Letters to the Editor
marktgarten
Published Letters: 185 Editor's Choice: 24
-
65.5% to 30%?!?!
[Read the article: Almost all Kentucky precincts in, big victory for Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you kidding me? Tell me its not a bad sign when the candidate who everyone knows will most certainly lose the nomination beats the candidate everyone knows will most certainly win the nomination? I can barely get myself out to vote when I think my vote will make a difference. Seriously, though, this seems bad.
-
"Sexually explicit conduct" under Wisconsin Law
[Read the article: Teen Alex Phillips puts girlfriend's nude shots on MySpace: Child porn?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It appears that Alex Phillips is being tried by the State of Wisconsin for violation of Wisconsin law. According to Wisconsin statute 948.01(7)(e) "'Sexually explicit conduct' means actual or simulated . . . Lewd exhibition of intimate parts." Although I am not a member of the Wisconsin bar and do not practice criminal law, it would seem that the photographs in question (as they have been described) would constitute a "lewd exhibition of intimate parts".
Of course, whether the statute is constitutional (either under Wisconsin's constitution or the U.S. constitutin) is a different matter.
-
@TheJim
[Read the article: Teen Alex Phillips puts girlfriend's nude shots on MySpace: Child porn?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If she is not masterbaiting in the pictures it is protected speech."
On the basis that "lewd" is void for vagueness? Con Law II was so long ago...
-
@commendatore
[Read the article: Teen Alex Phillips puts girlfriend's nude shots on MySpace: Child porn?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although true in some states, the age of consent in Wisconsin does not appear to be 16. Pursuant to Wisconsin statute section 948.09 (entitled "Sexual intercourse with a child age 16 or older"), "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child who is not the defendant's spouse and who has attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
Also, a "child" is, according to section 948.01(1), "a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, except that for purposes of prosecuting a person who is alleged to have violated a state or federal criminal law, 'child' does not include a person who has attained the age of 17 years."
As for watching a 16-year old strip while being in the same room, that would also be risky in Wisconsin. The crime of child enticement, Section 948.07(3), states that "Whoever, with intent to commit any of the following acts, causes or attempts to cause any child who has not attained the age of 18 years to go into any vehicle, building, room or secluded place is guilty of a Class D felony ... Exposing a sex organ to the child or causing the child to expose a sex organ in violation of s. 948.10." So, basically, if it was your idea to go to that room, you're risking a serious felony.
Even without the "enticement", you can get in trouble in Wisconsin for getting a child to strip. According to Wisconsin statute section 948.10(1) ("Exposing genitals or pubic area"), "Whoever, for purposes of sexual arousal or sexual gratification, causes a child to expose genitals or pubic area or exposes genitals or pubic area to a child is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
My personal rule of thumb is don't even think about dating anyone you can't take into a bar. But I'm a lawyer, so I drink a lot.
-
Lobbyists
[Read the article: Does Obama have a lobbyist problem too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know this borders on being heretical and un-American, but I don't care about lobbyists. Lobbyists represent so-called special interests which represent individuals and businesses. Who are these individuals and businesses? They are us and we are them.
Sierra Club? Special interest. Big Oil? Special interest. AARP? Special interest. Plaintiffs bar? Special interest. Big Pharm? Special interest. Unions are special interests, just like the companies their members work for. Any group seeking to get out of Iraq is a special interest, along with weapons manufacturers.
To the extent there are "general interests" -- say, safety, education, prosperity -- those concepts mean vastly different things to different people. To put any of those vague concepts into practice requires that some people's actual interests will lose out to other people's actual interests.
If you do not organize with others who share similar political goals, don't blame special interests -- blame yourself. How else are our representatives supposed to know that you give a hoot about Spotted Owls or clean sources of energy or Social Security or whatever floats your boat? If you are not organized, you simply cannot achieve your goals in a representative democracy.
-
@Alkaline
[Read the article: Does Obama have a lobbyist problem too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I disagree. Sure, there are lots of lobbyists who represent interests other than big business, but how much influence do they really have? Do legislators listen as carefully to a Sierra Club lobbyist as they would to an oil industry lobbyist? I don't think so. Look at the legislative record. Big business is constantly getting big favors from congress."
True, but if causes I liked -- for example, the cause of not effing up the enviroment -- could consistently deliver voters, then my representatives would stop giving big favors to big business. Look at Obama, he has eschewed PAC money but has nonetheless raked in money hand over fist because lots of people have given him some money. If those people also gave to pro-envi groups and voted for pro-envi politicians, then maybe we wouldn't have jagoffs in charge of the EPA.
And for those who say its because the Supreme Court says campaign contributions are protected speech, where is the constitutional amendment to fix that problem? All the time the right is trying to foist stupid amendments to stop flag burning and gay marriage. Why doesn't the left try to amend the constitution? Damn it. Now I'm just ranting.
-
Obama's "New Politics"
[Read the article: Will Obama's "new kind of politics" involve new policy ideas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's "new politics" is about not being a stiff, uninspiring policitian like Kerry, Gore, Reid and a whole host of others who I generally agree with but never get excited over. It isn't about policy, where he's basically a carbon copy of Clinton, except on health care mandates (where he is wrong and is smart enough to know why). I don't even know what a "new tone to Washington discourse" means. His "new politics" is that when he talks, lots of people get inspired. After the past two presidential elections, if that isn't enough for you, you haven't been paying attention.