It's easy to find character flaws in people, so it's refreshing to find and share stories about selflessness and compassion. What may have begun as a self-serving exercise, this generous individual turned his personal misfortune into life changing tools for children.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Unfucking our educational system
The public has been brainwashed into thinking that voting for more money in a fucked up education system will somehow, magically, unfuck it.
School boards and administrators are politicians and operate in much the same way as the ones in the state assembly and in DC. They're wined & dined by organizations desperate to suck on the enormous teat of the taxpayers. Teachers are organized into packs whose mission is to benefit teachers, and in no way concern themselves with higher learning or figuring out a better way to impart wisdom for our future.
How can that model ever be anything but massively dysfunctional and corrupt?
I'm tired of hearing the big education thinkers using terms like "at grade level" when there's absolutely no evidence showing kids learn better while in lock-step with peers of the differing intellect. A child learns based on his or her own cognitive abilities and the learning resources available and it's intuitive that no two kids are alike. Therefore assigning a rigid grade level to a child is completely arbitrary.
The starve-or-struggle grade-level system insures no kid will learn on pace with his or her cognitive ability. One child will always complete a module early and find himself board, while another will always struggle to keep pace with the class and eventually give up. It makes no sense to try to force their instruction into the arbitrary constructs we have built and selected for them.
On the other hand, systems like Khan Academy [www.khanacademy.org] can facilitate learning at one's own pace. That's a conversation this country should have sooner rather than later.
Part of the problem is thinking in terms of centralized instruction (and food prep and authority) as opposed to more evenly and accessible distributed systems throughout the community. Distributed models in all domains inherently have less bureaucracy and tyranny, and therefore offer more individual accountability resulting in less waste and corruption. This is a topic that deserves note here, but far more discussion in public forums.
A major factor is that teachers are unavoidably flawed. They're notoriously inconsistent from day to day, year to year and among classrooms across the nation. That means there are no consistent quality standards to ensure all kids have access to the country's best possible instruction -- but they definitely deserve it.
As a community and as a state and as a nation we should be able to objectively and openly produce the best of the best instructional materials and presentations and lectures and put them to work for the students.
And another not-so-impermanent thing: information is free. Why are we wasting so much money on that which is free? In any other domain we'd be appalled by how much information is locked behind paywalls which are put in place for the sole purpose of revenue generation on the backs of the people.
It's hard to define what education is today. It's part political, part institution, part incarceration, part indoctrination and part corporation. Kids learn better how to be reliant on and subservient to the totalitarian class instead of discovering how to be free-minded explorers.
One day not that long ago we had an educational system that was at its core a means to provide kids with a schoolhouse and the best information available, and that resulted in world class thinkers and doers of the industrial age. They were not institutions and their purpose was not to generate revenue or political power, but simply to help kids develop into contributing, productive members of the community and go out in the world as free people and invent and build new things and enrich the lives of our neighbors.
Today, instead of giving the children the smartest mind in town, a world class education could mean giving them the smartest minds in the world from which to develop their new found wisdom and places in our collective society, to invent and build new things to improve the lives of our neighbors.
So before you vote one more time to throw more money at an educational system in hopes that will finally unfuck it, put to the schoolmasters how they intend to leverage a modern infrastructure and a bounty of information into a world class education for all children.
School boards and administrators are politicians and operate in much the same way as the ones in the state assembly and in DC. They're wined & dined by organizations desperate to suck on the enormous teat of the taxpayers. Teachers are organized into packs whose mission is to benefit teachers, and in no way concern themselves with higher learning or figuring out a better way to impart wisdom for our future.
How can that model ever be anything but massively dysfunctional and corrupt?
I'm tired of hearing the big education thinkers using terms like "at grade level" when there's absolutely no evidence showing kids learn better while in lock-step with peers of the differing intellect. A child learns based on his or her own cognitive abilities and the learning resources available and it's intuitive that no two kids are alike. Therefore assigning a rigid grade level to a child is completely arbitrary.
The starve-or-struggle grade-level system insures no kid will learn on pace with his or her cognitive ability. One child will always complete a module early and find himself board, while another will always struggle to keep pace with the class and eventually give up. It makes no sense to try to force their instruction into the arbitrary constructs we have built and selected for them.
On the other hand, systems like Khan Academy [www.khanacademy.org] can facilitate learning at one's own pace. That's a conversation this country should have sooner rather than later.
Part of the problem is thinking in terms of centralized instruction (and food prep and authority) as opposed to more evenly and accessible distributed systems throughout the community. Distributed models in all domains inherently have less bureaucracy and tyranny, and therefore offer more individual accountability resulting in less waste and corruption. This is a topic that deserves note here, but far more discussion in public forums.
A major factor is that teachers are unavoidably flawed. They're notoriously inconsistent from day to day, year to year and among classrooms across the nation. That means there are no consistent quality standards to ensure all kids have access to the country's best possible instruction -- but they definitely deserve it.
As a community and as a state and as a nation we should be able to objectively and openly produce the best of the best instructional materials and presentations and lectures and put them to work for the students.
And another not-so-impermanent thing: information is free. Why are we wasting so much money on that which is free? In any other domain we'd be appalled by how much information is locked behind paywalls which are put in place for the sole purpose of revenue generation on the backs of the people.
It's hard to define what education is today. It's part political, part institution, part incarceration, part indoctrination and part corporation. Kids learn better how to be reliant on and subservient to the totalitarian class instead of discovering how to be free-minded explorers.
One day not that long ago we had an educational system that was at its core a means to provide kids with a schoolhouse and the best information available, and that resulted in world class thinkers and doers of the industrial age. They were not institutions and their purpose was not to generate revenue or political power, but simply to help kids develop into contributing, productive members of the community and go out in the world as free people and invent and build new things and enrich the lives of our neighbors.
Today, instead of giving the children the smartest mind in town, a world class education could mean giving them the smartest minds in the world from which to develop their new found wisdom and places in our collective society, to invent and build new things to improve the lives of our neighbors.
So before you vote one more time to throw more money at an educational system in hopes that will finally unfuck it, put to the schoolmasters how they intend to leverage a modern infrastructure and a bounty of information into a world class education for all children.
Raising the Minimum Wage is a good start
The quick serve franchise model in this country is one of the problems. They are the bottom feeders in our society; parasites by any definition. They produce nothing, but permeate our thoroughfares to suckle the teats of neighborhoods. The brand names tend to squeeze regional operators to leverage profits from the fruits of their uber-low-wage workforce. There is so little profit margin for operators that it’s not feasible to own just one McDonald's restaurant, nor is it in their revenue interests to pay a living wage. Not to mention the fact that they sell notoriously unhealthy meals.
States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.
But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.
Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.
The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).
Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.
The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.
It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.
Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.
You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.
But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?
Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.
Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.
States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.
But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.
Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.
The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).
Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.
The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.
It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.
Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.
You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.
But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?
Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.
Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Ten basic things everyone should know when cops want to talk
Whether you're pulled over by police or have an encounter on the sidewalk, here are some essential tips on how to preserve your rights.
If you want to know more, you can start with the landmark Supreme Court Miranda case associated with the Miranda Warning, the case that defined modern day stop-and-frisk encounters called Terry v. Ohio, or Brown v. Texas, which established stop-and-ID standards.
Understand that I'm an informal student of criminal law and not an attorney. This article represents a few of the things I've learned throughout my adult life. It's not legal advise by any stretch, but rather a launching pad for your own legal research.
I. It's insufficient to simply remain silent because police might construe that as uncooperative behavior.These tips are but a tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal law. The more you know, the better prepared and more confident you can be if you have a run-in with police. And please don't take these items as wholesale facts; please let them be a trigger to get you started with your own research.
II. In order to preserve your constitutional rights, you should never consent to forfeiting them.
III. By answering questions without the benefit of your lawyer, you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination and undermining your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
IV. By consenting to searches, you forfeit whatever shred of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search & seizure the Supreme Court hasn't yet eviscerated.
V. To preserve your 4th, 5th & 6th Amendment rights, say out loud that you refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer, and that you do not consent to any searches.
VI. A person’s refusal is insufficient cause for cops to suspect wrongdoing, which is the necessary legal justification for cops to detain you.
VII. If a cop can claim you committed an offence like speeding, he can then detain you long enough to write a summons. An offence also gives him adequate justification to demand your driver's license, insurance and registration. However he cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of the seizure (detention) without some other justification ... or your consent. Once the summons is signed, you are, de facto, free to go, so any subsequent encounter then becomes a voluntary (or consensual) one, to which you may refuse and politely depart.
VIII. Lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a cop can't legally detain you ... unless you consent to it. Also, if no offense has been committed, he cannot demand identification (except in states with stop-and-ID laws; but even there, 'reasonable articulable suspicion' of wrongdoing is still needed).
IX. A casual conversation is a consensual encounter, but you may only know whether it's consensual or not if you ask specifically whether you're free to go. A trial verdict can turn on that fact alone.
X. Cops can and do con citizens out of their rights in order to bolster their arrest metrics and standing in their respective departments.
If you want to know more, you can start with the landmark Supreme Court Miranda case associated with the Miranda Warning, the case that defined modern day stop-and-frisk encounters called Terry v. Ohio, or Brown v. Texas, which established stop-and-ID standards.
Understand that I'm an informal student of criminal law and not an attorney. This article represents a few of the things I've learned throughout my adult life. It's not legal advise by any stretch, but rather a launching pad for your own legal research.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
The cops have a plan for you
I've written about police encounters through the general advice of criminal defense attorneys and have shared a particular video that outlined one pretty important rule. You have the right to remain silent, so you should do it. The "Don't Talk to Cops" video was close to an hour. This lesson is not.
I've found another excellent video that covers the same essential bases, but it's much more condensed, yet well articulated and laid out. It's by defense attorney Mary Griego. Her basic message is that police have a plan for you, and that's to make you an informant ... against yourself. Your task is to have a plan of your own ... hopefully before cops come calling.
Instead of rehashing it in detail, I'll give you the recap version. When the cops come knocking, follow these steps to minimize the amount of evidence that is collected and used against you:
Griego suggests you create crime fantasies and practice with friends how you'd handle yourself when police knock on the door. She says to do it with your kids because minors also have civil rights.
Source: Ignite New Mexico. Tags: Albuquerque, New Mexico | Albuquerque Police Department (APD) | Bernalillo County Sherrif's Office (BCSO)
I've found another excellent video that covers the same essential bases, but it's much more condensed, yet well articulated and laid out. It's by defense attorney Mary Griego. Her basic message is that police have a plan for you, and that's to make you an informant ... against yourself. Your task is to have a plan of your own ... hopefully before cops come calling.
Instead of rehashing it in detail, I'll give you the recap version. When the cops come knocking, follow these steps to minimize the amount of evidence that is collected and used against you:
- Shut up! Please shut up!
- Stay shut up ... unless you're refusing consent, asking what you have to do, asking for your lawyer or giving your name and date of birth.
- Do as you're ordered and not as you're asked. Make sure you're not being conned into thinking you have to unless it's a command.
Griego suggests you create crime fantasies and practice with friends how you'd handle yourself when police knock on the door. She says to do it with your kids because minors also have civil rights.
Source: Ignite New Mexico. Tags: Albuquerque, New Mexico | Albuquerque Police Department (APD) | Bernalillo County Sherrif's Office (BCSO)
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Rights are like soil; mitigate erosion or lose them
I watched a video about a DUI checkpoint where the driver refused to answer questions and some of the subsequent comments were scathing. “All you had to say was that you hadn’t been drinking.” “Dude, you had your kid in the car, so you should have just cooperated.”
It disturbed me most to read some of those ignorant comments, so I made one of my own, thanking the person for posting the video.
[ Watch the video ]
This is how I feel when I believe our rights are being eroded. I see it as a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our fighting forces because the very thing that’s fashionable to say about them, that “they’re fighting for our freedom,” is completely and irretrievably lost if we continue to bow to those who believe they have authority over us, or who would regard our rights as optional and conditional.
Those of us who self-govern, and would never contemplate trespassing on the rights of others, behave ourselves because we feel it’s a moral obligation to fellow men and women.
As someone who grew up in an agricultural community, I liken our natural rights to the top soil of our land, both of which will erode unless we take careful and deliberate steps to mitigate it.
I thanked Corrie from the video because I see him as one of the good people who is helping to mitigate the erosion of our rights and is very deserving our thanks.
Throughout history, people have paid with their lives so that you might enjoy the freedoms for which they made the ultimate investment. No one is asking that you thank, or even recognize, those brave souls, but you might at least honor them with a little integrity.
Would you rob freedom from your fellow citizen freedom is you were paid to do so? Would you use artificial authority to oppress your neighbors?
Please think before you blindly relay an unjust warrant upon those you pretend to protect.
I will tell you that I cannot afford the cost of your protection if the cost is my freedom.
If the cost of your protection is my freedom, then keep it.
It disturbed me most to read some of those ignorant comments, so I made one of my own, thanking the person for posting the video.
[ Watch the video ]
Thank you, Corrie! In my opinion making an oath to the US Constitution means not conning or pressing people into forfeiting the very rights guaranteed by it, whether on a wholesale level such as this or individually. These suspicionless checkpoints are akin to the tactics British and Nazi officials used to use make people prove their innocence.
It's startling to see how many people that comment here lack even a basic understanding of American civics and why the revolutionary war was fought. Because our freedom was paid for with human lives throughout American history, the least we owe to that bravery is to not capitulate when someone with the government tries to trick us out of our just rights -- or at least not criticize people like you who exhibit the courage to stand your ground and refuse to capitulate.
This is how I feel when I believe our rights are being eroded. I see it as a slap in the face to anyone who ever served in our fighting forces because the very thing that’s fashionable to say about them, that “they’re fighting for our freedom,” is completely and irretrievably lost if we continue to bow to those who believe they have authority over us, or who would regard our rights as optional and conditional.
Those of us who self-govern, and would never contemplate trespassing on the rights of others, behave ourselves because we feel it’s a moral obligation to fellow men and women.
As someone who grew up in an agricultural community, I liken our natural rights to the top soil of our land, both of which will erode unless we take careful and deliberate steps to mitigate it.
I thanked Corrie from the video because I see him as one of the good people who is helping to mitigate the erosion of our rights and is very deserving our thanks.
Throughout history, people have paid with their lives so that you might enjoy the freedoms for which they made the ultimate investment. No one is asking that you thank, or even recognize, those brave souls, but you might at least honor them with a little integrity.
Would you rob freedom from your fellow citizen freedom is you were paid to do so? Would you use artificial authority to oppress your neighbors?
Please think before you blindly relay an unjust warrant upon those you pretend to protect.
I will tell you that I cannot afford the cost of your protection if the cost is my freedom.
If the cost of your protection is my freedom, then keep it.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
As we bicker with each other, we fail to notice the elephant in the room
I feel somewhat obsessed following some of the partisan bickering I encounter, although I can't say I have a stomach for it.
It sounds like some of you on the right are just as ignorant as your counterparts on the left; you both either have your heads in the sand or have been programmed by your favorite flavor of crony capitalist-owned media, who apparently manage public opinion and subsequent dialog -- which I'm sure is just as the absentee crony capitalists want it.
If they keep us fighting with each other, maybe we won't notice the elephant in the room.
On one end of the economy they pay their workers inequitable wages and on the other they steer Washington by the nose ring on tax (and other) policy, ensuring that they keep the wealth and the power to themselves. All the while we in the cheap seats get squeezed at both ends.
Look around. They don't live here. They're not your neighbors, they don't shop where you do, they don't go to your church, and they're definitely not your friends. They are, however, throwing lavish, celebrity-laced parties for your delegation.
But the poverty they are cultivating ultimately creates no demand ... and that's where we are headed as a collective, thanks to the gutless partisans we keep re-hiring.
It sounds like some of you on the right are just as ignorant as your counterparts on the left; you both either have your heads in the sand or have been programmed by your favorite flavor of crony capitalist-owned media, who apparently manage public opinion and subsequent dialog -- which I'm sure is just as the absentee crony capitalists want it.
If they keep us fighting with each other, maybe we won't notice the elephant in the room.
On one end of the economy they pay their workers inequitable wages and on the other they steer Washington by the nose ring on tax (and other) policy, ensuring that they keep the wealth and the power to themselves. All the while we in the cheap seats get squeezed at both ends.
Look around. They don't live here. They're not your neighbors, they don't shop where you do, they don't go to your church, and they're definitely not your friends. They are, however, throwing lavish, celebrity-laced parties for your delegation.
But the poverty they are cultivating ultimately creates no demand ... and that's where we are headed as a collective, thanks to the gutless partisans we keep re-hiring.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Poverty creates no demand
Every year I have to unload on Walmart. It may be a sickness, but please bear with me just the same. The doctor says it’s therapeutic.
When someone admits to you who they are on the inside, believe them.
According to Walmart's own numbers, they employ 1,300,000 people across the country. By my math, a worker likely making under $13,000 per year needs to recognize that the fruits of his or her labor are padding the pockets of its owners to the tune of $13 billion in pure profit.
Again, this is by Walmart's own admission. If you got out your calculator like I did, you probably figured out that $13 billion equates to an average of $10,000 per year skimmed from the pockets of each and every Walmart employee across this bountiful land. And these poor people are on welfare, which is, as you well know, an array of taxpayer-funded programs.
While a manager gets to make a living wage – or at least today's median salary – which is $50,000, how do you suppose you'd feel as an associate knowing your supervisor is making at least 3 times your salary? Or that another manager is earning more than a dozen times what you're paid? Do you suppose any manager does 3-12 times the work of an associate? Or earns for the coffers 3-12 times more in revenue?
But wait. Walmart says they’re good citizens and they give to charity.
That's partly true. They do say they give to charity. But not much. And at the end of the day they’re absolutely not giving of themselves because taxpayers subsidize the right-offs.
Here’s how it plays out with Walmart’s own figures: 21% of this workforce, or 275,000 8-dollar-an-hour Walmart associates, were asked to donate a day's work to charity. The value placed on that herculean effort by the Walmart execs is $18 million.
Do the math on the numbers Walmart provides: 2.2 million hours at $18 million. That comes to $8.18 per hour. At 8 hours a day, that's 275,000 worker days.
I know that $18 million is a lot of money to most, and that's by design. But it’s really only .004% of the company's share of the American dream they capture annually. Not 10%. Not even 1%. I said it right; I did the math three times. $18 million is.004% of Walmart’s revenues, which they donated in the form of ... well, they presumably sent a few of its employees to help clean up Habitat for Humanity building sites, undoubtedly sporting blue smiley-face t-shirts, for a day … at a rate of $8.18 per hour. All expenses paid, mind you, by the US taxpayer.
This is what Walmart freely admits to. They've provided all the rope they need to hang themselves -- right on their own website! All I'm doing is a little math to give it some context and real-world prospective.
They said their foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and "in-kind contributions around the world." That sounds pretty generous, right? Again, it's an impressive sum of generosity. But how much of that was actually cash and what portion was considered "in-kind"? And what precisely does "in-kind contributions" mean, anyway? Is that merchandise that fell out the backs of trucks? Floor scraps? And was it a tax write-off?
Bet on it.
Listen, if you think for a second that this might be a propaganda piece, then I invite you to go see the information with your own eyes: news.walmart.com/walmart-facts. (archived screenshot.)
I've heard a lot of arguments and many seem like logical points at first blush. Walmart employees should be happy to have jobs. No one is forcing them to work there. Lots of them get raises and promotions.
Well, that's sort of true. Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, told The Hill last month that the retailer promotes an average 430 staff per day. That’s basically true. I did the math. The precise daily average, using their figures, is 438.36 employees that are getting "jobs with more responsibility and higher pay."
I'll assume that's not an outright lie, but it might be veiling the real story. Isn’t it plausible, perhaps likely, that “higher” means some along the lines of 25-cents an hour – a measly $500 a year?
If the the details had been remotely impressive, we all know the Walmart spokesman would have shared a more revealing tale, but he remained ambiguous in his answers. If the average salary increase was $1 and 68% of employees got one, they'd be screaming that from the tallest buildings.
Lundberg says there are "...many associate positions that pay more than $25,000 per year." But again, the devil's in the details, isn't it? What percentage of non-supervisory associates earned more than $25,000 last year? Perhaps it's half of them. But more likely is closer to 50 people. And that would still qualify as a lot, even though it's only .00004% of their workers that can now afford to live in a trailer park instead of under the bridge thanks to the Walton family’s generosity.
The 'Hill' story’s here.
Hey, corporate America, in case you weren’t sure, poverty does in fact create no demand for the products and services you’re so incredibly proud of!
I believe more now than ever that the absentee big-box owners will not be satisfied until they lower the standard of living for everyone around the world. And eventually they will finally stop ... but only because it implodes from the very poverty it helped to create.
Meantime Walmart and others will wield their awesome power with schemes to force suppliers to all-new price lows, ensuring their places in the pockets of poor families' and the tax-payers who help feed them, as they continue to depress wages for workers, and of course continuing to enrich the absentee owners.
To conclude, I borrow the wise words of country music legends Alabama: “The fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay.”
I've changed the lyrics a little. I hope they don't mind.
There are people in this country who work hard every day
Not for fame or fortune do they strive
But the fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay
And it's time a few of them were recognized
Hello, Detroit Walmart tire & auto center workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
Hello, Pittsburgh Walmart warehouse workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
This is for the one who swings the broom, sweeping up the spill
Or the one behind the counter, ringing up the sale
Or the one who stocks the shelves, the one who polishes the rails
For everyone who works behind the scenes
You can see them every morning in the trucks and in the stores
In the city streets and the quiet country towns
Working together like spokes inside a wheel
They try to keep their families afloat
Hello, Kansas Walmart associates, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
Hello, West Virginia Walmart pharmacist, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
This is for the one who drives the big rig, up and down the road
Or the one out in the warehouse, bringing in the load
Or the waitress, the mechanic, the loss prevention specialist on patrol
For everyone who works behind the scenes
With a spirit you can't replace with no machine
Hello America, let me thank you for your time
When someone admits to you who they are on the inside, believe them.
According to Walmart's own numbers, they employ 1,300,000 people across the country. By my math, a worker likely making under $13,000 per year needs to recognize that the fruits of his or her labor are padding the pockets of its owners to the tune of $13 billion in pure profit.
Again, this is by Walmart's own admission. If you got out your calculator like I did, you probably figured out that $13 billion equates to an average of $10,000 per year skimmed from the pockets of each and every Walmart employee across this bountiful land. And these poor people are on welfare, which is, as you well know, an array of taxpayer-funded programs.
While a manager gets to make a living wage – or at least today's median salary – which is $50,000, how do you suppose you'd feel as an associate knowing your supervisor is making at least 3 times your salary? Or that another manager is earning more than a dozen times what you're paid? Do you suppose any manager does 3-12 times the work of an associate? Or earns for the coffers 3-12 times more in revenue?
But wait. Walmart says they’re good citizens and they give to charity.
That's partly true. They do say they give to charity. But not much. And at the end of the day they’re absolutely not giving of themselves because taxpayers subsidize the right-offs.
Here’s how it plays out with Walmart’s own figures: 21% of this workforce, or 275,000 8-dollar-an-hour Walmart associates, were asked to donate a day's work to charity. The value placed on that herculean effort by the Walmart execs is $18 million.
Do the math on the numbers Walmart provides: 2.2 million hours at $18 million. That comes to $8.18 per hour. At 8 hours a day, that's 275,000 worker days.
I know that $18 million is a lot of money to most, and that's by design. But it’s really only .004% of the company's share of the American dream they capture annually. Not 10%. Not even 1%. I said it right; I did the math three times. $18 million is.004% of Walmart’s revenues, which they donated in the form of ... well, they presumably sent a few of its employees to help clean up Habitat for Humanity building sites, undoubtedly sporting blue smiley-face t-shirts, for a day … at a rate of $8.18 per hour. All expenses paid, mind you, by the US taxpayer.
This is what Walmart freely admits to. They've provided all the rope they need to hang themselves -- right on their own website! All I'm doing is a little math to give it some context and real-world prospective.
They said their foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and "in-kind contributions around the world." That sounds pretty generous, right? Again, it's an impressive sum of generosity. But how much of that was actually cash and what portion was considered "in-kind"? And what precisely does "in-kind contributions" mean, anyway? Is that merchandise that fell out the backs of trucks? Floor scraps? And was it a tax write-off?
Bet on it.
Listen, if you think for a second that this might be a propaganda piece, then I invite you to go see the information with your own eyes: news.walmart.com/walmart-facts. (archived screenshot.)
I've heard a lot of arguments and many seem like logical points at first blush. Walmart employees should be happy to have jobs. No one is forcing them to work there. Lots of them get raises and promotions.
Well, that's sort of true. Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, told The Hill last month that the retailer promotes an average 430 staff per day. That’s basically true. I did the math. The precise daily average, using their figures, is 438.36 employees that are getting "jobs with more responsibility and higher pay."
I'll assume that's not an outright lie, but it might be veiling the real story. Isn’t it plausible, perhaps likely, that “higher” means some along the lines of 25-cents an hour – a measly $500 a year?
If the the details had been remotely impressive, we all know the Walmart spokesman would have shared a more revealing tale, but he remained ambiguous in his answers. If the average salary increase was $1 and 68% of employees got one, they'd be screaming that from the tallest buildings.
Lundberg says there are "...many associate positions that pay more than $25,000 per year." But again, the devil's in the details, isn't it? What percentage of non-supervisory associates earned more than $25,000 last year? Perhaps it's half of them. But more likely is closer to 50 people. And that would still qualify as a lot, even though it's only .00004% of their workers that can now afford to live in a trailer park instead of under the bridge thanks to the Walton family’s generosity.
The 'Hill' story’s here.
Hey, corporate America, in case you weren’t sure, poverty does in fact create no demand for the products and services you’re so incredibly proud of!
I believe more now than ever that the absentee big-box owners will not be satisfied until they lower the standard of living for everyone around the world. And eventually they will finally stop ... but only because it implodes from the very poverty it helped to create.
Meantime Walmart and others will wield their awesome power with schemes to force suppliers to all-new price lows, ensuring their places in the pockets of poor families' and the tax-payers who help feed them, as they continue to depress wages for workers, and of course continuing to enrich the absentee owners.
To conclude, I borrow the wise words of country music legends Alabama: “The fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay.”
I've changed the lyrics a little. I hope they don't mind.
There are people in this country who work hard every day
Not for fame or fortune do they strive
But the fruits of their labor are worth more than their pay
And it's time a few of them were recognized
Hello, Detroit Walmart tire & auto center workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
Hello, Pittsburgh Walmart warehouse workers, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
This is for the one who swings the broom, sweeping up the spill
Or the one behind the counter, ringing up the sale
Or the one who stocks the shelves, the one who polishes the rails
For everyone who works behind the scenes
You can see them every morning in the trucks and in the stores
In the city streets and the quiet country towns
Working together like spokes inside a wheel
They try to keep their families afloat
Hello, Kansas Walmart associates, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
Hello, West Virginia Walmart pharmacist, let me thank you for your time
You work a 29-hour week that's hardly a living, but you still send it on down the line
This is for the one who drives the big rig, up and down the road
Or the one out in the warehouse, bringing in the load
Or the waitress, the mechanic, the loss prevention specialist on patrol
For everyone who works behind the scenes
With a spirit you can't replace with no machine
Hello America, let me thank you for your time
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Police encounters and traffic stops
I'm not an attorney, so this article is merely a summary of what I've learned in the last five years researching a person's rights during police encounters. It's a common assumption that refusing to cooperate with police makes you look guilty, but there are three things you can say to an officer and he or she will recognize unequivocally that you're exercising rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Asserting your rights cannot give an officer justification to elevate an encounter from a consensual one to a seizure.
Most people believe, as I do, that most cops are good. It's innate in most of us to want to cooperate with authorities. We want to be regarded as honest and helpful. And we believe demonstrating courteous behavior will result in the best possible outcome. We'll even thank an officer after being handed a $150 speeding ticket.
But police officers are heavyweight fighters when it comes to citizen encounters and, believe me, you are no match for their ability to expose even the most honest and miner of infractions. They're experts in the art of inviting you to forfeit your rights, especially if they think they smell something fishy.
As a side note, I came across a blog called Pick Your Battles that has a very clean and helpful article about dealing with internal Border Patrol checkpoints, based on personal encounters, and it's complete with links to applicable legal precedent.
What I think you should do if stopped by police.
If you're driving and are pulled over, you'll be asked for your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. Calmly retrieve them and hand them over. If asked, you should exit you vehicle (but lock it). With exceptions described below, you're required to follow most police orders. You must also sign any citations you are issued as an acknowledgement that you received the citation(s) and that you promise to appear or otherwise satisfy the requirements of any tickets. Signing doesn't indicate guilt, nor does it mean you agree with the charge.
Some say that you should only roll your window down a few inches, just far enough to pass papers back and forth. Such a practice is designed to prevent an officer from leaning into your car and then later claiming he or she got a "good whiff" of a "strong odor" of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana. The hope, I gather, is that the officer won't want to be so obvious in seeking evidence that he would stick his nose through the cracked window.
You're not required to consent to any searches, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. If you're being arrested (probable cause is required), no consent is needed in order to conduct a thorough search of the person and vehicle (or the area occupied by the subject). If you're merely being detained (investigative detention requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime), then police may give you a once-over "pat-down" for weapons. "Plain view" (areas viewable from outside the car) and "plain feel" (felt during a frisk) doctrines give police authority to seize items and substances that are immediately identifiable as contraband, such as banned weapons, drugs or paraphernalia.
Police can play on your ignorance and manipulate you into consenting to a search. It gets to be an artform. There's one case where a gentleman was pulled over for speeding and was invited to sit in the state trooper's prowler "to stay in, out of the rain." But when the subject reached the door handle, the trooper told the guy he had to pat him down before he got in -- something that's "routine" and for his "own safety." The cursory frisk yielded a paraphernalia charge and resulted in a complete search incident to arrest, which subsequently revealed a novelty item that was nearly mistaken for a dangerous weapon. I guess the cop thought he'd screwed the guy badly enough with his trickery and let the whacky looking dagger slide.
It's a fact that you're not required to answer any questions, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Whether or not you are being detained or arrested, you are never under any obligation to answer any questions. If you're free to go, then obviously there is no requirement to give any information and the encounter should be terminated. In the case above, the trooper demanded to know what each item he felt was in the pockets. "What it that? Is that a pipe?" Sadly the victim helped convict himself by submitting that it was indeed a pipe used to smoke marijuana.
There are three general levels of police encounters:
I. Consensual
This is often described as casual conversation. It's absolutely consensual; in other words. you're free to terminate the encounter and you are free to go. This is important to recognize because any information an officer collects at this point is voluntary on your part and is admissible in court.
II. Investigative detention
At this point, you are not free to go. The officer may or may not inform you that you are being detained, but you might find yourself in cuffs, being patted down for weapons. In order for an officer to legally detain you, he or she must have more than a hunch, according to the high court. Police require "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that crime is afoot and that you are the perpetrator of said crime. While you have a right to know why, the officer may not be obligated to immediately disclose the nature of the suspected crime, even if you demand to know. Most good cops will be more than willing to detail the fishy circumstances justifying your inconvenient predicament.
III. Arrest
Once a police officer feels he or she has "probable cause" or enough evidence to arrest you for a crime, then you are probably being handcuffed and placed in custody. It's likely that you and your vehicle (or the area you occupy) will be thoroughly searched (called search incident to arrest).
Everyone ought to know and and exercise their rights. This tends to frustrate certain kinds of personalities that don't take well to being challenged. The following are commonly recommended utterances everyone should direct to police at every encounter:
Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Any involuntary detention is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so holding you requires some grounds. While the standard in the amendment is "probable cause," courts have allowed the lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" of a crime to be enough to keep you in place while they determine whether they have enough to arrest you.
Any time you refuse consent for a search, an officer can always threaten to call in a K-9 unit (drug detection dog), but police don't have unlimited authority to expand the scope of the initial lawful detention unless their reasoning is well founded. Whether your car has ever had any amount of drugs in it, a dog may or may not give a legitimate indication that it detects drugs. This can be problematic for you because once an officer testifies in court that a detection dog indicated on your car, probable cause for a full search is established, even if no drugs are ever found.
Do I have to identify myself whenever an officer asks?
Beyond carrying a driver license while driving, there are no laws in Iowa that require you to carry identification at all times. Therefore you cannot be compelled to produce identification while generally being out in public, even if you're a passenger in a car or on the highway riding your bicycle. However, during a lawful detention, when they have reasonable suspicion to detain you, you may be asked to identify yourself. It's not clear exactly what that means in Iowa; do you have to answer, and if so, how detailed must one be in response to such an inquiry? Those answers should come from an attorney familiar with ID requirements in this state.
Here's what the ACLU has to say about dealing with police.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
YOUR RIGHTS
•You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
•You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
•If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
•You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
•Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
•Do stay calm and be polite.
•Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
•Do not lie or give false documents.
•Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
•Do remember the details of the encounter.
•Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.
IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS
You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials.
You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)
If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you.
If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.
Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.
IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. If you can’t pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don’t say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
•Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
•Don’t discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
•While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
•Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.
IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR “ICE”) CUSTODY
You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.
You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number (“A” number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.
IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don’t physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Most people believe, as I do, that most cops are good. It's innate in most of us to want to cooperate with authorities. We want to be regarded as honest and helpful. And we believe demonstrating courteous behavior will result in the best possible outcome. We'll even thank an officer after being handed a $150 speeding ticket.
But police officers are heavyweight fighters when it comes to citizen encounters and, believe me, you are no match for their ability to expose even the most honest and miner of infractions. They're experts in the art of inviting you to forfeit your rights, especially if they think they smell something fishy.
As a side note, I came across a blog called Pick Your Battles that has a very clean and helpful article about dealing with internal Border Patrol checkpoints, based on personal encounters, and it's complete with links to applicable legal precedent.
What I think you should do if stopped by police.
If you're driving and are pulled over, you'll be asked for your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. Calmly retrieve them and hand them over. If asked, you should exit you vehicle (but lock it). With exceptions described below, you're required to follow most police orders. You must also sign any citations you are issued as an acknowledgement that you received the citation(s) and that you promise to appear or otherwise satisfy the requirements of any tickets. Signing doesn't indicate guilt, nor does it mean you agree with the charge.
Some say that you should only roll your window down a few inches, just far enough to pass papers back and forth. Such a practice is designed to prevent an officer from leaning into your car and then later claiming he or she got a "good whiff" of a "strong odor" of an alcoholic beverage or marijuana. The hope, I gather, is that the officer won't want to be so obvious in seeking evidence that he would stick his nose through the cracked window.
You're not required to consent to any searches, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. If you're being arrested (probable cause is required), no consent is needed in order to conduct a thorough search of the person and vehicle (or the area occupied by the subject). If you're merely being detained (investigative detention requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime), then police may give you a once-over "pat-down" for weapons. "Plain view" (areas viewable from outside the car) and "plain feel" (felt during a frisk) doctrines give police authority to seize items and substances that are immediately identifiable as contraband, such as banned weapons, drugs or paraphernalia.
Police can play on your ignorance and manipulate you into consenting to a search. It gets to be an artform. There's one case where a gentleman was pulled over for speeding and was invited to sit in the state trooper's prowler "to stay in, out of the rain." But when the subject reached the door handle, the trooper told the guy he had to pat him down before he got in -- something that's "routine" and for his "own safety." The cursory frisk yielded a paraphernalia charge and resulted in a complete search incident to arrest, which subsequently revealed a novelty item that was nearly mistaken for a dangerous weapon. I guess the cop thought he'd screwed the guy badly enough with his trickery and let the whacky looking dagger slide.
It's a fact that you're not required to answer any questions, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Whether or not you are being detained or arrested, you are never under any obligation to answer any questions. If you're free to go, then obviously there is no requirement to give any information and the encounter should be terminated. In the case above, the trooper demanded to know what each item he felt was in the pockets. "What it that? Is that a pipe?" Sadly the victim helped convict himself by submitting that it was indeed a pipe used to smoke marijuana.
There are three general levels of police encounters:
I. Consensual
This is often described as casual conversation. It's absolutely consensual; in other words. you're free to terminate the encounter and you are free to go. This is important to recognize because any information an officer collects at this point is voluntary on your part and is admissible in court.
II. Investigative detention
At this point, you are not free to go. The officer may or may not inform you that you are being detained, but you might find yourself in cuffs, being patted down for weapons. In order for an officer to legally detain you, he or she must have more than a hunch, according to the high court. Police require "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that crime is afoot and that you are the perpetrator of said crime. While you have a right to know why, the officer may not be obligated to immediately disclose the nature of the suspected crime, even if you demand to know. Most good cops will be more than willing to detail the fishy circumstances justifying your inconvenient predicament.
III. Arrest
Once a police officer feels he or she has "probable cause" or enough evidence to arrest you for a crime, then you are probably being handcuffed and placed in custody. It's likely that you and your vehicle (or the area you occupy) will be thoroughly searched (called search incident to arrest).
Everyone ought to know and and exercise their rights. This tends to frustrate certain kinds of personalities that don't take well to being challenged. The following are commonly recommended utterances everyone should direct to police at every encounter:
1. "Am I free to go?" The answer will establish whether the encounter is consensual, an investigative detention or an arrest. That matters in court because it could mean that evidence against you will be suppressed and any case brought against you as a result of the suppressed evidence would be thrown out with it.
2. "I won't answer any questions without my lawyer." Nobody knows how many laws exist, but the number is thought to be in excess of 10,000. Can you be certain you've never violated any of them? Can you be absolutely certain the officer can recount and characterize your statements accurately when called as an expert government witness to testify against you at trial? If you don't answer any questions, then none of your answers can be unintentionally mischaracterized or used to convict you. But it's not enough to merely remain silent; the US Supreme Court says a person must now explicitly assert that right before it is recognized. "Lawyering up" may well be the most prudent course.
3. "I do not consent to any searches." During consensual encounters and investigative detentions, police are always free to ask whether you mind if they "take a quick look" in your car. It's always phrased in a casual, no-big-deal way, but when you consent, a complete stranger is now free to rifle through your personal belongings, dumping your things on the road -- and even "inadvertently" breaking valuables. Are you 100% certain that you have nothing that could be construed as contraband? Giving police permission to "take a quick peek" is always a big deal. It can only give them extra rope to hang you with.
Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Any involuntary detention is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so holding you requires some grounds. While the standard in the amendment is "probable cause," courts have allowed the lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" of a crime to be enough to keep you in place while they determine whether they have enough to arrest you.
Any time you refuse consent for a search, an officer can always threaten to call in a K-9 unit (drug detection dog), but police don't have unlimited authority to expand the scope of the initial lawful detention unless their reasoning is well founded. Whether your car has ever had any amount of drugs in it, a dog may or may not give a legitimate indication that it detects drugs. This can be problematic for you because once an officer testifies in court that a detection dog indicated on your car, probable cause for a full search is established, even if no drugs are ever found.
Do I have to identify myself whenever an officer asks?
Beyond carrying a driver license while driving, there are no laws in Iowa that require you to carry identification at all times. Therefore you cannot be compelled to produce identification while generally being out in public, even if you're a passenger in a car or on the highway riding your bicycle. However, during a lawful detention, when they have reasonable suspicion to detain you, you may be asked to identify yourself. It's not clear exactly what that means in Iowa; do you have to answer, and if so, how detailed must one be in response to such an inquiry? Those answers should come from an attorney familiar with ID requirements in this state.
Here's what the ACLU has to say about dealing with police.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU’RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
YOUR RIGHTS
•You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
•You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
•If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
•You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
•Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
•Do stay calm and be polite.
•Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
•Do not lie or give false documents.
•Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
•Do remember the details of the encounter.
•Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.
IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS
You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials.
You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)
If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you.
If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.
Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.
IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. If you can’t pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don’t say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
•Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
•Don’t discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
•While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
•Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.
IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR “ICE”) CUSTODY
You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.
You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number (“A” number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.
IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don’t physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Should Senator Grassley run again?
I've said this isn't about Senator Grassley, but about the senior ruling class and the culture of submission to capitalistic gluttony they cultivate.
Continuing to say yes to rehiring our own Congressional delegation is hypocritical and irresponsible in the face of a 10% Congressional approval rating.
Members value their posture over their positions and getting re-elected over integrity.
It's now our civic duty to change the culture in Washington in every single district. We start by dismissing incumbents any way we can.
Continuing to say yes to rehiring our own Congressional delegation is hypocritical and irresponsible in the face of a 10% Congressional approval rating.
Members value their posture over their positions and getting re-elected over integrity.
It's now our civic duty to change the culture in Washington in every single district. We start by dismissing incumbents any way we can.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Don't Talk to Police
It's often thought that the Fifth Amendment is something you invoke to cover guilt. In court, an innocent man will certainly take the stand in his own defense, right? After all, only someone who is guilty would choose not to take the stand. Chances are pretty good that you, too, believe this. But if you have an hour, I believe I'll convince you otherwise -- and possibly give you an eye-opening experience along the way.
If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.
Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.
If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.
When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.
Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.
There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest
In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.
An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.
Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.
Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:
1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.
Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.
If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.
One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.
Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.
If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.
When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.
Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.
There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest
In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.
An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.
Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.
Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:
1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.
Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.
If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.
One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
This is clearly not a small thing. Podcasting has unquestionably hit the maintream -- repeatedly. And they're not just 2-5 minute '...
-
Former Minnesota Governor and possible 2012 GOP Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty was a guest on WHO Radio's Jan Mickelson Friday, Apr...
