a passel of candidates for high office are under the impression that military and intelligence operations either are or should be like anything portrayed on that show.

[John]

"My statement needs no further "founding" beyond the disgusting spectacle of the way all the "mainstream" GOP Presidential candidates spooged all over themselves talking about 24 during the primary debates. And the way their audience roared its approval."

Yes. Because no Democrat ever campained on law and order and they always undo things like miminum mandatories and the drug war when they take power. And of course they have closed GUITMO, and stopped the war on terror in the last 8 months. How is that working out.

Are you kidding me? Do you really live in such a stupor that you think that Dem politicians are actually interested in civil rights and curbing the excess of law enforcement of this country as opposed to saying and doing whatever will get them elected? That somehow these issues and things change when one party takes over as opposed to each party trying to be more Catholic than the Pope on what ever lunatic war on this or that we are under (be it sex offenders, DUI, drugs or whatever)?

Give me a break. Both parties are completely insane on law and order issues. No one is willing to call out the cops on the bullshit that goes on. It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with most of our country or at least a loud minority of it being nuts about these kinds of things. You can live in your "convervatives are evil and liberals aren't" bullshit denial all you want. But I thought you had an IQ above room temperature.

[MNG]

LMNOP
I'm not sure Democratic audiences had the same level of roaring approval during such calls by Democratic politicians LMNOP...

[John]

24? My God you are an idiot Elemope. You actually think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing post 9-11? Like they all voted for the Patriot Act because Karl Rove had naked pictures of them or something. That they actually beleived any of the bullshit they sold for the last 8 years. Wait until someone takes a shot at BO or there is another Oklahoma City. I am sure the Dems will just calmly sit back and worry about everyone's rights. They won't use the crisis to destroy civil liberties and oppress the fuck out of their opponents. Nope. They will stand on the side of liberty.

[MNG]

"Both parties are completely insane on law and order issues. No one is willing to call out the cops on the bullshit that goes on."

Do you really think they are insane to the same degree John? One is not more government restricting than the other?

I don't remember the Dems trying to point out the ACLU affiliations of GOP opponents as such a damning thing....

Do you want polls demonstrating the difference? I can provide them. Do you want more citations of the line up of SCOTUS judges on law enforcement cases? I can provide them.

But here's the thing, let's make this stupid statement here something you are willing to stake something on. Let's make it interesting. If I provide such things, you will post under the name "Johnny Bullshitter" for a while. If you are so sure of this kind of comment, then take me up on it.

[MNG]

"You actually think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing post 9-11?"

There were prominent Dems in the public eye post 9-11. Surely you have some 24 related quotes from them, right John? They had all kinds of debates and stuff. It's out there if said.

Put up or shut up.

[MNG]

"One is not more government restricting than the other?"

In the area of law enforcement.

[John]

"Do you really think they are insane to the same degree John? One is not more government restricting than the other?"

The Dems control every branch of government right now. Are the drug laws changing? Is the BATF being told to stop it? Are state and local police forces no longer getting military equipment from the feds? They just pick on different people Where before it was Porn and left wing radicals, now it is rightwing radicals and militias and guns and every other leftwing canard. They are exactly the same. They just pick on different stuff. Who is behind the DUI craze and the date rape bullshit and the fucking every child is abused bullshit. The Left that is who. They are both equally crazy. The Left just sells people like you bullshit.

[MNG]

John
You don't think there is any significance that the Left is, as you admit, selling civil liberties to a greater degree than the Right?

[John]

"You actually think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing post 9-11?"

There were prominent Dems in the public eye post 9-11. Surely you have some 24 related quotes from them, right John? They had all kinds of debates and stuff. It's out there if said."

They were voting for the Patriot Act in overwelming numbers, approving of CIA interrogation techniques and being briefed on NSA wiretapping and nodding in agreement. I don't really give a shit what TV shows they watched. They just used the issue politically because they knew it would work. The fact that they would do the same thing meant nothing.

[MNG]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135452.html?success=1#lastpost

From Sec. 8

"Republican support for warrantless searches
of those who may be sympathetic to terrorists has grown substantially."

"Eight-in-ten Democrats say they are concerned that business corporations are collecting to much personal information, and 66% say the
same about the government's data collection."

"A solid majority of Republicans (58%) say they are concerned that business corporations are gathering too much personal information, but just 40% express the same worry about
government."

"By contrast, Democrats are less supportive of
allowing the police to conduct warrantless searches of the houses of people who may sympathize with terrorists than they were four years ago."

"There continue to be partisan differences in views of whether average people will need to give up some liberties to curb terrorism. Most Republicans (51%) say such sacrifices will be necessary, but just 35% of Democrats and 37% of independents share this belief."

[John]

"John
You don't think there is any significance that the Left is, as you admit, selling civil liberties to a greater degree than the Right?"

No. Things like the out of control DOJ, the out of control drug war, the out of control criminalization of every social problem continues unabaited regardless of who is in charge. It is a bi-partisian problem.

[John]

MNG,

I am not talking about voters. I am talking about politicians. Dem politicians have played their civil libertarian supporters for suckers just like Republicans have played their small government supporters for suckers.

[John]

Further,

Dems support bullshit like the out of control Women are always right and get to keep the kids and men are all deadbeat dads family law in this country. They also have no problem letting the government control what I eat and every other thing in my life.

[MNG]

So I'll take that as a "no, I don't have any evidence of a prominent Democratic official stupidly applauding 24 as a model for fighting terrorism."

You see, you were directly responding to LMNOP who said "The 24 fawning, on the other hand, is damning."

And you said "My God you are an idiot Elemope. You actually think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing post 9-11?"

And I said, well certainly there wer prominent dems making speeches and having debates post-9-11, do you have any evidence of them doing the thing LMNOP decried as so stupid?

You:nope (but you dressed it up in more partisan shrillery)

[MNG]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-463pa3an,1,457920.story

"Fifty-five percent of the public said they are very (18%) or somewhat (37%) concerned that steps taken to round up terrorists could end up restricting the civil liberties of the rest of us. Republicans* (46%) are less concerned about the issue than Democrats (62%)"

"Republicans (and particularly the most conservative) on the other hand, approve of law enforcement's use of ethnic profiling in its search for terrorists. Nearly six in 10 Republicans said they approve of it and a third approve strongly. Sixty-three percent of conservative Republicans approve. On the other end of the scale, about the same proportion of liberal Democrats disagree with that assessment--six in 10 disapprove, and four in 10 disapprove strongly."

"There is less approval of broader wiretapping powers among African Americans (49%) than among either whites (61%) or Latinos (62%). Support is strong across the political spectrum although Republicans are slightly more approving (69%) than are Democrats (58%) or independents (59%.)"

"Concern over monitoring Internet communications is highest among those who identify with the Democrats, with a slim majority (53%) of self-described liberal Democrats expressing disapproval of such measures. By comparison, 59% of self-described conservative Republicans approve. In fact, more than a third of all Republicans approve strongly of the idea, compared to three in 10 Democrats of all stripes who disapprove strongly."

[John]

MNG,

What is the point of mentioning 24 if not to say the Republicans demogog on the terror issue as if Dems didn't do the same,

You guys are both in your "Democrats are just wonderful people who respect our rights" mode. That is just horseshit. If you think Dems won't oppress the hell out of the country everytime it suits their purpose you are an utter fool.

[John]

God you are stupid MNG. Which part of "I am talking about DEM politicians" do you not understand? Those people in those polls were played for suckers by the Dems who convinced them that they actually gave a shit about civil liberties.

[MNG]

"It is a bi-partisian problem."

This is like saying a man who drinks morning, noon and night has the same problem to the same extent as a man who drinks noon and night only.

No matter what groups or problems are targeted, the committment to civil liberties in general can be measured by the processes you support or oppose when enforcing laws against those groups or issues, and on this matter Dems and liberals are simply demonstrably better than the GOP and conservatives. Poll after poll reflects it, the rhetoric of their officials reflect it, the positions that the judges they nominate take in cases involving such matters reflect it.

You just don't have a leg to stand on here John.

[John]

Further, MNG. Yeah, liberals don't think terrorism is a big deal. But ask them about child abuse or stopping smoking or people eating fatty food or confiscating guns. You won't find that they are so respectful of civil rights.

Again, both parties have their issues where they don't care. The issues are just different. Why is it so hard to admit that Dems could have flaws and be wrong about something? I freely admit the Republicans are wrong about law and order issues even though I agree with them about other things. But you can't do that with Dems. Nope. In your mind Dems must always be defended and are flawless in their protection of liberty. But I am the partisian shill. You are just like Joe. Dems are always right and never as bad as a Republican no matter what the evidence.

[Fluffy]

Are you kidding me? Do you really live in such a stupor that you think that Dem politicians are actually interested in civil rights and curbing the excess of law enforcement of this country as opposed to saying and doing whatever will get them elected? That somehow these issues and things change when one party takes over as opposed to each party trying to be more Catholic than the Pope on what ever lunatic war on this or that we are under (be it sex offenders, DUI, drugs or whatever)?

Actually, I would say that in general, the leftists get all "law and ordery" because they're afraid if they don't they'll be called weak. The conservatives do it for the sheer joy of the knife.

It's as if Liberty is getting gang-raped, and the conservatives are the ones doing it because they really, really like rape, and the leftists are doing it because the crowd peer pressures them into doing it and calls out, "What, are you queer or something?" so they go along.

[Fluffy]

Yeah, liberals don't think terrorism is a big deal. But ask them about child abuse or stopping smoking or people eating fatty food or confiscating guns. You won't find that they are so respectful of civil rights.

This is true.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that leftists like freedom.

The topic of discussion was, "Why do conservatives, who might otherwise favor small government, love cops so much?" When that's the topic naturally we'll talk more about the failings of conservatives.

[John]

MNG,

That is why liberals have so much respect for Gun rights. That is why liberals and feminists have created a child protective service and family court system that so respects people's rights and privacy. That is why liberals like Janet Reno got famous putting innnocent people in jail for sex abuse. That is why California and Mass, both very liberal states, had what amounted to which trials on sex abuse. Because liberals care so much about rights.

There is more to civil rights than terorrism you dumb ass. And the liberals have so many sins in so many areas of civil rights in the last 40 years.

[MNG]

"You guys are both in your "Democrats are just wonderful people who respect our rights" mode."

Of course not. Democratic support for civil liberties is pathetic. But GOP support is demonstrably worse.

"if not to say the Republicans demogog on the terror issue as if Dems didn't do the same"

See, you deconstruct your own arguments. At the very least you've argued 1. that Dems and the left "demagog" on these issues the same and 2. that Dems and the left "are falsely selling support for civil liberties." Both cannot be true.

There is at least a difference in the rhetoric each side feels the need to employ to mollify their base.

[John]

"It's as if Liberty is getting gang-raped, and the conservatives are the ones doing it because they really, really like rape, and the leftists are doing it because the crowd peer pressures them into doing it and calls out, "What, are you queer or something?" so they go along."

No. The conservative his fucking you missionary style and the liberal is fucking your ass. They both enjoy it. They just have different tastes.

[Elemenope]

John, this stuff really set you off. Calm down and discuss, instead of calling everyone in sight an idiot.

As for the business at hand:

You still owe me some evidence for your assertion that conservatives are naturally more law-abiding than other political segments.

I find it hard to imagine that everything would have been done the same had the Bush shoe been on the Gore foot. For example, no Iraq War. Does that matter? Considering that the Iraq War extended our overblown war mentality/national nightmare a solid five years (and counting), I'm gonna go ahead and say "yes".

And when it came to re-up the Patriot Act, most of the resistance and backpedaling came from one side of the aisle. It wasn't the GOP.

[John]

" that Dems and the left "are falsely selling support for civil liberties." Both cannot be true."

The Dem politicians are playing their leftist voters for suckers on terrorism. On every other issue, like child welfare or guns or controling people's lives, the leftist are not suckers, they are authoritarian fucks who life to tell other people how to live.

[MNG]

John
I freely admit the Dems and the left suck on these issues. It is YOU that claim equivalence between them and their opponents, and that is just demonstrably false.

I also said on this specific issue, namely law enforcement powers. The Dems fall short here, but not as far short as the GOP.

If we were talking about something like taxtion or government spending I would offer no foolish equivalence, the Dems are simply worse on those issues, period.

[John]

"I find it hard to imagine that everything would have been done the same had the Bush shoe been on the Gore foot. For example, no Iraq War. Does that matter? Considering that the Iraq War extended our overblown war mentality/national nightmare a solid five years (and counting), I'm gonna go ahead and say "yes"."

Go read what Al Gore said about Iraq in 1998. He made a better case for war than Bush. And go read how BO is sending 60,000 troops into Afghanistan and get back to me on how peaceful the Dems are and how we wouldn't get into any wars overseas if only they were in charge.

[John]

"And when it came to re-up the Patriot Act, most of the resistance and backpedaling came from one side of the aisle. It wasn't the GOP."

And that is why it got repealed once they had both houses of Congress, 60 Senators and the Presidency.

[MNG]

"The Dem politicians are playing their leftist voters for suckers on terrorism."

OK, so you freely admit then that the rhetoric the Dems pedaled on terrorism was different than that of the GOP? Because that is what you were getting so ape-shit about, when LMNOP found damning the GOP rhetoric on the issue.

As Borat would say "Ni-ice."

[MNG]

"Go read what Al Gore said about Iraq in 1998. He made a better case for war than Bush."

There's this slight difference John, Gore didn't make war against Iraq and Bush did...

[MNG]

Did you know that when the Patriot Act was renewed every single vote against (10) it was from a Democrat (well, and Sanders)?

Not one GOPer.

So the parties are EXACTLY the same on this issue, see?

John denies reality on a fucking mathematical level...

[John]

"OK, so you freely admit then that the rhetoric the Dems pedaled on terrorism was different than that of the GOP? Because that is what you were getting so ape-shit about, when LMNOP found damning the GOP rhetoric on the issue."

But the Dems did not change an thing once they had power. They were lying in their rethoric. If you think that is somehow admirable, more power to you.

[Elemenope]

There's this slight difference John, Gore didn't make war against Iraq and Bush did...

To be fair, I'm arguing the counterfactual where Gore would have been in a position to make war if he so chose and Bush wouldn't have been.

Though my argument is not simply premised on Gore's willingness to go to war. I don't think Congress and/or the American people would have bought his attempts at war justification.

[John]

"Not one GOPer.

So the parties are EXACTLY the same on this issue, see?"

The Dems control both houses and have 60 votes in the Senate. The Patriot Act is not going to be repealed nor is there any movement to do so. They own the government and nothing is going to change. You can pretend there is a difference all you want, but reality says otherwise. Who cares that a few of them voted against it. A few Republicans fought against spending increases when they were in charge. Does that then excuse the Republicans from charges of hypocrisy? I don't think so.

[Tulpa]

MNG,

That means 80% of the Democrat (and Democrat-aligned independent) Senators voted to re-up the Patriot Act. The parties are alike in that the vast majority of both parties supported Patriot.

(Also note there were Republican Representatives who voted against, which you've carefully avoided mentioning.

[BakedPenguin]

MNG, Thomas' decision in that case was indefensible. But if you look at Raich, Kelo, Melendez, Heller, and a lot of other cases, he has made the right decision. I would certainly trust him more than Kennedy, Scalia or Alito to question the power of the state.

[Elemenope]

I would certainly trust him more than Kennedy, Scalia or Alito to question the power of the state.

Or Breyer and Roberts, for that matter. Stevens tends to be good (except for 2nd amendment) and Souter used to be good (except on Kelo, oddly), and Sotomayor is still an unknown quantity.

The Supremes often seem to have very wide blind spots when it comes to certain idiosyncratic areas of the law. For Thomas, it's minors, for Scalia, it's police, and so forth.

[TJ]

The really, really funny part ... they couldn't just take the word of his associates, they MADE HIM PRODUCE A PASSPORT

[Christine]

If a man an unfamiliar man was pacing up and down the streets, I would call the cops. Why are people getting so angry? In the end, NO HARM WAS DONE. The police stopped by and made sure nothing suspicious was up. In society, there is a safe/ free trade-off. Stop complaining. We have a pretty good balance

[PantsFan]

Shut up Christine, the men adults were talking.

Requiring to produce papers is not a free trade-off.

[New World Order Sloganeer]

Paper-training - it's not just for K9s anymore!

[Elemenope]

If a man an unfamiliar man was pacing up and down the streets, I would call the cops.

Because walking down a public street is worthy of the attention of the police.

Right.

[anarch]

Me, I'd call the cops if the man was becoming too familiar.

Different strokes, I guess.

[Fluffy]

This is good, we've made some real progress here.

First of all, I really liked what you did with my gang rape metaphor, John. You took it and ran with it and made me LOL.

Second, has everyone else noted that now that the Obama administration has taken ownership of the Bush WoT policies that offend against due process, privacy, various international accords, and the Constitution, John is fine with stating that these policies are anti-liberty?

I'm pleased to see that. Because when Bush was President, John was adamant that none of these policies negatively impacted anyone's rights in the slightest, and were all perfectly kosher.

Now that Obama is taking the GOP off the hook for them one misbegotten policy at a time, John's blindness has miraculously been cured, and he agrees with the evaluation of these policies that the rest of us made years ago.

Welcome, brother!

[John C. Randolph]

on this matter Dems and liberals are simply demonstrably better than the GOP and conservatives.

You're kidding, right? Lefties pay lip service to freedom of speech, the same way that right-wingers pay lip service to free markets.

-jcr

[An Average American]

"Any day now, any day now, I shall be released!"

[Elemenope]

Oh snap! Fluffy just called you a fairweather friend.

Looked like it stung from here.

[wingnutx]

And who the heck doesn't know who Bob Dylan is?

I know he died of drugs

[Ben]

The difference is that the cliched version of "your papers, please" contains a very real implied threat. It wasn't likely to end in a semi-humorous embarrassment for the police. The situation here is so vastly different in that way as to make it scarcely analogous at all.

[MNG]

"The Supremes often seem to have very wide blind spots when it comes to certain idiosyncratic areas of the law. For Thomas, it's minors, for Scalia, it's police, and so forth."

This is just not the case. I can't think of many, or any off hand for that matter, major law enforcement cases (dealing with the power of the police or prosecutors in dealing with the accused) where Thomas differed with Scalia. And Thomas and Scalia differ over Executive power (go take a look at the detainee case where Scalia was joined by Stevens in dissent and Thomas cockslobbery treatment of the executive in his dissent).

When it comes to the area where the government exerts its potentially most devastating power vis-a-vis individual citizens, encounters with law enforcement, Thomas is just terrible...

[MNG]

My point was that Scalia is better than Thomas...

[alice bowie]

u guys are funny

it's a nice sunday

[Elemenope]

MNG, you know, I was all set to disagree with you, and then it came to actually finding cases, and the only one I could think of was Kyllo, and (FML) Scalia was also on the right side.

Hey, Thomas defenders, help me out! Is there any case you can think of where Thomas does better than Scalia on criminal justice and 4th amendment matters? Any at all?

[juandos]

"America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities, despite having committed no crime"...

Hmmm, how do you know no crime was committed?

BTW that wasn't the United States, that was California...

[Bill]

Something may be missing here...I know this area, and I suspect whoever called the police was concerned that Dylan could be in danger wandering around, and they would probably be right.

The police may have been acting more out of concern for him than anything else.

[comatus]

This happened to Beethoven once. Really, you can look it up.

Wasn't in Jersey, though.

[robc]

MNG,

Thomas is better than Scalia on drugs. With drug legalization, interaction with cops would go way down. Ergo, that may make Thomas better than Scalia on police issues.

And while he has the blind spot re: cops, Scalia is more than willing to throw a prosecutor under the bus for a mistake in procedure. Scalia and Ginsburg tag team on that issue.

[Elemenope]

This happened to Beethoven once. Really, you can look it up.

Yeah, but if I remember the anecdote properly, it was after he had started going both deaf and insane, and he was screaming at the top of his lungs "I AM THE GREAT BEETHOVEN!!!" over and over again until they hauled him in.

Now, if Bob Dylan started randomly screaming "I AM THE GREAT BEETHOVEN!!!" on a dark New Jersey street, not only would that be totally awesome, but it would also make the situations a little more comparable.

[MNG]

Pretty weak robc, pretty weak.

First, the police (especially local) engaged in all kinds of abuses before federal drug laws were a big deal. Thomas would allow that.

Second, afaik Thomas has never ruled for legalization, just questioned the federal role in the WOD under the Commerce Clause. Federal regulation would simply be justified under treaty power if the former were ruled unconstitutional, and most states would be pretty bad on this without federal help.

[MNG]

LMNOP
It's true. I've found defenses of Thomas are inverse to one's knowledge of his actual rulings.

[IowaGuy]

Amen, Radley. That was my take on it as well.

[anarch]

LM, since it would be in German, they would've taken him for Br?no and been afraid to touch him, hence no story.

[Yobama]

The policemen acted stupidly. Not that I know the full story, of course.

[Elemenope]

LM, since it would be in German, they would've taken him for Br?no and been afraid to touch him, hence no story.

LOL.

[Ludwig Van Beethoven]

ICH BIN DER GRO?E BEETHOVEN!
ICH BIN DER GRO?E BEETHOVEN!
ICH BIN DER GRO?E BEETHOVEN!

[John C. Randolph]

get back to me on how peaceful the Dems are and how we wouldn't get into any wars overseas if only they were in charge.

But what about the Korean and Vietnam wars? Those wouldn't have happened if the Democrats were in charge!

Oh, wait.

-jcr

[jaafar]

I don't see any change! My own brother was a medical student at UCLA back in the '70s, living in a room in Beverly Hills. He'd been there for years, and was taking a stroll when a cop pulled a gun on him, told him to hit the ground, and demanded to see I.D.

Evidently someone resembling my brother was suspected of a serious crime in the neighborhood. My brother was terrified: "You know, if I hadn't done exactly as he told me, I think he would have killed me!!"

But he did do as the officer said, and both men walked away alive and unhurt.

[Joe]

Sure, he "can be stopped," but seriously, how often does this happen in America? Like Radley's celebrated dog-shooting cops, this incident is extraordinary precisely because of its rarity.

First of all, isn't the fact that it happened to ONE person enough? The fact that people are rarely murdered by cannibals doesn't make it any less horrific.

Secondly, this DOES happen all the time in America. You obviously don't live anywhere near the inner city. What do you think cops DO all the time? This is ALL THEY DO!!

[js]

How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.

[DavidN]

Had this been Bo Diddly, I wouldn't have been surprised to see this headline the nightly news.

Neither would I, seeing as how Bo died in 2008.

This is what it means to be a Black Zombie in America....

[Larry]

to George and Bean Counter, re racist "obsessed" media:

Methinks you dost protest too much, you out-of-closet leaning/lingering racists. Of course, Bo Diddley or anyone famous of any race who was detained for wandering around a neighborhood would have made the papers. It happens now and then, and it does make the papers, but it doesn't fit your still-racism-informed worldview (Rush-view, rather).

You seem to not in the least understand that the primary reason racism has been rolled back as far as it has - though still not nearly enough - is media exposure. And to withdraw media exposure now would let you and/or your still-racist blacklashers gradually pull the rug out from under a nation that has largely improved its civil rights situation for all citizens.

I can't wait for you to be in the minority. And I'll use a Dylan lyric to illustrate what will be sung to you when whites are in the minority: HOW DOES IT FEEL?

You couldn't walk a foot in the shoes of a minority person. So take the motes out of your bloodshot fearful eyes.

[Mike]

So I've seen some reports on this where the person who called the police said an eccentric old man had wandered into their yard http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/arts/music/17arts-THEFREEWHEEL_BRF.html?_r=2 , and others (like the one linked above) that say the person who called the police said an eccentric old man was wandering around the neighborhood. If he was in people's yards then he was trespassing. And I love the words used by Mr. Balko here. "interrogated" "detained" "forced to produce". They accompanied him back to his hotel because he didn't have an I.D. to make sure everything was on the up and up, and when they got that confirmation that was the end of it. As a homeowner and father of two young girls I certainly don't want people I don't know wandering around my yard even if I later found out that it was Bob Dylan. When I go out for a stroll I don't wander onto other people's yards, and I've never been stopped and asked for I.D. by the police, but I bet it would happen if I started wandering around other people's property.

[Jay Edgar]

The city of Long Branch at the NJ Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project's request, repealed its loitering ordinance on January 26th.

The NJLP Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project has had over 20 towns repeal their loitering ordinance. See link for more info.

[Jay Edgar]

The city of Long Branch in Monmouth County, at the NJ Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project's request, repealed its loitering ordinance on January 26th.

The NJLP has had over 20 ordinances repealed.