Reason Roundup

Victims or Criminals? Cops Can't Decide When It Comes to Teens Selling Sex

Plus: trade vote today, woman sues DEA for seizing cash belonging to her dad with dementia, and more...


Wisconsin's efforts to stop "human trafficking" largely target people selling sex, including those who are underage. A third of police surveyed in the state said they don't differentiate between human trafficking and prostitution in crime incident reports. More than half said they have enforced prostitution laws against minors, treating them as perps rather than victims.

Under federal law, anyone under age 18 who engages in prostitution is defined as a victim of sex trafficking, regardless of whether an actual trafficker exists. But all over the country, cops continue to arrest teens for activity the law says they're incapable of consenting to—and which most people assume law enforcement is out to save such groups from.

A new analysis of sex-trafficking arrest data from the Wisconsin Department of Justice found that from 2014 and 2018, some 24 different police agencies representing 16 counties reported arresting children for prostitution while making zero arrests for sex trafficking. (Remember this next time someone argues that the way to save people from sexual exploitation is simply to send in more cops.) In addition, a third of the state's police agencies admitted that they don't differentiate between prostitution and human trafficking when filling out crime data reports or entering incidents in agency records.

From 2014 to 2017, the report says, Wisconsin police agencies opened 118 human trafficking investigations, "with an additional 139 incidents that were either prostitution or human trafficking (entered by agencies that do not differentiate between the two offenses). Twenty-two agencies answered 'I don't know' whether their agency had any cases with a sex trafficking offense code and skipped the incident count question." Results for 2018 showed a similar lack of differentiation.

Fifty-eight percent "of chief and sheriff respondents reported that their agencies enforce prostitution laws against juveniles," says the report. "An additional 25% reported it would depend on the circumstances whether they would do so." That's a full 83 percent of police respondents who said they or their colleagues would arrest juveniles for prostitution.

You can read the full report in all its horrifying detail here.

It would be nice to at least think that Wisconsin's "anti-trafficking" efforts are an anomaly. But the vast majority of sex policing across the country (including that done by Homeland Security, the FBI, and federal immigration agents) comes at the expense of those engaging in prostitution, regardless of whether they're doing it by choice, regardless of how old they are, and regardless of how much the political rhetoric declares that saving them is the priority.


The Senate votes today on a new North American trade deal. "The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support," reports Sabrina Rodriguez at Politico. "Senators began formal consideration of the pact on Wednesday afternoon."

Some previous Reason coverage of the agreement:


A woman is suing after the Drug Enforcement Administration seized more than $80,000 in cash from her for no good reason. Rebecca Brown says that the money belonged to her father, who has dementia, and that she was putting it in a bank account for him. "Brown said she was never told she or her father were under suspicion of committing any crime and neither has been charged with anything," reports The Washington Post. "A search of her bag turned up no drugs or other contraband. Neither she or her father appear to have criminal records that might raise suspicions."


NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Has a Fake Plan To Pay for Medicare for All

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “So calling somebody a ‘Boomer’ and considering them for a position would be actionable?”

    This whole generation is out of order!

    1. Hello.

    2. That Boomer generation is a real disappointment. So much potential, and they pissed away on Vietnam protests, illicit drugs, promiscuity, and an ‘It is all about me and fuck the rest of you’ orientation to life. America will pay for their lunacy for many, many years.

      1. to be fair, Vietnam should have been protested.

        1. Pretty hard to protest America’s involvement in Vietnam from Canada and Mexico. Plus, quite a few Boomers didnt protest LBJ and his escalation of the war because Democrats are great! Some protested and burned draft cards mainly because THEIR NUMBER CAME UP. Oh well, just let the poor Black Americans die in a foreign land and then spit on those troops that did serve.

          Saying/protesting we shouldnt be in a war like Vietnam- fine.

          Some Boomers acted 100% shameful and now are all sanctimonious Democrats- FUCK YOU!

          BTW: Many of these protesting Boomers against Government oppression or whatever are voting in the same bullshit before they die off. Not to mention running up national debt with social security, pension bailouts, and medicare.

          1. “Oh well, just let the poor Black Americans die in a foreign land and then spit on those troops that did serve.”

            And yet you find Trump to be a great guy. The hypocrisy is jaw dropping.

            1. Why? He’s done more for black americans since any president in your lifetime.

          2. Please, Democrats, please, please, please keep denigrating Boomers and everyone else who you deem to be unworthy.

    3. Sooner!

    4. Gen Z can go ahead and call me a Boomer.

      My student loans are paid off.

  2. New hemp regulations would create a nightmare for U.S. farmers.

    Bureaucracy gives an inch on hemp and the people want to take a mile.

  3. Two Houston police officers have been indicted after killing a couple during a drug raid.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the exception that proves the rule.

  4. Virginia is very close to ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment…

    This is about getting free tampons in the men’s room, right?

    1. Didn’t their governor just declare martial law?

      1. Well, yes. But to prevent the second amendment, not the first.

  5. Victims or criminals? Why not both? Teen prostitutes are obviously guilty of trafficking themselves, how hard can it be to understand this simple concept?

    1. God forbid the law ever adopt a rational and consistent position. If the rule is that men who go to under age hookers are committing a crime because underage people can’t meaningfully consent to such a thing, then the underage hookers can’t be guilty of a crime because they lack the requisite intent as a matter of law.

      Prostitution is a specific intent crime. You can’t accidentally sell yourself for sex.

      1. This has been a consistently inconsistent and contradictory area of the law forever.

        We also have all those cases of teens being prosecuted as adults for child pornography or “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” for pictures they took of themselves.

        The law in the area of sex, and particularly young people and sex, is a perfectly clear example of why we use the metaphor of a boot stamping on a human face forever.

        1. It is just an example of people not wanting to live with the consequences of their choices. I think there are good reasons to have an age of consent. Yes, it is a legal fiction in many ways because the age at which someone can meaningfully consent to sex varies with the person. You can never draw a perfect line. But you need to draw a clear line. Otherwise, people can end up committing crimes without knowing it.

          The price of that however is that minors can’t be sex offenders. They can’t consent to sex as a matter of law therefore they can never have the requisite intent to be a sex offender. That is a tough choice but it is the best of a set of imperfect alternatives.

          1. Which would be a reasonable compromise, and is probably the defacto standard in most cases.

            But then there’s this: 14-Year-Old Girl Sends Explicit Photo of Herself; Cops Charge Her with Distributing Child Porn

            Just one of a string of such stories from around the country. It is a strange confluence…. the blurring of the “minor” status in criminal charges because of violent crimes committed by 16 and 17 year old kids who faced little consequence because of the calendar, child porn crackdowns and the ubiquitous availability of cell phones with cameras and the ability to send the pictures anywhere at the click of a button.

          2. And of course there is always the libertarian response…

            If you want to put an end to child prostitution and trafficking, just make prostitution legal. Not decriminalized. Legal.

            Then you can have licensing, age and disease verification… and magically most of the justifications and abuses melt away. No more trafficking. No more minors ( to speak of). No more street walkers making the neighborhood look bad. Just good, old fashioned brothels and immorality for a price.

            1. There is always going to be a demand for teenagers to have sex. So making it legal would not end child prostitution. People who go to underage hookers do so because they want someone underage.

              The other problem we have is that the law is written by upper class suburbanites who refuse to accept reality about their own kids and kids in general. The truth is that unless they suffer from some kind of mental or developmental disability, people are able to meaningfully consent to their actions, be that having sex or killing someone by the time they are 16. 18 is too high of an age of consent. And proof of that lies in how willing people are to try 16 year old murders as an adult. I happen to agree with that sentiment. They should be tried as an adult. But that is because they are adults for these purposes. And I am willing to admit that means they can consent to sex and being hookers and strippers.

              Most people are not willing to do that. So instead, they live in this fantasy world where the same kid can be held accountable for deciding to kill someone just like an adult but somehow is unfit to consent to sex.

              1. Legislators who propose lowering the age of consent to sixteen, let alone fourteen, would lose the fathers of teen girls vote.

              2. Not to mention that they are considered old enough to CHANGE their sex, just not old enough to HAVE sex.

                1. In some cases they’re old enough to HAVE sex, but not to photograph it. In other cases they’re old enough to have an abortion, but not sex.

            2. Then you can have licensing

              Stossel’s gonna kick your ass for saying that.

            3. Prostitution, John-ing, pimping and Madame-ing are all legal here in NZ, no big change that, as a non-prostitute/user, I have noticed.

              Still have street walkers though. Classier/more expensive ones go to brothels I guess.

              Police, courts, and probation officers hardest hit

  6. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce joins a number of congressional committees in looking at easing federal restrictions on marijuana.

    Careful, Energy. Next thing the stoners are going to want you not to overregulate it.

  7. “‘Amazing’: New embryo made of nearly extinct rhino species”
    “JOHANNESBURG — Researchers say they have successfully created another embryo of the nearly extinct northern white rhino in a global effort to keep the species alive. Just two animals remain, and both are female….”

    How much money have we spent trying to keep species from going extinct and why?

    1. I’d also like to know who’s money is being sent. If it’s one of our much maligned 1%ers I’ll be the first to support their efforts.

    2. White Rhino Privilege

    3. Isn’t there supposed to be something about choice in there somewhere?

  8. A woman is suing after the Drug Enforcement Administration seized more than $80,000 in cash from her for no good reason.

    They apparently didn’t seize enough if she still has some for a lawyer.

    1. “No good reason”? You must want the terrorists to win. Why do you hate America?

      1. I don’t want the terrorists to win. I will not vote for a democrat.

    2. God bless the Institute for Justice.

  9. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support…

    Impeachment: NULLIFIED

  10. It’s clear that Russia will attempt to pick our President this year like they did in 2016. When covering the election, journalists must be careful not to give a platform to Russian propaganda. The EIC of The Daily Beast explains:

    I hope my fellow editors will think hard — really hard, a lot harder than they did in 2016 — before publishing any material hacked by the Russians.


    1. Not to worry, as Chris Cuomo has already explained that it is illegal to look at hacked materials such as what Wikileaks regularly releases.

      1. Beat me. Damnit.

      2. Cuomo’ll fucking ruin your shit. He’ll fucking throw you down the stairs like a fucking punk if you look.

    2. I thought CNN was quite clear when they told us in 2016 it was illegal for us to view hacked material, only journalists were allowed.

      1. But do journalists still have a 1A right to tell us what’s in the hacked material?

    3. Battlespace prep. They want anything coming out about Hunter to be dismissed as “Russian meddling” out of hand.

  11. A third of police surveyed in the state said they don’t differentiate between human trafficking and prostitution in crime incident reports. More than half said they have enforced prostitution laws against minors, treating them as perps rather than victims.

    Everywhere a loose nail.

  12. is expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support

    An addendum to Reagan’s “most terrifying words in the English language”.

  13. Impeachment is such a slam dunk of a case, democrats keep making up what was in the call.

  14. Fresh off Baileys defense of climate models, a takedown of the Hausfather paper making that claim with a discussion on data sets.

    Warning to chipper, actual science and not grade school concepts.

    1. Long story short, they stress the predictions of imminent disaster today, while pointing to earlier predictions, not stressed at the time, that weren’t so scary to make the whole enterprise look more accurate?

      1. Basically the models always run hot, that is how they are designed. They use extra control knobs to hind cast. The only way we get the “models are accurate” talking point is if you only look at recently tuned models and then state the models said it would warmed and now it has.

        One of the current big issues is that many of the global reconstruction outfits use models to not only infill missing historical data, but also to “correct” historical measurements. And since models say past was cool, now is hot, the effect is we are now tuning models to themselves.

  15. The show must go on no matter the outcome! Rep Quigley “And when this process is all over, the Committee on Intelligence will continue to investigate this president from all the issues relating to the Russia investigation, including money laundering.”

    1. Dammit! There’s got to be a fish in this pond somewhere!

  16. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch has already lost $330,000,000 this year.

    My conservative brother-in-law actually tried to argue the Drumpf economy was “fine” because his investment portfolio has been steadily gaining value the past 3 years. Well, even if that’s true, that’s not what Koch / Reason libertarians consider a healthy economy.

    We’re not concerned with middle- to upper-middle-class people. Instead, we seek to create an economy that works for the richest 100 people on the planet. And Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies have been a complete disaster by that standard.


    1. Charles Koch has already lost $330,000,000 this year.
      Tell him to check behind the sofa cushion. BROTHER-IN-LAW Do you have written permission to gender them?

  17. Still tReason is silent on the VA pro-gun rally and corresponding “state of emergency” declared by the governor.

    1. Think they’ve gone ACLU lite on that freedom.

    2. You see, this area has only been declared a 1st amendment zone for the rally. The 2nd amendment zone is a local jail cell.

      1. It seems the governor is now putting up fences and locking down the capitol in preparation for people to express their first amendment rights (but not while exercising their second.) Looks right out of martial law and yet tReason is completely mum on this situation and the rights violations clearly displayed by this government. If this turns bad, and at this point I give it a 50/50 shot at doing so, it may just be the story of the century.

        My state, Texas, is likely 10-20 years from turning blue. I think VA is going to be used as a “how-to” or “how-not-to” road map to disarm the rural population of a state that was formerly free.

        1. I cannot believe what is happening in VA. This is going to get very, very bad. Just watch. The Governor is going to ask for (and get) the authority to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

          1. “”Please know that we have been preparing extensively to protect public safety at Monday’s rally. But no one wants another incident like the one we saw in Charlottesville in 2017,” Northam said.”

            Do you think they will ban all cars or just scary looking muscle cars with the headlights that flip up and the thing that makes the exhaust quiet?

          2. It has the potential to be very bad. What scares me is that Northam is so obviously a weak minded pathetic person. Northam is exactly the kind of weak small person who can blunder into real tragedy if given any responsibility.

            Any governor with an ounce of sense can see where this is leading and would tell the legislature to get bent. But Northam doesn’t have any sense. And even if he did, he lacks the courage to do what is necessary to stop all of this.

            Things might settle down. The state might decide to not push it too far. I certainly hope so. But for the first time in my lifetime, I am not that confident they will.

        2. And it is going on in their backyard. Reason’s total silence on what is happening in Virginia is disgraceful. Here we have a state government that is trying to take away its citizens’ constitutional rights. And those citizens are rising up in protest to stop it. And reason can’t be bothered to say a word about it.

          Can you imagine the amount of coverage Reason would give if instead of Democrats in Virginia trying to take away guns, this was Republicans in Mississippi trying to restrict abortion rights and meeting this kind of resistance?

          1. “Can you imagine the amount of coverage Reason would give if…Republicans in Mississippi trying to restrict abortion rights and meeting this kind of resistance?” there aren’t enough pussy hat or papier-mâché evil Trump stock images in existence for all of the articles they’d publish in that scenario.

          2. C’mon, John, Reason has to hit their quota of 35 articles about minor police misdeeds/errors/etc in every single village of 100 residents, so there’s no time to write about other things like the State of VA declaring martial law/war on its residents to deny their civil rights or pervasive psyops to lay the base for war with a nuclear rival.

            1 local cop in Hicksville, Arkansas who is rude to a homeless guy shitting on the street is way more of a threat to liberty than the application of force at a State or Federal level to deny rights guaranteed by the constitution and create tame little subjects.

        3. And I’m sure they’ll trample all over the 4th amendment in the process.

          Reason really needs an article on what’s happening in VA.

        4. How many want to bet Antifa will show up to silence the “racist” gun owners and turn this into a real shit show that the media will blame on gun owners and not Antifa.

          Also I want proof that there have been threats of violence, there is no reason to believe their deep state intelligence

          1. Your usage of “intelligence” requires sarcasm quotes.

            1. Whenever someone mentions government intelligence I assume sarcasm is taken for granted but you know what they say about those who assume.

          2. Yeah, shit posting on social media seem to the their proof. I’d hate to see what happens if they have an X-box gamer convention in VA.

    3. I don’t really keep up on the news, so I didn’t realize what was going on so I searched it. Interesting to see the two different spins on it.

      The Vice headline is: “Virginia Declares State of Emergency After Armed Militias Threaten to Storm the Capitol”

      The CBS headline is: “Virginia governor declares state of emergency in advance of pro-gun rally near state Capitol”

    4. Seriously, it’s completely nuts. And every small- and big-“L” I’ve talked to in the DC area recently agrees.

      Reason is really, really fucking up.

    5. The governor declared the emergency under the powers of section 44-146 of Code of Virginia.

      He conveniently forgot section 44-146.15 (3):

      Nothing in this chapter is to be construed to:
      (3) Empower the Governor, any political subdivision, or any other governmental authority to in any way limit or prohibit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms except to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons;

      In other words, even under the state’s own rules, this absurd abuse of power is only allowable in emergency shelters, not anywhere the governor pleases. The governor’s order is specifically prohibited by the source of authority he cites.

      VCDL had a hearing today challenging the order, but no word yet on the results.

  18. Speaking of hacked materials, when the DNC claims the Russians have hacked Burisma’s e-mail accounts, is there anybody here who doubts that this is merely a pre-emptive claim that any dirt on Democrats forthcoming from any investigations on Burisma is merely part of a phony Russian disinformation campaign? It’s like your kid meeting you at the door when you come home and pointedly telling you he’s been in his room all day and therefore if there’s a broken window in the living room he can’t possibly know anything about it.

    1. That is exactly what it is. Beyond that, anyone who claims to know that any intelligence service anywhere has hacked something and doesn’t have conclusive proof is almost certainly lying. The most guarded secret of any intelligence service is means and methods. Were the Russians able to hack into Burisma or the DNC or anywhere else, the last thing they would do is tell anyone they had. Once your enemy knows you are listening your ability to listen is no good anymore.

      1. the last thing they would do is tell anyone they had. Once your enemy knows you are listening your ability to listen is no good anymore.

        Clearly not true….. we were using Al Qaeda’s cell phones to track them and they told us all about it……


        But yea, let’s keep ignoring this

        1. The CIA didn’t volunteer that information to the world. The idea that the Russians would if they were hacking the DNC was always absurd.

          1. It makes any cyber attribution completely untenable.
            Can’t have anyone thinking for themselves, though

    2. Of course. Hello.

      All projection.

  19. If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend the Netflix mini series The Confession Killer. It is about Henry Lee Lucas. Lucas confessed to over 600 murders allowing cops from all over the country to clear unsolved cases. He was billed by the media as the worth serial killer in history. The only problem was that other than killing his mother when he was young and the two murders he was initially arrested for, he likely didn’t commit any of the murders he confessed to.

    The documentary is really well done. And I defy anyone to look at what happened to the DA in Waco who called bullshit on the Texas Rangers and their star serial killer to claim there is no such thing as a deep state and that the media doesn’t work hand in hand with it. The documentary tells a story so outrageous and unbelievable it could only be true because no one could ever make such a thing up.

    1. I watched one episode and got bored; thought it might just be serial killer porn. Maybe I need to watch the rest.

      1. I felt the same way after watching the first episode. I thought this guy is just a loser and this is just murder porn. So, I didn’t watch the rest for about a month. Then one day I was bored and decided to give it another chance and watch the second episode. The second episode things start to get very interesting. And the last three are just unbelievable.

        So give it another chance. Don’t judge it by the first hour. The one mistake they made was dragging his initial arrest and confession out too long. It should have been a four hour show with the first two hours combined and cut down into one hour.

    2. I took a class in college on documentaries. I found it fascinating. It showed different techniques that can be used to make something very convincing while being totally untrue. Some of the films we watched were ‘The Eternal Jew,’ ‘Nanook of the North,’ and ‘Rush to War.’ Since then I view all documentaries with extreme skepticism. I ask questions like “What did they omit? What did they embellish? What did they make up? What manipulative tools did they use?”

      I’m not saying that what you watched was right, wrong, or something in between. I’m saying that I don’t trust documentaries, especially when they have an obvious agenda.

      1. The Waco DA ended up going to trial against the feds facing 80 years in prison and was acquitted on all charges. He then won the largest libel and slander verdict in US history against the TV station whom the DOJ leaked his alleged crimes to. He was a public figure and he still won a slander suit against the media. Think about that.

        And Lucas ended up on death row but was the only man whose death sentence George W. Bush commuted as governor. That is a fact and tells you everything you need to know about the validity of his confessions.

        You are right. No film is ever the full truth. And some films are downright lies. This one, however, is pretty truthful.

      2. Who ever did the marketing for documentaries is a genius.

        They’ve convinced people that docs = truth.

        They’re just artistic narratives and twists of the truth and reality.

        See that jack ass Michael Moore.

        1. Joseph Goebbels?

        2. Not every documentary is the type of garbage Moore makes. Some documentaries are the best record of the events we have. I don’t think it is fair at all to write off documentaries as fiction.

          1. I watched ‘They Shall Not Grow Old’ recently. It’s a Peter Jackson documentary on WWI. It’s excellent. Highly recommended.

            The one you mentioned sounds to me like an argument made by the defense without the counterpoint from the prosecution. I haven’s seen it, which is why I said “sounds like,” however I did watch ‘Making a Murderer.’ First one anyway. While being convincing it also smelled like bullshit. So I’m mixed. Yeah, historical documentaries that aren’t pushing a political agenda can be great. But if there’s an agenda, be it politics or related to something criminal, I just don’t trust it.

            1. This is totally different than making of a murder. And the argument didn’t come from his defense. The thing fell apart because the families of the victims whose murders Lucas was confessing to and the police were saying were now solved called bullshit. The families themselves started looking into it and found out that Lucas was known to be hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles away from the murders he was confessing to.

              The movie is not about Lucas and showing he was innocent. The movie is about how the Texas Rangers and police around the country used a nut who would confess to anything to close hard cases and avoid doing their jobs.

              1. I read about that guy. Hm. I may watch it. Then again maybe not. Watching police, real ones not ‘Bad Boys,’ tends to make me want to throw something at the tv or do an Elvis. I literally can’t watch Cops.

                1. Lucas was a murderer and basically a dirtbag. But, he was a garden variety dirtbag. What made it interesting was the incompetence and outright corruption of the police in getting him to confess to so many murders. That is what the film is about and why it is interesting.

                  1. Typical theme of cops don’t care if a confession is a lie, coerced, or true, so long as they have one and can get brownie points for “solving” a case. Am I far off?

                    1. Wayne Williams. Being from the Atlanta area, I’m familiar with the coverage of the AJC – the same paper implicated in the Richard Jewell case – and, even at the time, the skepticism that Wayne Williams was a mass murderer responsible for all the dead and missing little black kids when a more likely explanation for the sudden revelation of just how many dead and missing little black kids there were was that neither the Atlanta PD nor the AJC was all that concerned about dead and missing kids as long as they were black. Wayne Williams sure was a convenient excuse to close a lot of cases that had never really been investigated.

                    2. Worse is when the judiciary backs it up. The Mississippi cases with Stephen Hayne were the most egregious. After his repeated and obvious “testilying” was brought to light, the courts still found that a potentially innocent man had no case because “He may have been wrong in the past, even many times in the past, but there is no proof that he was wrong in this instance”. (or words to that effect).

                      As in the FISA cases, the bulwark against the government abuse of power and steamrolling of our rights that is supposed to be the judiciary has a tendency to side with its employer instead of the citizenry.

                    3. I was living in Atlanta at the time of the Williams case. I haven’t really heard that take.

                      What I remember is that all of the AJC and police profilers were telling us that serial killers like this are unassuming white males. This one is probably racist. And maybe gay, but repressed. That sort of thing.

                      There was a very strong “look at all the racist murders” thread – comparing and contrasting with little blond girls stuck in wells being national obsessions.

                      Then it turns out the killer was a black dude. Suddenly the coverage dries up. Nobody wants to talk about that anymore. Especially not the people who were looking for a race narrative to peddle.

                      I do remember some of those folks expressing skepticism – but it seemed to be based in “it has to be a white guy” more than “this guy who definitely killed a couple of adults and some kids but we don’t have enough evidence that he killed all of these kids”.

                      A quick check of Wikipedia shows there is a dedicated group of “it was a white coverup” people on the case. But at the time it was definitely only his defense team and race-baiting activists who were on the “it wasn’t him, it was the klan” bandwagon. Their only evidence seems to be “they didn’t prove most of these cases”. Which is almost certainly true- but also isn’t evidence of Klan conspiracies any more than it is evidence of alien abductions. Gwinette and Cobb might have been run by white politicians at the time, but Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb weren’t. And Atlanta is where the bulk of the stuff happened. So I’m not buying it as a white conspiracy.

                2. Bad Boys…

                  They caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage, put countless lives in danger, and invaded Cuba… to catch an Xtacy dealer.

            2. Yes! = ‘They Shall Not Grow Old’. It’s a Peter Jackson documentary on WWI. It’s excellent.

              I agree – it was just phenomenal.

              1. I suppose it had an agenda in pointing out the absurdity of war, but that’s an agenda I can’t argue with.

                1. I didn’t see an agenda. It was just an amazing movie.

                  1. The best documentaries are the ones where they don’t know what the story is before they make it. They just start collecting stories and then the film’s structure just reveals itself.

                    I’d argue that any documentary about war that takes that approach is going to come out with an “absurdity of war” thread in there somewhere.

          2. I agree but all documentarians have their own story to tell. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to not play fancy fast loose (whatever the saying is) with the truth or facts.

            I think Ken Burns is a little like that.

            As an aside, in his Civil War doc, did he mention what the Democrats did with Nixon’s negotiated victory deal with Vietnam? I didn’t see it.

            Just curious.

            1. dude…. Nixon comes way, way after the Civil War. And I’m not sure, but I don’t think Vietnam was involved in the negotiations either.

  20. As the Trump administration starts implementing the safe third country agreements they reached with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the lawsuits are coming out of the woodwork. The lastest from the ACLU includes this example:

    “Among them is the story of the lawsuit’s namesake, U.T., a gay man identified only by his initials, who fled from El Salvador after allegedly being threatened by an MS-13 gang member.

    Fearing he would be attacked or killed for his sexual orientation if he tried to live openly as a gay man in his home country, U.T. made the arduous journey to the U.S. border, passing through Guatemala, where he said he was subjected to homophobic harassment.

    Once he arrived at the U.S. border, U.T. told rights groups, he was told he was being removed to Guatemala, where he said he fears he will face homophobic persecution.”

    It would be wrong for us to support these safe third country agreements on the basis of questioning the legitimacy of this man’s claims. Rather, we should look at the fact that for every person the ACLU digs up that has a legitimate claim for asylum, more than 90% of the rest that were flooding our border circa May of 2019 were for reasons that had nothing to do with persecution, which is why they were either denied an asylum hearing or had their claims rejected by a judge in the U.S. or never showed up to their hearing. The policies that thin those phony non-persecution asylum claims out of the system is of great benefit to people like this man, who appears to be fleeing genuine persecution.

    We should also remember that this man has not been denied asylum in the United States because of the safe third country agreement Trump negotiated with Guatemala. Rather, he is simply required to apply for asylum in Guatemala first. If Guatemala refuses to offer him asylum or he has reason to believe that he is likely to face persecution in Guatemala as well, he is entitled to apply for asylum in the United States. He just needs a ruling in Guatemala first or a basis to claim a legitimate fear of persecution in Guatemala before he is entitled to an asylum hearing in the U.S.

    1. I have been reliably informed that the US is a deeply homophobic and racist country. He’d better hang out in Guatemala where they’re just homophobic.

      1. I know, right? The Team D assholes have been telling us for years that we live in a racist, mysogynistic, homophobic country. A wonder why anyone would want to come here.

        You don’t think these Team D politicians are…..lying, do you? 🙂

        1. Not to mention the only country where shootings happen.

          Why would people fleeing violence in El Salvador flee to somewhere where they could get shot?

  21. A woman is suing after the Drug Enforcement Administration seized more than $80,000 in cash from her for no good reason.

    The burden of proof is on the money. It needs to prove that it wasn’t acquired through illegal economic activity. If it cannot, then it is guilty.

    1. Since the munny was found in the possession of a woman, clearly the munny is guilty of sex trafficking. Throw the evil stuff in jail.


    Illegal immigrant crossings fall 78%. It looks like moral hazards don’t magically disappear when you are talking about immigrants. Amazing.

    1. Hmmm… and the economy is booming…..


      Could it be that an explicitly implicit open doors policy contributed to illegal immigration, and an explicitly implicit closed doors policy contributed to the reversal of this trend?

  23. I binge watched something really out of left field… Cheer, a documentary about the Navarro junior college cheer program. In addition to having a great story about an extremely driven coach and kids who have won many, many national championships, the team featured several “at risk” type teens.

    One dovetailed into the trafficking story. She was a runaway teen who “made bad decisions” and was getting a second chance to put her feet on the right path with this elite cheer program and the very demanding coach. As a part of her backstory and arc, she was dealing with someone publishing sexual pictures of her from when she was 16 in a twitter bullying campaign.

    The coach called in the police and they went after the publisher with potential felony child pornography charges. Of course, as our story above goes, she could easily have found an unsympathetic DA who came after her also.

    It was interesting that so many non-cheer topics came up – christian ideas of redemption, tough love, social acceptance, bullying, generic “tough background” stories made real (one kid was abandoned by her father in a trailer home as a middle schooler and lived alone for a long time, one was sexually abused, one was a runaway that presumably had prostitution in her background…)

    I was surprised that I got sucked in to it. It had many angles that were worth discussing after the show.

    1. I watched the ones on the junior college football teams. They are also compelling and touch on much bigger issues like you say. In the end, real people are often more interesting than even the best fiction.

    2. “The coach called in the police and they went after the publisher with potential felony child pornography charges. Of course, as our story above goes, she could easily have found an unsympathetic DA who came after her also.”

      Not when you’re the biggest fish in a small pond in Texas.

      That Navarro college is a big deal in a small town. The college runs that town. If you’re a teen who’s being exploited by someone in a position of power at the college, the DA might not come runnin’ and might charge you with a crime instead.

      If the DA cares because the college got involved and wanted something done, that doesn’t impress me. If the DA goes against the biggest fish in the pond, that’ll impress me. I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not the way things work in small towns and even less so in small towns in Texas.

  24. “If the decision makers are sitting around the table and they say, ‘we’ve got Candidate A who’s 35’ and ‘we’ve got Candidate B who’s 55 and is a Boomer’ — and is probably tired and you know, doesn’t have a lot of computer skills, I think that absolutely would be actionable. “

    “Actionable”, like in HATE SPEECH!!

  25. I came across the Cheer documentary because I watched the Rush documentary recommended by my fellow libertarian Rush fans.

    It is really good… well worth watching. They had footage of the band as teens and interviews with parents and friends from that time. Now I understand why they appealed to us so much. They are us. Complete nerds who also happen to be amazing and driven musicians.

    Money “nerd” quote from Gene Simmons… Kiss and Rush had been touring together for about 18 months and Gene says (paraphrasing) “I told them there are hot women everywhere.. you can get laid every night! What are you doing? And they’d just go back to their hotel rooms and read books. I thought they were gay.. but no… they just don’t like to be around people that much. They prefer to be by themselves and read.”

    I never would have guessed that they were that shy. Geddy and Alex just fake it for the fans. Peart couldn’t bring himself to do that much… just not comfortable around people. “I can’t pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend”

    So thanks for the recommendation. I ended up putting on 2112 and Exit Stage left and being transported back to another time when I was another person.

    1. xm27 all week has been all Rush. still haven’t heard one i didn’t like.

    2. I saw that interview with Simmons in some Rush documentary I watched on Amazon. Simmons is funny as hell. “What the hell are you guys into? Each other? Animals? What?”

      1. Yep. That’s the one.

        I was never a Kiss fan, but I have learned a lot from Gene Simmons.

        He was the first guy that explained to me that music is an entertainment business. I was a musician, and I took all of the “from the heart” stuff seriously. No compromise, etc.

        In his “school of rock” TV reality show I learned a ton about the business. He showed me that being a good singer has jack squat to do with being a successful music act. He said a good front man is all about showmanship. He talked about people coming to be entertained, not coming to listen to a music theory class.

        It was really revealing, both as to how the world works and as to how he has been so successful.

        Now I’m a big fan, because of his candor in sharing the nuts and bolts of becoming successful. I think they are applicable for any business you want to start.

        1. I am a big fan of Simmons personally but I still think his band sucked and sucked bad. But he is a very smart and interesting guy.

  26. In “woke news”, NPR has a whole page dedicated to articles about more diverse representation in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

    This article about women who should be in the rock hall of fame is typical. It is a list of 41 women who they think should be in the Rock hall of fame. Almost none are from the Rock and Roll genre or any of its offshoots. But that ship has apparently sailed.

    Many are just “no way”. They think Bjork should be in the Rock hall of fame. I mean, that’s not even good. (Sorry reason, I know you sometimes think weird is equivalent to great) But it is the “Woke” that prickles.

    Here’s an example:

    Barbra Streisand: Inducting La Barbra would make great strides in eradicating the prejudices against pop that long concealed sexism and, to some extent, racist tendencies within the Hall. (Disco is black music, friends.)

    Got that? It is racist tendencies that keep Barbara freaking Streisand out of the Rock and Roll hall of fame….. WTF?

    Because, now get this…. because “disco is black music”.

    Holy shit.

    Uh… you folks do know that Rock and Roll is black music, right?

    I can’t even with these woke folk… can you even? Because I can’t even.

    1. >>Disco is black music, friends.

      Barry Gibb on line one.

    2. Well they just admitted Janet Jackson last year and Whitney Houston will be this year. I don’t mean to diminish from their talent (Whitney has an amazing voice), but point to one song by either artist that could even remotely be construed as “rock and roll.”

      Meanwhile, Pat Benetar would be an obvious choice if they were looking for diversity. I probably wouldn’t even complain about Sheryl Crow or Carol King. The rest of the list? There isn’t a rock song among them.

      1. Pat Benetar not being in already belies the fraud.

      2. The Runaways? They’re not good enough?

        The Eurythmics?

        Cyndi Lauper? Grace Jones?

    3. I should add, the Rock and Roll HOF is vastly overrated. It’s pretty small. The watering down of inductees recently to include pop stars simply takes away from what rock music fans want to see. They are ignoring the fan vote on recent inductions, which is absurd.

      1. Agreed.

        My point was more “they are wrong – and for all the wrong reasons” more than the Rock and Roll HoF is right.

        They should have created a pop hall of fame next door. And a hiphop hall of fame. And, and and…..

        They could have branded the whole thing under a “Music Hall of Fame” umbrella and created something much bigger.

        But putting Patti Labelle in next to Chuck Barry and The Rolling Stones and Metallica is just silly. She’s great, but that ain’t rock and roll. But as I said… that ship has sailed.

        But if you are going to have a generic “popular musicians hall of fame”, at least have all of the inductees be truly one of the all-time greats. Having two pop hits off your second album and then fading away doesn’t qualify in my book. Winger may be rock… but that ain’t HoF material. The same goes for the not-rock on that list.

    4. The Sugarcubes were revolutionary in their time, and Bjork is an amazing talent. If Bjork were inducted into the Hall of Fame, I suspect she’d do what the Sex Pistols did: tell them to go fuck themselves.

      If Barbara Streisand’s only connection to rock and roll is through disco, then disco is antagonistic to rock and roll. Disco was the destruction of rock and roll. Punk rock was the revival of rock and roll against shit like Barbara Streisand’s disco. Putting Barbara Streisand in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame would be like putting a statue of Hitler up in the Museum of Tolerance.

      Boomers have been trying to keep everything relevant to them since forever. Whenever something is happening that isn’t relevant to them, they gotta find some part of it that is–and pretend like that’s the part that matters. I’ve long suspected this is why they latched onto REM the way they did. REM was one of dozens of indie bands of more or less equal stature when the boomer press latched onto them. The only reason they got as big as they were was because the boomers could relate to them. They’re kinda like Bob Dylan–see, we aren’t completely irrelevant!

      These are the same people who want to put Barbara Streisand in the Hall of Fame, and they want to do it for the same reasons.

  27. >>expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support

    am frightened?

  28. Under federal law, anyone under age 18 who engages in prostitution is defined as a victim of sex trafficking, regardless of whether an actual trafficker exists.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  29. I don’t think I can express how little I care about teen runaways whoring themselves out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.