Anti-Game-Violence Legislator Arrested, Faces Gun Trafficking Charges 234
Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
"Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."
What party was that again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule of thumb:
If it don't have a letter,
It's a Democrat matter
Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Prohibition keeps the competition down. (Score:5, Insightful)
[Parent poster talks of ONE of his many anti-gun (i.e. anti-gun-in-private-hands) projects.]
Prohibition of something means the illegal providers of it have less competition and can thus sell for a higher price. So it's very convenient for those sellers. Thus, for instance, drug lords are just fine with keeping the drug laws strong and complex, and opposed to legalization of their product (which would put them in competition with efficient conglomerates who could compete the pants off them).
(Incidentially: I suspect Yee's opposition to video games was a spinoff of his antigun agenda.)
By the way: Pro-gunners are celebrating tonight. (The call from a friend a few hours ago with the news made both my wife my own day. B-) )
Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, so you're not a drug addict. Congratulations. Neither am I. But I nonetheless have a serious problem with the ridiculous expenditures on police and prisons, not to mention the militarization of the police force and increasingly invasive anti-drug measures being taken around the country. All of which is a direct consequence of the asinine and completely ineffective "war on drugs". That money comes straight out of my taxes, and could be spent on so many more socially productive endeavors. And it's my rights that are being potentially trampled on when police in military assault gear march on peaceful protestors, or kick in the wrong door in the middle of the night and start shooting.
Re:What party was that again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... the summary above doesn't mention party affiliation, and neither does the LA Times article it links to. How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top? How many articles did you find where a Republican was accused of something negative but the affiliation wasn't mentioned?
Just because someone points out evidence for their case doesn't automatically mean they're engaging in confirmation bias. Finding one contrary piece of evidence to bolster your side doesn't mean you're not.
I'd say "lying" is a pretty over-the-top accusation.
Re:What party was that again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try again. The summary says nothing about party affiliation. The linked article in the LA Times says nothing about party affiliation. I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee", and none mention his affiliation in the headline, while only three mention it within the first two paragraphs. Three others mention it near the bottom of the article (interestingly, all in the form of a transition sentence like "Yee's arrest would make him the third Democratic state senator fighting charges this year", leading into a discussion of other Democrats in trouble), and one (from CBS, not the LA Times one again) doesn't mention it at all.
Show me a similar sampling of articles on a Republican corruption case where the party affiliation is not mentioned at or near the top of the article in anything approaching half the examples, and then we can talk.
Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What party was that again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people's first thought when a politician does something they disagree with: "Isn't this just typical of $political_party? Always doing $stereotypical_action."
Between confirmation bias, the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the polarizing messages coming from the American political camps that are reshaping nearly every American's world views, the everyday Joe has an inordinate number of tools at his disposal to think exactly what I said above. They'll forget the good while making a point of remembering every wrong done by the other side, dismiss every wrong done by their own as someone who never really belonged, have those ideas reinforced by their preferred "news" sources, and get sucked into unproductive back-and-forth "debates" with the other side that only serve to divert attention and keep us from working together.
I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care. I'd encourage you to stop making it a source of division. Because even if the media favors one side or the other, what I care about is that he's doing something reprehensible and sounds like he deserves some serious jail time. Anyone on either side of the aisle engaged in the same is also a scumbag that deserves jail time. Neither side supports the sort of thing he's doing, so blaming it on either party makes no sense, and focusing on his party does nothing to address the issue.
Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Normal, decent people should care about excessive and unjust incarceration as a result of irrational and corrupt drug policies.
And if decently and compassion don't compel you to care, you should at least care because drug laws cost you a boatload of money.
Re:What party was that again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]
Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.
....
Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.
"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.
We should all care a great deal (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care.
I myself am a Libertarian, and I DO care. I care very much that the press tries to harm as much as possible one major party and tarnish every member with the brush of a few lunatics, while shielding the Democrats as much as possible from any negative behavior by members and making sure that each and any infraction is isolated from any and every other Democrat.
The reason I care is because the press is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps people honest. Instead it's busy rigging the game in conjunction with politicians, and if you don't care about that then all is lost.
I'm not making it a source of division, I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check.
Re:Any actual police work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?
It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".
Re:What party was that again... (Score:5, Insightful)
As an European, I find it hilarious that you bicker about what edge of The Party someone came from instead of realizing that it just doesn't matter what letter is next to someone's name.
It's absolutely amazing to watch that fight. It's like watching two religious nuts fighting over who has the cooler imaginary friend, not realizing that they're both being bullshitted by the system behind it.
Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun to (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course he is. If he were a Republican, it would have been in the summary in all capital letters, bold, italic, and blinking.
Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary didn't mention party affiliation. Therefore it was safe to assume he is a Democrat.
Re:Makes Sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes Sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anytime a politician is arrested and the media doesn't report the party, you can assume that they're a Democrat