Tag: news

The excellent Popehat blog
gets the specifics on the warrant that led to the anal rape and
torture of David Eckert in New Mexico, which I
blogged about yesterday.

You can read the specific language of the actual warrant at his
post, but here is his accurate summation of it:

The factors that allegedly justify police intrusion into David
Eckert’s anus are:

• That his hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact during a
  traffic stop;
• He refused to consent to a search of his person;
• He stood erect with his legs together;
• No drugs were found in his car or in a pat-down of him (police
  pat-downs for weapons often turn up drugs, which mysteriously feel
  like dangerous weapons when touched by police, or which are
  immediately identifiable as drugs when touched by police);
• A drug dog (with no information given about the dog’s training
  or qualifications or success rate) “alerted” to his car seat
  (though no drugs were found in his car); and
• An unidentified Hidalgo County K-9 officer asserted, without
  any specificity, that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his
  anus.

That’s all.  It really comes down to three things: 
(1) subjective officer impressions that Eckert looked nervous, (2)
a dog alerting on his seat, and (3) an unnamed cop making an
unspecific claim that he had previously hidden drugs in his
anus. 

The first factor is smoke and mirrors.  It is increasingly
clear in America that a reasonable person should be fearful during
an encounter with police, who can generally shoot you (or
your dog)
with probable
impunity, and who, it appears, can arrange for you to be
systematically anally raped if the mood strikes them…..

The second factor — the dog alert — has its own problems, but at
any rate does not connect drugs to Mr. Eckert’s anus. The third
factor is effectively an anonymous tip. The affiant, Officer
Chavez, does not identify the officer, explain the basis for the
officer’s knowledge, or offer any details about the alleged
instances in which drugs were found in Mr. Eckert’s
anus. Anonymous
tips must be corroborated to support probable cause, and this
effectively anonymous tip isn’t.

Mr. Eckert asserts that drugs were never found in his anus by
any law enforcement agency. If true, that suggests someone lied –
the K-9 officer who allegedly told Officer Chavez that, or Officer
Chavez…..In deciding whether false information was provided to
the court to secure the warrant, consider this: the Hidalgo County
K-9 officer’s report on the incident here doesn’t
mention any such knowledge about Eckert and doesn’t say
he conveyed any such information to Officer Chavez. Do you think
that would have made it into his report if he had?

Jacob Sullum blogged yesterday about the
mysterious powers of dogs to justify anal rape.

Last week I
noted that President Obama was trying to retroactively revise
his promise that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
would allow people who were happy with their health plans to keep
them. That guarantee, he explained, applies only to policies that
have not changed in any way since the law took effect. The problem,
of course, is that Obama never mentioned that caveat until now. I
wondered whether reporters would nevertheless treat this
explanation as something other than a
bald-faced lie. Judging from a new
ProPublica story, the answer appears to be yes. In an article
that otherwise admirably seeks to explain the actual consequences
of Obamacare, including the costs it imposes on some for the
benefit of others, Charles Ornstein says this:

First, President Obama’s now-infamous pledge that those who
liked their health plan could keep it applied only to people
enrolled in those plans as of the day the Affordable Care Act was
signed into law, March 23, 2010. That became known as the
“grandfather” clause.

That phrasing makes it seem like Ornstein accepts Obama’s
revisionism—which is odd, because Ornstein later notes that
“Politifact has labeled the pledge ‘pants
on fire.'” Actually, the analysis to which Ornstein links deals
not with Obama’s promise itself but with his attempt to amend it
after the fact. Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion:

According to Obama, “What we said was you can keep [your plan]
if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

But we found at least 37
times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top
administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you
like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in
which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that
hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases
came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the
“grandfathering” process, when the impact would be clear.

So yes, it’s true: Obama is a liar. Reporters should not let a
lingering attachment to “false
balance” blind them (or their readers) to that fact.

Last week I
noted that President Obama was trying to retroactively revise
his promise that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
would allow people who were happy with their health plans to keep
them. That guarantee, he explained, applies only to policies that
have not changed in any way since the law took effect. The problem,
of course, is that Obama never mentioned that caveat until now. I
wondered whether reporters would nevertheless treat this
explanation as something other than a
bald-faced lie. Judging from a new
ProPublica story, the answer appears to be yes. In an article
that otherwise admirably seeks to explain the actual consequences
of Obamacare, including the costs it imposes on some for the
benefit of others, Charles Ornstein says this:

First, President Obama’s now-infamous pledge that those who
liked their health plan could keep it applied only to people
enrolled in those plans as of the day the Affordable Care Act was
signed into law, March 23, 2010. That became known as the
“grandfather” clause.

That phrasing makes it seem like Ornstein accepts Obama’s
revisionism—which is odd, because Ornstein later notes that
“Politifact has labeled the pledge ‘pants
on fire.'” Actually, the analysis to which Ornstein links deals
not with Obama’s promise itself but with his attempt to amend it
after the fact. Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion:

According to Obama, “What we said was you can keep [your plan]
if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

But we found at least 37
times since Obama’s inauguration where he or a top
administration official made a variation of the pledge that if you
like your plan, you can keep it, and we never found an instance in
which he offered the caveat that it only applies to plans that
hadn’t changed after the law’s passage. And seven of those 37 cases
came after the release of the HHS regulations that defined the
“grandfathering” process, when the impact would be clear.

So yes, it’s true: Obama is a liar. Reporters should not let a
lingering attachment to “false
balance” blind them (or their readers) to that fact.

Common Core, the controversial
set of new national education standards touted by the by the
National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State
School Officers, with
significant federal encouragement, is in the news again. This
time, it’s being called out for promoting politicized lessons
spoon-fed to the captive audience of kiddies in the public schools.
But this is an unfair charge. Common Core
has a lot wrong with it, high-pressure included, but it doesn’t
specify lesson-plans or politicized content. The real problem is
the much older one of schools controlled by government
officials.

The specific complaint this time is about fifth-grade English
worksheets which ask students to edit sentences including:
“Government officials’ commands must be obeyed by all” and “An
individual’s wants are less important than the nation’s
well-being.” The sentences are a small part of a
larger worksheet (PDF) called “Hold the Flag High” linked to
the Civil War.

But what a part. Way to go, oh bait-the-critics educators! You
walked into it with those loaded sentences. Even teachers are
debating
the propriety of this stuff now.

But Pearson
Education tells Fox
News that this worksheet was copyrighted in 2007 and has been
in use ever since—predating Common Core. And Pearson is far from
the only curriculum vendor out there. Besides, controversy over
politicized education started far before Common Core came along to
cause a fuss.

In 1996, New York State mandated the teaching of the Irish
potato famine as an
act of genocide by the British government against the Irish, no
other interpretations allowed. The Tucson Unified School District
in Arizona has managed a
heated, years-long battle over race-infused “culturally relevant”
classes without any input from Common Core. Control over
textbooks has long been a political prize in Texas, with
conservatives in recent years sculpting the lessons delivered
to students there and, given the size of the market and the cost of
printing multiple editions, elsewhere. And the use of liberal
pundit Paul Krugman’s
Keynes-centric economics texts in high schools has raised a few
hackles, too.

The problem isn’t Common Core, it’s that government officials
control so many schools, even in the age of expanding choice, and
schools are a handy delivery system for pet ideas to (presumably)
receptive young minds.

There’s plenty to object to about Common Core. But dumping the
new standards won’t solve the problem of politicized curriculum so
long as government officials control schools and get to force-feed
their messages to the children of people with very different
ideas.

Common Core, the controversial
set of new national education standards touted by the by the
National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State
School Officers, with
significant federal encouragement, is in the news again. This
time, it’s being called out for promoting politicized lessons
spoon-fed to the captive audience of kiddies in the public schools.
But this is an unfair charge. Common Core
has a lot wrong with it, high-pressure included, but it doesn’t
specify lesson-plans or politicized content. The real problem is
the much older one of schools controlled by government
officials.

The specific complaint this time is about fifth-grade English
worksheets which ask students to edit sentences including:
“Government officials’ commands must be obeyed by all” and “An
individual’s wants are less important than the nation’s
well-being.” The sentences are a small part of a
larger worksheet (PDF) called “Hold the Flag High” linked to
the Civil War.

But what a part. Way to go, oh bait-the-critics educators! You
walked into it with those loaded sentences. Even teachers are
debating
the propriety of this stuff now.

But Pearson
Education tells Fox
News that this worksheet was copyrighted in 2007 and has been
in use ever since—predating Common Core. And Pearson is far from
the only curriculum vendor out there. Besides, controversy over
politicized education started far before Common Core came along to
cause a fuss.

In 1996, New York State mandated the teaching of the Irish
potato famine as an
act of genocide by the British government against the Irish, no
other interpretations allowed. The Tucson Unified School District
in Arizona has managed a
heated, years-long battle over race-infused “culturally relevant”
classes without any input from Common Core. Control over
textbooks has long been a political prize in Texas, with
conservatives in recent years sculpting the lessons delivered
to students there and, given the size of the market and the cost of
printing multiple editions, elsewhere. And the use of liberal
pundit Paul Krugman’s
Keynes-centric economics texts in high schools has raised a few
hackles, too.

The problem isn’t Common Core, it’s that government officials
control so many schools, even in the age of expanding choice, and
schools are a handy delivery system for pet ideas to (presumably)
receptive young minds.

There’s plenty to object to about Common Core. But dumping the
new standards won’t solve the problem of politicized curriculum so
long as government officials control schools and get to force-feed
their messages to the children of people with very different
ideas.

Pakistan’s
interior minister warned
last week that the killing of the leader of the Pakistani
Taliban in a US strike would be the “death of all peace talks”, and
it looks like that’s started.

From Reuters:

The Pakistani Taliban rejected the idea of peace talks
with the government on Thursday after electing hardline commander
Mullah Fazlullah, whose men shot schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai last
year, as their new leader on Thursday.

The rise of Fazlullah, known for his fierce Islamist views, by the
Taliban Shura council follows the Killing of Hakimullah Mehsud, the
previous leader or ameer, in a U.S. drone strike on November
1.

Lessons from the failure of the drug war’s “kingpin strategy”
apply here. A criminal organization’s leader removed by authorities
tends to be replaced by a more ruthless one.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.