Category: reason

Dollface Mines Humor from the Loneliness of Single Women

  • Dollface. Available now on Hulu.
  • Mad About You. Available Wednesday, November 20, on Spectrum.

Her, sitting at a pleasant outdoor café: “How are the huevos rancheros?”

Him: “They’re pretty good.”

Her: “Can I have a bite?”

Him: “I don’t love you anymore.”

Talk about getting to the point! The first 60 seconds of Hulu’s new sitcom Dollface sets the stage for everything to come—a woman’s bumbling attempts to reactivate her female friendships after years of single-minded preoccupation with a boyfriend.

Intended as a modern comic spin on Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, Dollface is funny enough, though it mostly misses the feminist boat. It more closely resembles a little-watched FXX surrealist comedy of sexual manners called Man Seeking Woman, in which clueless characters conversed regularly with their own ids as they plotted blundering romantic strategy.

Kat Dennings, who starred for six seasons as a penniless waitress at a greasy-spoon restaurant in the hilariously potty-mouthed CBS sitcom 2 Broke Girls, plays Jules, a marketer at a weird and largely undefined company whose leading product is a crystal butt-plug called a kundu stone. (Which, I’m amazed to discover, seems to be entirely fictional.)

She’s completely unprepared for her boyfriend’s drive-by breakup, and even less so for the realization that the shirt she’s wearing, the car they came in, the apartment they live in, and even their beloved dog all belong to him.

Worse yet, she’s been catapulted onto a bus ride full of cat ladies bound for their lonely destiny (unless they get off at the Reboundtown stop, where they’ll be greeted by a whiny nerd: “I live with my mom. Wanna get married?”)

The lesson of all this, the female bus driver warns Jules, is that “relations with other women are sacred and necessary. In today’s world, the bonds of sisterhood are all you have to turn to.” Easier preached than done: Jules’ attempts to reunite with a couple of college girlfriends are rudely snubbed.

“Other people know how to run their lives and take advice and have friends, and for some reason, I can’t,” Jules broods. But her problems stem most from general timidity rather than gender oppression; there are plenty of men who, like Jules, are bored by small talk, don’t mix well and are frustrated that the false intimacy of social media doesn’t often morph into the real thing. Believe it or not, Dollface producers, men get lonely too.

But as long as you watch to be entertained rather than woke, you’ll be fine. Dennings, if a little less slobby than she was on 2 Broke Girls, is no less funny. Dollface has plenty of scabrous wisecracks about a Kardashianized West L.A. world filled with high-octane air-kissing and nail-baring fights over the brunchtime merits of mimosas vs. bloody marys. And party patter like this: “Your skin is luminous! What are you using? Placenta?”

If Dollface is a modernization of Ibsen, Mad About You is a modernization of … well, Mad About You,  NBC’s killing-time-between-Seinfeld-and-Friends 1992-1999 sitcom about upscale post-twentysomething yuppies creeping toward what Baby Boomers (and the show’s theme song) used to call the show’s the Final Frontier—parenthood and middle age.

Now Mad About You, revived by the Spectrum cable and streaming service, is the latest of the television remakes, reboots and regurgitations that dominate TV these days.

In this version, Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt are empty-nesters, creeping toward old age and the final Final Frontier. They are as amiable as ever, and the show even has a sense of humor about itself. “I swear to God I didn’t recognize them when they walked in,” exclaims Hunt in the first scene. “When is the last time we saw them?”

But like a lot of other aging couples, Reiser and Hunt are not quite as funny as they think. The opening episode, in which their 17-year-old daughter Mabel (Abby Quinn), leaves for college—at NYU, five whole blocks from their apartment—often seemed to contain subliminal footage of motionless horses being beaten, particularly in an endlessly repetitive joke about an old movie featuring dogs and spaghetti and kissing.

Mad About You cultists will be enthralled—well, pleased—about the presence of some of the old friends, relatives and sidekicks, including John Pankow and Richard Kind. Not present, alas, is the spacey and inept waitress Ursula, so popular in first go-round that she elevated Lisa Kudrow into a co-starring role on Friends. How long do we have to wait for a reboot of that?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/378qfft
via IFTTT

Dollface Mines Humor from the Loneliness of Single Women

  • Dollface. Available now on Hulu.
  • Mad About You. Available Wednesday, November 20, on Spectrum.

Her, sitting at a pleasant outdoor café: “How are the huevos rancheros?”

Him: “They’re pretty good.”

Her: “Can I have a bite?”

Him: “I don’t love you anymore.”

Talk about getting to the point! The first 60 seconds of Hulu’s new sitcom Dollface sets the stage for everything to come—a woman’s bumbling attempts to reactivate her female friendships after years of single-minded preoccupation with a boyfriend.

Intended as a modern comic spin on Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, Dollface is funny enough, though it mostly misses the feminist boat. It more closely resembles a little-watched FXX surrealist comedy of sexual manners called Man Seeking Woman, in which clueless characters conversed regularly with their own ids as they plotted blundering romantic strategy.

Kat Dennings, who starred for six seasons as a penniless waitress at a greasy-spoon restaurant in the hilariously potty-mouthed CBS sitcom 2 Broke Girls, plays Jules, a marketer at a weird and largely undefined company whose leading product is a crystal butt-plug called a kundu stone. (Which, I’m amazed to discover, seems to be entirely fictional.)

She’s completely unprepared for her boyfriend’s drive-by breakup, and even less so for the realization that the shirt she’s wearing, the car they came in, the apartment they live in, and even their beloved dog all belong to him.

Worse yet, she’s been catapulted onto a bus ride full of cat ladies bound for their lonely destiny (unless they get off at the Reboundtown stop, where they’ll be greeted by a whiny nerd: “I live with my mom. Wanna get married?”)

The lesson of all this, the female bus driver warns Jules, is that “relations with other women are sacred and necessary. In today’s world, the bonds of sisterhood are all you have to turn to.” Easier preached than done: Jules’ attempts to reunite with a couple of college girlfriends are rudely snubbed.

“Other people know how to run their lives and take advice and have friends, and for some reason, I can’t,” Jules broods. But her problems stem most from general timidity rather than gender oppression; there are plenty of men who, like Jules, are bored by small talk, don’t mix well and are frustrated that the false intimacy of social media doesn’t often morph into the real thing. Believe it or not, Dollface producers, men get lonely too.

But as long as you watch to be entertained rather than woke, you’ll be fine. Dennings, if a little less slobby than she was on 2 Broke Girls, is no less funny. Dollface has plenty of scabrous wisecracks about a Kardashianized West L.A. world filled with high-octane air-kissing and nail-baring fights over the brunchtime merits of mimosas vs. bloody marys. And party patter like this: “Your skin is luminous! What are you using? Placenta?”

If Dollface is a modernization of Ibsen, Mad About You is a modernization of … well, Mad About You,  NBC’s killing-time-between-Seinfeld-and-Friends 1992-1999 sitcom about upscale post-twentysomething yuppies creeping toward what Baby Boomers (and the show’s theme song) used to call the show’s the Final Frontier—parenthood and middle age.

Now Mad About You, revived by the Spectrum cable and streaming service, is the latest of the television remakes, reboots and regurgitations that dominate TV these days.

In this version, Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt are empty-nesters, creeping toward old age and the final Final Frontier. They are as amiable as ever, and the show even has a sense of humor about itself. “I swear to God I didn’t recognize them when they walked in,” exclaims Hunt in the first scene. “When is the last time we saw them?”

But like a lot of other aging couples, Reiser and Hunt are not quite as funny as they think. The opening episode, in which their 17-year-old daughter Mabel (Abby Quinn), leaves for college—at NYU, five whole blocks from their apartment—often seemed to contain subliminal footage of motionless horses being beaten, particularly in an endlessly repetitive joke about an old movie featuring dogs and spaghetti and kissing.

Mad About You cultists will be enthralled—well, pleased—about the presence of some of the old friends, relatives and sidekicks, including John Pankow and Richard Kind. Not present, alas, is the spacey and inept waitress Ursula, so popular in first go-round that she elevated Lisa Kudrow into a co-starring role on Friends. How long do we have to wait for a reboot of that?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/378qfft
via IFTTT

Boise’s New Stadium Referendum Requirement Should Be a Model for Other Cities

Voters in Boise, Idaho, voted overwhelmingly last week to require more votes before the city can spend public money on stadiums. It’s an idea that other cities and states should copy.

The so-called “vote for a vote” proposition will require a majority of city voters to approve any future stadium project that uses more than $5 million in public money. More than 50,000 ballots were cast in the Election Day referendum, and more than 75 percent of voters supported the idea. Its passage may complicate the city council’s plans to build a $50 million soccer and/or baseball stadium in the hopes of attracting a minor league franchise.

Boise voters also approved a similar measure that prohibits the city from spending more than $25 million on library construction projects—the city has proposed building an $85 million library—without voter approval.

In both cases, giving taxpayers a more direct say over expensive building projects makes sense. On his Field of Schemes blog, stadium critic Neil deMause favorably compares the new Boise referendum to a similar ballot initiative passed a decade ago in Seattle. The Seattle measure, known as “I-91,” requires that city officials demonstrate stadium projects would generate a return on investment exceeding how much the city could earn by investing the same amount of public money in U.S. Treasury bonds. It has been one of the more effective local limitations on stadium boondoggles across the county, deMause argued in a 2017 piece for Deadspin.

Requiring a public vote on stadium projects is an even better check on bad deals—in part because it would force those deals to be made more transparently. Boise’s new requirement would effectively prevent the kind of shenanigans that occurred in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2013, when county officials and Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves negotiated a secret deal to bring the team to the city’s northern suburbs. Taxpayers were put on the hook for $400 million in stadium construction costs, but there was almost no public discussion of the agreement before county officials voted to approve it. Braves’ president John Schuerholz later admitted that the deal was done in private to avoid a public backlash.

The county commissioner who engineered the whole thing was voted out of office in 2016. That provides a bit of a satisfying ending, but obviously it would be better for taxpayers and voters to be able to stop bad stadium deals before they are made, rather than simply booting politicians who make them.

Requiring a referendum isn’t an automatic death knell for stadiums. Major League Baseball’s Texas Rangers are moving into a new $1 billion stadium in 2020, and the $500 million in public funding was approved by voters in Arlington, Texas, with a 2016 referendum.

It makes sense for cities to ensure that residents have a say in stadium subidies. The benefits of forcing additional transparency into a process where team owners and public officials have a strong incentive to mislead or hide details is itself reason enough to follow Boise’s example.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32Q44qX
via IFTTT

Boise’s New Stadium Referendum Requirement Should Be a Model for Other Cities

Voters in Boise, Idaho, voted overwhelmingly last week to require more votes before the city can spend public money on stadiums. It’s an idea that other cities and states should copy.

The so-called “vote for a vote” proposition will require a majority of city voters to approve any future stadium project that uses more than $5 million in public money. More than 50,000 ballots were cast in the Election Day referendum, and more than 75 percent of voters supported the idea. Its passage may complicate the city council’s plans to build a $50 million soccer and/or baseball stadium in the hopes of attracting a minor league franchise.

Boise voters also approved a similar measure that prohibits the city from spending more than $25 million on library construction projects—the city has proposed building an $85 million library—without voter approval.

In both cases, giving taxpayers a more direct say over expensive building projects makes sense. On his Field of Schemes blog, stadium critic Neil deMause favorably compares the new Boise referendum to a similar ballot initiative passed a decade ago in Seattle. The Seattle measure, known as “I-91,” requires that city officials demonstrate stadium projects would generate a return on investment exceeding how much the city could earn by investing the same amount of public money in U.S. Treasury bonds. It has been one of the more effective local limitations on stadium boondoggles across the county, deMause argued in a 2017 piece for Deadspin.

Requiring a public vote on stadium projects is an even better check on bad deals—in part because it would force those deals to be made more transparently. Boise’s new requirement would effectively prevent the kind of shenanigans that occurred in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2013, when county officials and Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves negotiated a secret deal to bring the team to the city’s northern suburbs. Taxpayers were put on the hook for $400 million in stadium construction costs, but there was almost no public discussion of the agreement before county officials voted to approve it. Braves’ president John Schuerholz later admitted that the deal was done in private to avoid a public backlash.

The county commissioner who engineered the whole thing was voted out of office in 2016. That provides a bit of a satisfying ending, but obviously it would be better for taxpayers and voters to be able to stop bad stadium deals before they are made, rather than simply booting politicians who make them.

Requiring a referendum isn’t an automatic death knell for stadiums. Major League Baseball’s Texas Rangers are moving into a new $1 billion stadium in 2020, and the $500 million in public funding was approved by voters in Arlington, Texas, with a 2016 referendum.

It makes sense for cities to ensure that residents have a say in stadium subidies. The benefits of forcing additional transparency into a process where team owners and public officials have a strong incentive to mislead or hide details is itself reason enough to follow Boise’s example.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32Q44qX
via IFTTT

An Arizona Deputy Pinned a Quadruple Amputee and Then Arrested the Teen Who Filmed Him

A disturbing video shows an Arizona sheriff’s deputy wrestling a quadruple amputee, age 15, just before arresting both the young man and the 16-year-old who recorded the incident.

Joel Feinman is head of the Pima County public defender’s office, which represented both of the teens arrested in the September incident. According to Feinman, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was responding to a disorderly conduct call at a group home. The amputee, who had been abandoned by his parents, had knocked over a trash can and was yelling; Feinman says he was acting out because he wanted to return to school.

The video, which Feinman’s office provided to the local TV channel KOLD, shows a deputy pinning the teen to the ground, first with his body and then with his arm. The amputee screams for the deputy to get off, and the deputy eventually lets him go. After righting himself, the deputy asks the teen what his “problem” is. The teen replies that he didn’t have one and that the only thing he did was knock the trash over.

While the deputy expresses his frustration at the teen’s decision to continue to move, the teen asks him to lower his voice. The deputy bends over the teen and shouts, “I will raise my voice whenever the fuck I want!”

At this moment, the teen behind the camera intervenes, telling the deputy that the teen on the ground has already answered the question.

The deputy redirects his ire and says, “Shut the hell up! Are you involved in this?”

The deputy tells the second teen to go to his room. The teen says he’s not allowed. The deputy then approaches him and asks him multiple times, “Am I talking to you?” The second teen responds that he “doesn’t care” who the deputy is addressing.

The deputy exits the space briefly, and the second teen hands the camera to someone else. The recording continues long enough to capture two deputies placing handcuffs on the second teen. At one point, the deputies slam his head against the wall. He is then escorted outside.

Both young men were charged with disorderly conduct. On Thursday, the county attorney’s office informed Feinman that the charges had been dismissed.

“It’s horrific. Men with badges and guns should not be acting this way,” Feinman says. He adds that those who do conduct themselves in such a way “should not have badges and guns.”

The sheriff’s department Code of Conduct requires all its employees to “bear in mind that persons having business with the Sheriff’s Department are entitled to courteous and respectful consideration. Department members shall perform their duties efficiently and completely, avoiding harsh, violent, profane, or insolent language, and shall remain calm regardless of provocation.”

The department did not respond to a request for comment in a timely manner. It also has not released a statement on its website or social media feeds as of the time of this reporting. It did, however, tell KOLD that it would be conducting an internal investigation. It had not seen the video before KOLD approached them for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32SzjBE
via IFTTT

An Arizona Deputy Pinned a Quadruple Amputee and Then Arrested the Teen Who Filmed Him

A disturbing video shows an Arizona sheriff’s deputy wrestling a quadruple amputee, age 15, just before arresting both the young man and the 16-year-old who recorded the incident.

Joel Feinman is head of the Pima County public defender’s office, which represented both of the teens arrested in the September incident. According to Feinman, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was responding to a disorderly conduct call at a group home. The amputee, who had been abandoned by his parents, had knocked over a trash can and was yelling; Feinman says he was acting out because he wanted to return to school.

The video, which Feinman’s office provided to the local TV channel KOLD, shows a deputy pinning the teen to the ground, first with his body and then with his arm. The amputee screams for the deputy to get off, and the deputy eventually lets him go. After righting himself, the deputy asks the teen what his “problem” is. The teen replies that he didn’t have one and that the only thing he did was knock the trash over.

While the deputy expresses his frustration at the teen’s decision to continue to move, the teen asks him to lower his voice. The deputy bends over the teen and shouts, “I will raise my voice whenever the fuck I want!”

At this moment, the teen behind the camera intervenes, telling the deputy that the teen on the ground has already answered the question.

The deputy redirects his ire and says, “Shut the hell up! Are you involved in this?”

The deputy tells the second teen to go to his room. The teen says he’s not allowed. The deputy then approaches him and asks him multiple times, “Am I talking to you?” The second teen responds that he “doesn’t care” who the deputy is addressing.

The deputy exits the space briefly, and the second teen hands the camera to someone else. The recording continues long enough to capture two deputies placing handcuffs on the second teen. At one point, the deputies slam his head against the wall. He is then escorted outside.

Both young men were charged with disorderly conduct. On Thursday, the county attorney’s office informed Feinman that the charges had been dismissed.

“It’s horrific. Men with badges and guns should not be acting this way,” Feinman says. He adds that those who do conduct themselves in such a way “should not have badges and guns.”

The sheriff’s department Code of Conduct requires all its employees to “bear in mind that persons having business with the Sheriff’s Department are entitled to courteous and respectful consideration. Department members shall perform their duties efficiently and completely, avoiding harsh, violent, profane, or insolent language, and shall remain calm regardless of provocation.”

The department did not respond to a request for comment in a timely manner. It also has not released a statement on its website or social media feeds as of the time of this reporting. It did, however, tell KOLD that it would be conducting an internal investigation. It had not seen the video before KOLD approached them for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32SzjBE
via IFTTT

Far From Avoiding ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Talk, Calling Trump’s Conduct Bribery Requires It

Casting about for a short, easily understood description of Donald Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, House Democrats seem to have settled on bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking to reporters yesterday, said “the devastating testimony” heard by the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings this week “corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry.”

The word bribery has a few obvious advantages. It is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an example of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that justify impeachment; it is the offense that most readily springs to mind when people think about public corruption; and it (initially, at least) avoids potential confusion about the meaning and significance of the “quid pro quo” that Republicans deny and Democrats think is obvious. “After weeks of describing the president’s actions as a ‘quid pro quo,'” The New York Times reports, “lawmakers are looking for a more straightforward and digestible way to describe what happened to their constituents.”

But describing Trump’s actions as bribery also poses problems as a communications strategy. Trump is accused of withholding benefits—military aid and a White House meeting—from Ukraine to pressure its government into launching (or at least announcing) investigations that would be politically useful to him. That sounds a lot like extortion, especially since the military aid had already been approved by Congress and would have been delivered on schedule if Trump had not blocked it.

Pelosi herself, in explaining why Trump is guilty of bribery, ended up describing extortion. “The president abused his power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting” if Ukraine failed to launch “an investigation into his political rival,” Pelosi said, calling that “a clear attempt by the president to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election.”

As George Mason law professor Ilya Somin notes, there is a federal extortion statute that seems to fit these facts pretty well. 18 USC 1601 applies to someone who “knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States” if that payment or benefit “is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.”

Pushing the bribery angle, Pelosi said “the bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections.” That makes it sound like Trump is accused of bribing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But federal bribery laws apply to American officials, not foreign officials, so the relevant question is not whether Trump tried to bribe Zelenskiy but whether he solicited a bribe from Zelenskiy.

If Democrats are determined to frame Trump’s actions as bribery, the most obviously germane statute is 18 USC 201, which applies to any federal official who “corruptly…seeks…anything of value…in return for…being influenced in the performance of any official act.” In this case, the “thing of value” would be an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, and the official acts would be unblocking the military aid and scheduling a White House meeting. That’s not entirely implausible, but the extortion statute seems like a more natural fit.

Either way, the Democrats cannot avoid talking about a quid pro quo, since that is an essential element of both crimes. A bribery conviction under 18 USC 201, the Supreme Court has said, requires “a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” Under 18 USC 1601, the deprivation of benefits likewise has to be aimed at “caus[ing]” the victim to contribute a “thing of value.”

Whether you think of Trump’s actions as extortion, solicitation of a bribe, or simply a troubling abuse of power that does not necessarily violate any criminal statutes, the connection between military aid (or a White House meeting) and the politically beneficial investigations is crucial. To my mind, that link has been established pretty clearly by the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with Zelenskiy and by the testimony of administration officials. Others may disagree. But the question of whether there was a quid pro quo remains at the heart of the debate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QmGfEF
via IFTTT

Far From Avoiding ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Talk, Calling Trump’s Conduct Bribery Requires It

Casting about for a short, easily understood description of Donald Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, House Democrats seem to have settled on bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking to reporters yesterday, said “the devastating testimony” heard by the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings this week “corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry.”

The word bribery has a few obvious advantages. It is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an example of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that justify impeachment; it is the offense that most readily springs to mind when people think about public corruption; and it (initially, at least) avoids potential confusion about the meaning and significance of the “quid pro quo” that Republicans deny and Democrats think is obvious. “After weeks of describing the president’s actions as a ‘quid pro quo,'” The New York Times reports, “lawmakers are looking for a more straightforward and digestible way to describe what happened to their constituents.”

But describing Trump’s actions as bribery also poses problems as a communications strategy. Trump is accused of withholding benefits—military aid and a White House meeting—from Ukraine to pressure its government into launching (or at least announcing) investigations that would be politically useful to him. That sounds a lot like extortion, especially since the military aid had already been approved by Congress and would have been delivered on schedule if Trump had not blocked it.

Pelosi herself, in explaining why Trump is guilty of bribery, ended up describing extortion. “The president abused his power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting” if Ukraine failed to launch “an investigation into his political rival,” Pelosi said, calling that “a clear attempt by the president to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election.”

As George Mason law professor Ilya Somin notes, there is a federal extortion statute that seems to fit these facts pretty well. 18 USC 1601 applies to someone who “knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States” if that payment or benefit “is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.”

Pushing the bribery angle, Pelosi said “the bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections.” That makes it sound like Trump is accused of bribing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But federal bribery laws apply to American officials, not foreign officials, so the relevant question is not whether Trump tried to bribe Zelenskiy but whether he solicited a bribe from Zelenskiy.

If Democrats are determined to frame Trump’s actions as bribery, the most obviously germane statute is 18 USC 201, which applies to any federal official who “corruptly…seeks…anything of value…in return for…being influenced in the performance of any official act.” In this case, the “thing of value” would be an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, and the official acts would be unblocking the military aid and scheduling a White House meeting. That’s not entirely implausible, but the extortion statute seems like a more natural fit.

Either way, the Democrats cannot avoid talking about a quid pro quo, since that is an essential element of both crimes. A bribery conviction under 18 USC 201, the Supreme Court has said, requires “a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” Under 18 USC 1601, the deprivation of benefits likewise has to be aimed at “caus[ing]” the victim to contribute a “thing of value.”

Whether you think of Trump’s actions as extortion, solicitation of a bribe, or simply a troubling abuse of power that does not necessarily violate any criminal statutes, the connection between military aid (or a White House meeting) and the politically beneficial investigations is crucial. To my mind, that link has been established pretty clearly by the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with Zelenskiy and by the testimony of administration officials. Others may disagree. But the question of whether there was a quid pro quo remains at the heart of the debate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QmGfEF
via IFTTT

Police Investigate a High School Student for Making a Joke About Trump

A teenager made fun of President Donald Trump. Apparently, that’s a matter for the police.

In North Carolina, the Surry County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a North Surry High School student for telling an anti-Trump joke during a school-sponsored improv show.

“Regrettably, the performance included an inappropriate joke about the President,” the school explained in a statement, according to The Winston-Salem Journal.

The article does not say, and the school has not revealed, what the joke was. Perhaps it broke some sort of school rule. In that case, it may merit disciplinary action—by the school.

But—as should be obvious to all—an offensive joke is not so serious that the police need to involve themselves. Unless the “joke” was actually a violent threat, in which case I assume the statement would spell this out, there is simply nothing to investigate. It’s protected speech.

The sheriff’s office sprang into action after several pearl-clutching parents complained, according to The Journal:

Shortly after the comment was made, the sheriff’s office received several complaints, including one from a concerned parent, said Capt. Scott Hudson of the sheriff’s office.

That complaint started the investigation, which is being conducted by school resource officers, Hudson said.

“We’re still doing interviews, speaking with students, learning what was said and the context of the comment,” Hudson said.

I reached out to the school’s principal, Paige Badgette, and resource officer, Delinda Kyle, but did not immediately receive a response.

This is one of the dangers of having police in schools in the first place: Minor disciplinary matters that should be addressed by parents, teachers, and councillors end up getting handled by the cops. And the police influence makes it much more likely that misbehaving teens will find themselves unnecessarily involved in the criminal justice system.

The school and the police should put an immediate stop to the investigation and cease violating this teen’s First Amendment rights. And the parents who called the cops on a kid for making an anti-Trump joke may want to think twice if they’re ever tempted to complain about political correctness run amok.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3438vQw
via IFTTT

Police Investigate a High School Student for Making a Joke About Trump

A teenager made fun of President Donald Trump. Apparently, that’s a matter for the police.

In North Carolina, the Surry County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a North Surry High School student for telling an anti-Trump joke during a school-sponsored improv show.

“Regrettably, the performance included an inappropriate joke about the President,” the school explained in a statement, according to The Winston-Salem Journal.

The article does not say, and the school has not revealed, what the joke was. Perhaps it broke some sort of school rule. In that case, it may merit disciplinary action—by the school.

But—as should be obvious to all—an offensive joke is not so serious that the police need to involve themselves. Unless the “joke” was actually a violent threat, in which case I assume the statement would spell this out, there is simply nothing to investigate. It’s protected speech.

The sheriff’s office sprang into action after several pearl-clutching parents complained, according to The Journal:

Shortly after the comment was made, the sheriff’s office received several complaints, including one from a concerned parent, said Capt. Scott Hudson of the sheriff’s office.

That complaint started the investigation, which is being conducted by school resource officers, Hudson said.

“We’re still doing interviews, speaking with students, learning what was said and the context of the comment,” Hudson said.

I reached out to the school’s principal, Paige Badgette, and resource officer, Delinda Kyle, but did not immediately receive a response.

This is one of the dangers of having police in schools in the first place: Minor disciplinary matters that should be addressed by parents, teachers, and councillors end up getting handled by the cops. And the police influence makes it much more likely that misbehaving teens will find themselves unnecessarily involved in the criminal justice system.

The school and the police should put an immediate stop to the investigation and cease violating this teen’s First Amendment rights. And the parents who called the cops on a kid for making an anti-Trump joke may want to think twice if they’re ever tempted to complain about political correctness run amok.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3438vQw
via IFTTT