John Oliver and Civil Forfeiture

Last Week Tonight again touches on troubling processes in the United States. This time around, Civil Forfeiture.

Through it, police are supposed to be able to confiscate and use resources from criminals.

But that's not how it's actually used much of the time...

I think one police chief put it well.

Pennies from heaven?

They want to buy stuff...for vital police work, honest.

And to get the money the want, they just target people who are carrying money and aren't going to be able to push back. It's netted police forces more billions of dollars.

Police will actually quiz people about if they are carrying any large sums of cash. There's an eagerness to find a big jackpot. Ka Ching!

Then there's the houses taken, and the cars taken. It seems rather easy to snatch up property from people.

Tens of thousands of these people go on to face no charges. They are expected to just move along. But they aren't getting the cash back. But if they are lucky they may pay a fine to get back some property. Of course efforts to get back property mean facing an adversarial system.

How is this not troubling to more people? How are people not outraged to have laws like this on the book? How is this not called corruption?

As a final word. Tenny Mucho Mucho Dinero In Su Trucky-Trailer?

Bundy Ranch: The Takers Come Home To Roost

The most patriotic anti-American patriot ever.

...I probably should have made that a cattle reference. Still, Clive Bundy doesn't make much of any sense either.

A rancher in Nevada, Bundy has taken it upon himself to skip out on paying grazing fees for his cattle over the past 20 years. These fees were being paid by his neighbors as needed, and by any other rancher in the country.

It's a simple enough idea. You want additional grass and scrub for your cattle. So you can make a deal with a neighbor, to allow your cattle on their land for awhile to eat. As part of the deal you may agree about how long they can stay, or you can pay for the use of the land.

It seems very friendly and simple. It seems rather capitalistic.

But not to Bundy. He seems to have decided that since the land is owned by the government, he can use it at will for whatever reasons he decides. And when he's asked to pay his fees, he refuses. And when he goes to court looses, he still refuses. And when he looses again in court, he refuses...You see how this is going.

He's a cheat. He currently owes around one million dollars. (Imagine how nicely you'd be treated if you refused to pay that amount of money to the government.)

CISPA: Bad law on bad.

In considering CISPA in the last piece I mentioned SOPA, the last iteration of these efforts to broaden government access and control of personal information. It managed to scare and anger many. And with numerous powerful online and tech interest opposed, it was given a lot of unwanted attention that helped lead to its demise in Congress. 

It was overly broad law. It was bad law. It was unpopular law, with the industrial deep pockets elected figures like to please.

So the lesson the lobbyist and Congressional supporters took away from that fight was to make it more palatable to industry. Nothing else really changed. Bad bill language stayed. Broad powers stayed. It just shows an interesting level of cluelessness.

Now, it was politician smart. They don't want to have to get yelled at by the businesses they rely on for fundraising. So it's a no lose fight to their reelection campaigns.

But this cluelessness does have impact. SOPA would have been bad law, like CISPA before it, and now. But other like law are already on the books. Like CFAA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This law is outdated 80's law against computer hacking (Hey. Remember all those bad 80's hacking movies? It's that old a law.). But it is badly worded and outdated law. This is the law that was used all too recently to hound a rather young and brilliant civil liberties advocate (and vocal opponent of SOPA) Aaron Schwartz for relatively benign activity. But under this law the DA was trying to put him in prison for decades (Because it was the law...kinda.). (And those efforts sadly led to his suicide.) It was punitive action through bad law.

CFAA is exactly an example about why we do need legislation, new legislation, for cybersecurity. Things do need to change. And PIPA, SOPA, and CISPA are examples of why it has to be GOOD law, SOUND law, and INTELLIGENT law; all things these bills are not. We need change, but these laws based more on paranoia and control will not do the job. Our law crafters have to do better.

CISPA is just too vague in how it will be applied, much like CFAA. It will inevitably be used poorly and people will be made to unfairly suffer. And now before it is law is the time to act. Congress needs to do a better job. Looking at CFAA, even many changes suggested for it focus more on increasing punishments and making the violations of the act a more vague and unclear matter. The legislators making the decisions here are not doing a good. job. They have to do better. We have to make them do better, particularly as all the loud voices with the deep pockets are walking away from the fray. It is up to us.

Get informed. Get involved.

I also wanted to note that in passing CISPA through the House of Representatives, even some good Democratic representatives supported it (like Duckworth). The backers of CISPA are spending a lot and schmoozing a lot to ensure it gets supported. This includes overselling it's national security value. So, I think, it would be a good idea to reach out to your representative in Congress (and contact your senators to) and let them know what you think about CISPA and why you don't want it to pass. We to can make them informed voters (in Congress).

It is likely it won't pass the senate. And the president has said he would veto it. But, as I've pointed out, it will be back. And our representatives need to be ready and understand our concerns when it does. They may even, if informed, be able to amend it to be good law. But it starts with us.

What's next? Emergency managers appointed for every pregnancy? *UPDATED 2*

I am creating this post so as to not keep updating the older post on how Republicans continue to cut away at women's access to abortion.

The GOP is eager to fill the map below. And even then this has quickly become outdated.

Source

North Dakota has passed an Personhood Amendment through it's legislature. So it now moves to the ballot in 2014, for people to vote on. So it isn't enforceable yet, but we will see how voters in the state go to the polls. (And, it's another reminder of how much we need people to actually get out and vote next year. This type of law is on ballots all over the country.) Granted, this and North Dakota's other draconian law on fetal heartbeats should never pass judicial muster. But they still pass these laws. Tennessee is also pushing an amendment in 2014. They push and push at the perimeters of people's rights. They see how far they can go and not get push back. Then try and set a standard from which they can push further. 2nd Trimester. 28 Weeks. 12 Weeks. 6 Weeks. Conception. Pushing and pushing the rights of women back.

They have to be made to see the country does not want this dreck. We need to respect the needs of women when they make decisions about their own bodies. To do this we need people in office who will defend rights. And we need to go to the ballots (every time they open) and vote to defend our rights.

Because the GOP is fighting hard to on this. Let's hearken back to Kansas with it's recent additional moves to go after access to abortion. We know the GOP's newest bill is pretty severe. They want to give rights to fertilized eggs. They want to be sure women get no aid. They want doctors to tell women lies about abortion. They are trying to create such hardship.

So, to soften the blow of this bill, Democrats tried to offer up amendments. Amendments like giving some consideration to rape survivors, to be sure they get the services they need and want. But, no. Republicans, almost unanimously, voted to block any compassion in their rather cruel bill.

Kansas, you may also remember, is also one of the states where Republicans pushed in conscious clauses to let pharmacist choose to not sell women birth control. Even birth control is a controversy with Republicans. This is what the GOP wants. This what they want for you. To cut women off from basic medical services and medicines they don't like. And we've been dealing with this for half a century.

But, I also want to acknowledge the Republicans (the few Republicans) who have stood up to these moves. Like the governor of Arkansas before them, they point to the pointless expense of defending these doomed laws. But I am starting to think that's just the excuse and cover they're choosing to make the moral and right decisions. Pity they aren't representing folks who'd respect that stand.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Kansas ain't done yet!

They are now trying to rush through ANOTHER anti-abortion bill, right as the session is getting ready to close. Like North Dakota, they are racing to pass a fetal heartbeat law, to further limit access to abortion (How many lawsuits do Republicans want to put their states through anyway?). They are giving people  24 hours notice on the public hearing on the bill. They waited and want to race this through, so they can get into line for getting sued. All so, they hope so badly, they can deny women access to a legitimate medical procedure.

This is the stuff the GOP focuses on. This is their priority.


AND MORE:

Washington Post has a nice graphic to show how across the country access to abortion gets denied, by weeks.

Media does us no favors in their coverage of Steubenville. *UPDATED*

So you know and are warned, I will be using the term rape a lot in this piece. It's to emphasize a point that the term and the fact it occurred in the Steubenville case is getting glossed over, ignored, or treated as irrelevant. If it is an issue for you/causes you trouble/triggers, apologizes. But that's why I wanted to begin with a warning.


This weekend we finally had a conclusion to the much discussed trial in Steubenville, Ohio.

So, now, I debate what I can add to this result. What has to be said?

I could let the verdict stand as a final statement. But, from news to twitter trolls, people have rushed to say everything that didn't need saying, on the topic of rape to the victim herself. So many people raced to seemingly show us rape culture is alive and well in this country.

Online, many have been eager to denounce the girl raped for drinking, for being in the wrong company, for talking up. Cruelty has come quick and fast. And the point for some people is that she is in the wrong. Or, that her choices make her the one that is guilty. Or, that the true victims are the boys that assaulted and raped this girl.

CNN surprised us all by leading the way on this. As the trial results were announced and as they were being digested, CNN got to the heart of the matter.

It is just galling. There has been a bizarre obsession with these boys, who raped a girl repeatedly, carried her around, showed her off, took photos of their acts, and sent messages around bragging...But yeah, this is really rough them.

It is an amazing bit of journalism. (Particularly Crowley, who says they were found guilty of "rape essentially". What is that? Real rape? Rape rape? Legitimate rape?) But the weird disconnect is troubling. How do they see the events of the night of the crime? How about the lead up to trial? Or the trial itself? Was it all about these boys being put through an ordeal? What is it they think happen to this girl that was attacked? Who has had to relive the attack at trial? And, now is under continuing risk and threat by the city around her, even her former friends.

But, yeah, these rapist had the raw deal. Football stars, with hopes of college success, now quashed...How does this become your takeaway? Is it because they're young? Boys? Successful?

Is it that they were boys being boys? That they were celebrating? That they were having fun? That it just went a bit far? And, if only?

I am at a loss. They made a choice. And over the course of hours they made choice after choice to continue and compound their crimes. But so many media folk just wept for these boys.

And that has an effect. That effect is that it says it's too bad they had to be put on trial for what happen. It's too bad they have to pay for what happen. It's too bad they are being given a hard time for what happen. And it takes us away from what happen. They raped someone.

But for some people, that isn't what happen. And as you watch people on the news avoid using the word rape, as you see people online call this girl a liar, you see the culture that birthed the mind of Todd Akin. It's a culture that embraces ignorance, fears and is suspicious of women, and sees women that survive rape as contemptible.

Rape is a serious and severe issue. But the media and public is uncomfortable with it. How bothered are we all about the frequency of rape in the military? Are we still laughing at the lazy punchline of a man being raped in prison? Do communities angrily rally around sports teams, coaches, and stars when their are accusations of rape?

Source

And the media is not helping. It makes the token effort, but then falls down on the job in fighting the rape culture narrative. Look at the media giants you can list beside CNN that have looked at this story as a matter of the victim causing trouble or being to blame. ABC, NBC, Yahoo, AP, and USA Today. She's tearing her town apart. She was drunk. Social media is such a problem. No. Rape is a problem, a crime even. If they hadn't made the decision to rape they would be looking to college now. But, no. They chose to rape. They chose to assault and abuse a girl and then show no remorse, but brag about it.



Along with this, since the trial, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX have all now played statements from the guilty in which they use the name of the victim of their crimes. This is an underage girl who, until now, had had her name withheld by the media to protect her privacy, and keep her safe from those that are threatening her. So the 3 premier cable news networks have all outed this girl to additional scrutiny and danger. Brilliant work, asses. It's just more callousness from the media on this case.

The media has let us down quite a bit on this case. We expect more. We need better.


_____________
ADDENDUM:

I appreciated this piece looking at what we've seen of a CNN reaction to the reaction to the Steubenville coverage. CNN's reaction has been to just shrug. Apparently Harlow is shocked that people read her coverage as being one-sided. And, as a woman, she doesn't know why someone would think she would slant her coverage.

But that is what comes from being inside the bubble. It's like what happens in Washington or when reporters get embedded with the military. The lot of the media became entrenched in the attitude of Steubenville, which is pretty toxic.

As well:

... 

I don’t particularly care that Poppy Harlow and Candy Crowley are women. Gender is not an excuse and it’s disgusting to use it to dismiss valid criticisms. Women contribute to victim blaming and rape culture too but they reallyshould know better. Harlow and Crowley made a very big mistake by airing that segment. 

I’m sure they didn’t intend to come off the way they did but their intentions don’t particularly matter. What they did was contribute to rape culture.Period. The reason both need to apologize, however, is because they aren’t even aware of this. They can’t see how their segment was harmful and disrespectful. That’s a problem. With this case in Steubenville, many people have finally discovered that we don’t know that much about rape culture, victim blaming, or even rape itself. If we want to start combating sexual violence in a meaningful way, then we need to hold people accountable and completely stomp out rape culture and victim blaming. No one gets a pass because of their gender or anything else. 

...

That is the thing about rape culture. It isn't just men raping, or men dismissing rape. Women make up more than half of the human population, so if they weren't taking part in rape culture, it really would be a different problem.

So, yeah, women do take part. Some judge others, and condemn them, for not living the right way or for "letting themselves" be attacked. Some embrace cultural narratives, that put lower priority on the experience of women in the some occurrences of rape (A "drunk girl" has ruined the lives of two boys.). And when women do these things it's just as unacceptable as when men do this.

Maybe Harlow, and Crowley, are oblivious to how they came off to their audience. But that doesn't mediate the effect they have. They helped enforce this toxic culture. And that's why I am happy that people are being pissed off at it, and being sure to be heard. The comments made last week by the media cannot be allowed to be the final word.