This Is Starting to Make My Head Hurt
On Big Government, the latest undercover video portrays an ACORN staffer actually offering to help smuggle the underage El Salvadoran girls across the Mexican border using his Tijuana contacts. Is there no end to this? Amused as I am by the whole escapade, it is unsettling to watch day after day as people confronted with history’s least convincing fake pimp react in utterly inexplicable ways. Talk about the banality of evil. You’re working at your office, where you mostly deal with poor immigrants who need help doing tedious paperwork. A guy who seems like he’s college educated comes out of central casting’s “cartoonish parody of pimp” department, and says he’s got some adolescent sex slaves South of the Border. Under what circumstances do you say, Oh, Tijuana’s the best place to stage this operation — here’s my private number, get back to me after I have time to call my coyote hookup.
The non-profit’s leadership is understandably paralyzed — how can they know what defense to offer when anything they say might be disproved by more damaging footage on tomorrow’s Inter-webs? At this point it’s going to take a sting involving flight training and a “militant Saudi friend” to surprise me. Normally when someone commits a crime, serial killers excepted, I can at least conceive of why someone might behave in that fashion. Am I missing something here?
Hey, it’s ACORN. What do you expect?
— Steve Sailer · Sep 18, 04:31 AM · #
Playing along with the gag seems completely explicable, in a “I’ll say whatever I have to to make the crazy college student go away” kind of way.
Are you missing, maybe, that these ACORN staffers think they’re in on a joke, and then they’re being edited to look like monsters? I mean the more ridiculous it gets, the more obvious that seems. These guys should have stuck with their two videos, but every time they ramp up the scenario it undercuts the realism. They’ve over-reached, I think, and now people are going to realize that they’re just taking advantage of the ACORN personnel’s willingness to be involved in a gag.
— Chet · Sep 18, 05:51 AM · #
Chet’s right, Conor. I don’t know about you, but I always find those old gags about prostitution and sex trafficking in thirteen year old Guatemalan girls to be real knee-slappers.
It’s absurd, too, that Acorn is firing these people for merely going along with the gag. Doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor anymore?
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 06:15 AM · #
Nexon America is Nexon Corporations North American publishing and game service arm.We started with the localization of <b><a href=http://www.maple-story.org>maple story</a></b> for North America,and have grown to support multiple game launches in North America.Wizet is the developer of <b><a href=http://www.maple-story-mesos.com>maple story mesos</a></b> and also a subsidiary of Nexon Corporation.The Wizet team continues to develop and add content to MapleStory around the world <b><a href=http://www.maple-story-mesos.com/guide.html>maple story mesos guide</a></b>.
— maplestory · Sep 18, 06:22 AM · #
I can’t stop laughing. How would that scenario play out, do you think? The Acorn employees say to themselves, “Hmmmm . . . these complete strangers want to make a videotape of me in my place of employment “pretending” to abet tax evasion, prostitution, sex trafficking, and the illegal smuggling of teenage sex slaves across the border. Well . . . sure, why not? It’s all in good fun! I’m ready for my close up, Mr. Demille!”
LOL!
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 06:25 AM · #
I don’t know, Kate Marie, underage sex slavery was a classic standby on the old candid camera. And this puts that show To Catch a Predator in a whole new light — those guys aren’t creepy child predators, they’re just down on their luck straight men caught up in a terrible misunderstanding.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 18, 06:33 AM · #
What Chet says is possible and had ACORN’s immediate response been “You couldn’t /possibly/ believe they were serious, could you?!” I might lend the idea some credibility (though if a gag, it’d be a pretty tasteless one).
But it just isn’t the feel I get from looking at them. As Jon Stewart points out, perhaps the most startling thing about these videos is how unfazed they are. It’s unlikely that they were laughing it up in between cuts. It’s possible they were saying “Now, keep in mind that we can’t help you with this…” but that’s sort of like the beginning of The Incredibles when he was telling that old lady how to fill out that insurance paperwork without filling out that paperwork.
All this being said, they do need to release unedited footage. They did on one of them, didn’t they?
— Trumwill · Sep 18, 06:33 AM · #
I don’t understand what the alternative could possibly be. ACORN employees are not only so dumb that they’re fooled by the world’s least convincing pimp, plus they’re so evil that they can not only countenance underage sex slavery, they’re willing to help the sex slaves cross the border – for free?
That makes as much sense as Sarah Palin boarding a plane in labor. On the other hand – “jesus, this white boy is crazy or something! I’ll agree to whatever he says if it gets him out of here.” That makes perfect sense.
Something tells me that, in the right context and the right atmosphere of unseriousness, I could get Conor to say he’d agree to do all kinds of things that would make him look pretty monstrous if I recorded him saying it and added scary music.
None whatsoever! Which is why these videos aren’t really very damning. There’s no way these kids put one over on anybody, and there’s just no way that ACORN was doing anything except tell them what they wanted to hear, so that they’d leave.
Even a full 50% of people in the Milgram experiment wouldn’t zap the victim to death. The idea that ACORN is full of people who would aid and abet sex slavery just because they were asked to is pretty stupid. I don’t know what these videos are supposed to prove (but you’d better watch out, Conor, the next time you’re approached by some absurdly-dressed caricature and asked to say you’ll do something outlandish.)
— Chet · Sep 18, 07:07 AM · #
Chet, in what universe is “I’ll say whatever you want to get you out of here, plus everyone loves a good joke about underage prostitution, yuk yuk, and, sure, go ahead and tape me saying these things in my place of employment” the reasonable thing to do?
“I don’t find ‘sex trafficking’ humor funny, and I want you to leave the office or I’ll call the police” — was that response just absurdly outside the realm of possibility?
Are you telling me that you would choose the former response? Really?
Anyway, ACORN doesn’t appear to take your view of it.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 08:41 AM · #
If you want to understand ACORN in 2009, read Tom Wolfe’s 1970 classic “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers:”
http://teageegeepea.tripod.com/maumau.html
— Steve Sailer · Sep 18, 08:42 AM · #
I just can’t get over Chet’s “they were obviously humoring the college kids by playing along with the sex slave gag” defense.
How is Acorn’s partially taxpayer-funded workplace ever “the right context and the right atmostphere of unseriousness?”
I find this absolutely fascinating. In other threads you want to suggest that all conservatives are racist, illiterate idiots, and in another you want to suggest that it’s entirely plausible and even reasonable — and not absolutely idiotic, at best — for these ACORN employees to go along with the “sex trafficking” gag on tape in their offices.
So what about the employees who actually did kick these people out of their offices, without falling for the gag — should we give them the Medal of Honor?
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 08:53 AM · #
What I don’t get is why Conor is so ready to assume the best about the left and the worst about the right. Given its wealth of history, the simplest starting assumption about ACORN is that it’s a politically connected criminal racket. These people are not fazed by pimping and smuggling migrants because — that’s what they do!
— nb · Sep 18, 09:53 AM · #
NB,
Where do I “assume the best” about ACORN? (You do realize my candid camera comment was sarcastic, right?)
— Conor Friedersdorf · Sep 18, 09:59 AM · #
Chet, I think you might want to reconsider your explanation. The hiring practices of ACORN suggest an organizational mindset of doing whatever is necessary to help anyone in need, even if you break rules to do it.
Even if the higher ups have not explitly told the bottom rung to break laws, people of unsavory character are being hired with the expectation that they are on a mission. This is indicative of the housing bubble causes — a widespread effort to increase homeownership by any means — an ideological movement that is more revolution than simple assistance. These organizations also have political backing, and there was a push to increase ownership even if the buyers weren’t qualified. These videos point to a much larger movement regarding community organization, building a power base, their purposes, methods and goals — and to political involvement which interferes in the free market and bypasses good business practices to achieve the goals of social engineering and poltical domination. Acorn has hired what they deem as foot soldiers to fight the war against capitalist status quo, and they are merely an appendage of the progressive movement.
They’re breaking eggs (laws) to make their community omelette. I was under the spell of a similar revolutionary mindset in the late 60s and early 70s — the intoxication makes you stupid and amoral (immoral?).
— mike farmer · Sep 18, 10:52 AM · #
I watched the video, and I don’t believe Juan Carlos has any coyote contacts. He looks to me like a guy whose boss has told him that the customer is always right, and who is willing to claim anything rather than admit he can’t help.
Come on, folks. Suppose you actually had experience smuggling immigrants across the border. And this pair walks in. They don’t know where the girls are arriving. They don’t seem to have a plan for how to transport them within the US. They admit potentially incriminating information to you, whom they’ve just met. They want to do everything next weekend. Oh, and by the way, they’re white. If you actually had criminal contacts, wouldn’t you shut up and say nothing?
— DavidS · Sep 18, 11:31 AM · #
“and I don’t believe Juan Carlos has any coyote contacts”
Yes, that’s not even the point — it’s the organization as a whole and the goals it has to help the oppressed overcome those who dominate them — they are on a grand mission. These people on the videos are everywhere in large cities, it’s just that ACORN is hiring them, because they are inexpensive and malleable — these workers are cannon fodder.
— mike farmer · Sep 18, 12:00 PM · #
Exactly right, Steve. In fact, it’s clear all community organizers (including the Chief Community Organizer) are well versed in the routine. It’s obvious that Obama is doing the same thing on an incomprehensibly large scale with all his proposals. As Rahm said, “Don’t waste a good crisis.” Incredible.
— jd · Sep 18, 12:14 PM · #
There’s no way these kids put one over on anybody, and there’s just no way that ACORN was doing anything except tell them what they wanted to hear, so that they’d leave.
I understand why this seems so inexplicable, Chet – after all, you want to believe the best about people (well… apparently you want to believe the best about some people). But sometimes people are just… not good. Especially when they view themselves as doing the right thing, even if it isn’t technically (or anywhere near) legal. As horrible as these videos are, the mindset that leads people to these places is (sadly) rather banal, and extremely commonplace.
— Austin · Sep 18, 01:11 PM · #
May I suggest that we have seen the video equivalent of the Terri Schiavo balloon video editing fake-out?
That was 1/10,000th of the collected video as I recall.
I’ll believe Breibarts stringers when they show all the video uneditted.
Otherwise it is just a political hit job.
— matoko_chan · Sep 18, 01:19 PM · #
Wouldn’t saying “Please leave, or else I will call the police” result in the crazy kids leaving sooner? Why would playing along result in the kids leaving at all? Either they are (1) there as part of a joke, in which case they are getting what they came for and will stay or (2) are there for advice about how to commit crimes, in which case they are getting what they came for and will stay.
Sasha Cohen does this schtick all the time, and it’s amazing how many people you can catch with an obvious lie. People believed in Bruno and Borat, why not in these guys?
(If Chet believes that everyone who bought into Bruno and Borat were just telling Cohen what he wanted to hear so that he would leave, I’ll grant that he’s at least consistent.)
— J Mann · Sep 18, 01:21 PM · #
yup, I think the video snippets are credible.
But how many ACORN offices were video’d for the 4 results?
There are over 700 ACORN offices….were these 4 selected at random?
Or did they tape 50 visits and get 4 hits? Or a hundred visits?
Where were the offices geo-located?
In the low education South?
— matoko_chan · Sep 18, 01:30 PM · #
Anti-entrapment law apparently doesn’t matter if you’re a conservative on a mission.
— Freddie · Sep 18, 01:35 PM · #
Freddie, first, I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I know anti-entrapment law doesn’t apply here, since the police/government authorities have nothing to do with this “sting.”
Second, I can’t believe that the first thing you’re concerned about when you see these tapes is entrapment. If I were to use the Freddie method of characterizing those who disagree with me, I’d suggest that liberals clearly don’t care about sex trafficking and the oppression of non-white underage girls.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 01:43 PM · #
Matoko,
No, these tapes — thus far, anyway — were taken in Baltimore, D.C., San Diego.
These are your team members, Matoko.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 01:46 PM · #
Have you looked into what the anti-entrapment laws are, Freddie?
Or watched To Catch a Predator? I note that NBC hasn’t lost many of its personalities to anti-entrapment prosecutions – do you think NBC is engaged in some kind of bribery to prevent prosecutions by the “anti-entrapment laws”, or if not, why are they still running free, given the number of different locations where they have pulled off their stings?
And Matoko – “geo-located?” As opposed to temporo-located, I suppose? (IIRC: Washington, DC.; someplace in PA; brooklyn, NY; Los Angeles, CA; and now someplace else.)
— J Mann · Sep 18, 01:46 PM · #
“If I were to use the Freddie method of characterizing those who disagree with me, I’d suggest that liberals clearly don’t care about sex trafficking and the oppression of non-white underage girls.”
Ha, Kate, I think you have him down pat.
— mike farmer · Sep 18, 02:02 PM · #
Well….as mathematician I have to consider N=4 out of 700 to be statistically non-significant to characterize ACORN as a “culture of corruption”.
From my perspective, it looks like a political hit piece, targetting geographic areas with very large, very poor low information black populations.
The whole schiavo idiocy also made me recoil from the conservatives in incredulous horror.
I’m still scarred.
— matoko_chan · Sep 18, 02:14 PM · #
See, Kate – when, in the past, I’ve referred to you as one of the least honest and most disingenuous people I’ve ever met, this is why.
You must know that I never proposed they knew they were being taped.
— Chet · Sep 18, 03:15 PM · #
I’m not particularly inclined to believe the best about ACORN. I’m just not particularly inclined to believe that ACORN is stocked floor to ceiling with little Eichmanns, as conservatives think these videos somehow prove – as though lying to someone who’s obviously lying to you is exactly the same as smuggling underage sex slaves across the mexican border.
— Chet · Sep 18, 03:19 PM · #
“ACORN is stocked floor to ceiling with little Eichmanns, as conservatives think these videos somehow prove”
Hmm…I missed that angle. Little Eichmanns? Which conservatives made this claim? It’s really incredible that people are trying to minimize this without knowing how deep it goes. It seems like at least you’d want an investigation, and urge restraint until all the facts are out.
— mike farmer · Sep 18, 03:49 PM · #
This has been hit at elsewhere, but: anti-entrapment law “doesn’t apply” when you’re not working for law enforcement and getting someone to commit a criminal act you are going to then prosecute their asses for. I am struck by the vapidity of the observation.
— Sanjay · Sep 18, 03:59 PM · #
Conor, up there in the post:
Is there no end to this? Amused as I am by the whole escapade, it is unsettling to watch day after day as people confronted with history’s least convincing fake pimp react in utterly inexplicable ways. Talk about the banality of evil.
What specific conduct should be investigated? What laws were broken, specifically?
— Chet · Sep 18, 04:05 PM · #
I mean I guess I don’t get it. The expressions of mirth? The stifled laughter? And you don’t think they think they’re in on a joke?
— Chet · Sep 18, 04:24 PM · #
No, Chet, I didn’t understand that they still weren’t supposed to know that they were being taped. I was commenting late last night. Sue me.
So now what you’re proposing is that this college kid shows up and they just decided to “play tax fraud” with him (in a realistically blase performance), in the hopes that he would go away? Again, why does that make perfect sense? Why didn’t they just say, “Get out of here or I’m calling the police?” Unbelievable.
What specific conduct should be investigated?
The conduct that suggests a willingness on the part of employees of a taxpayer-funded organization to help people commit tax fraud and smuggle underage prostitutes across the border. No law was broken, since the pimp and prostitute were fakes, but were you under the impression that a law must be shown to have been broken before an investigation can be launched? So if you saw similar tapes coming from several Republican senators’ offices, you wouldn’t want an investigation? And you’d assume their staff members just got “punk’d,” right?
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 04:36 PM · #
We now know that, in the vast majority of the offices these guys trolled, this was the response. Local law enforcement has confirmed it.
— Chet · Sep 18, 04:43 PM · #
So I don’t get it. Which response makes perfect sense, then, Chet?
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 04:48 PM · #
“Blase performance”? They’re openly snickering at him! Even O’Keefe notes that they seemed amused.
Most offices did just that – and even had to call the police to get these guys to leave. Is it really so unlikely that a small number of people decided to have a little fun and play along with the gag? Joke’s on them, unfortunately.
I see no such conduct. I see selective editing to make jokes offered in winking amusement (literally, the office workers are winking at the “investigators”) look like serious advice in how to abuse people.
Impossible. Republicans have no sense of humor.
— Chet · Sep 18, 04:48 PM · #
Both. What, all people are required to act identically in identical situations? Yeah, I would agree that you don’t get it.
— Chet · Sep 18, 04:50 PM · #
Okay, Chet, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I must say, though, that you’re right about at least this particular humorless conservative, since I fail to see the humor in the situation. If these people are joking, not only are they remarkably stupid, but they’re also remarkably insensitive and sexist. But, hey, as long as they aren’t Republicans.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 04:59 PM · #
P.S. ACORN’s actions suggest they agree with me. Or else they’re simply throwing their poor innocent pranksters under the bus.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 05:01 PM · #
Back to the entrapment issue one last time. Not only does entrapment not apply here, but also — again, as far as I’ve been able to find out — there are no “anti-entrapment” laws. There’s a lot of case law that involves when entrapment can be used as a legitimate criminal defense.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 05:04 PM · #
I’m not saying the jokes are hilarious, but the situation was apparently rich enough to be made fun of on the Daily Show. Doesn’t that sort of put the lie to your claim that there’s zero humor in the situation? Doesn’t the fact that these staffers are smiling and laughing suggest that they, too, think what they’re doing is some kind of joke?
Or are we supposed to believe they’re merely cackling with glee at the prospect of sexual enslavement of minors, like cartoon supervillans?
Uh, yeah. That’s essentially the by-the-book liberal response to the right-wing outrage machine. See: Amanda Marcotte/John Edwards, etc.
— Chet · Sep 18, 05:23 PM · #
Said “actions” including suing the filmmakers and one of the ACORN staffers confirming that she was just punking these kids:
Do you still think ACORN’s actions show they “agree with you”?
— Chet · Sep 18, 05:27 PM · #
Yes, I think they agree with me about the conduct of their employees on the tapes. From the article you linked to:
“As a result of the indefensible action of a handful of our employees, I am, in consultation with ACORN’s Executive Committee, immediately ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN’s service programs until completion of an independent review,” said ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, in a statement.”
“I think she handled it terribly,” she said. “She used extremely poor judgement and she is on suspension as we try to figure out what happened.” [But wait, I thought the responses made perfect sense?]
“Lewis said she has communicated with ACORN’s independent Advisory Council, and they will assist the group’s search for an independent auditor and investigator to conduct a review of all of the organization’s relevant systems and processes.” [You mean ACORN’s going to conduct an investigation and review? Why on earth would they do that?]
“‘It appears that in some cases, we’ve had staff who don’t meet my standards of professional behavior,’ Schur said.”
Um, yeah, you’re right, Chet, ACORN agrees with you.
As for The Daily Show, surely you understand the difference between joking about underage prostitution and making fun of people who are willing to abet underage prostitution? Or you think the Daily Show just wanted in on the great yuks to be had with the subject of sex trafficking. Uh, okay, Chet.
— Kate Marie · Sep 18, 05:50 PM · #
Freddie is awesome.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 18, 06:28 PM · #
OOOOPSIE!
There are 1200 offices, not 700.
mybad
;)
— matoko_chan · Sep 18, 09:10 PM · #
Freddie is awesome.
So is Chet! I mean, the amount of intellectual juggling he’s doing here is phenomenal. A bravura performance!
— Austin · Sep 18, 10:46 PM · #
Read the link…the jezebel writers agree with Chet.
Where have we seen James O’Keefe before?
Interestingly enough, James O’Keefe was also behind the 2008 scandal with Planned Parenthood where he posed as a caller trying to donate money to specifically fund abortions for African Americans:
O’Keefe told Cybercast News Service it was his voice on the recording and that the recording has not been doctored. “Nothing was done to change the content,” he said. “I think the audio clearly speaks for itself.”
O’ Keefe explained that part of his motivation for placing the call was to fight the racism he perceives in Planned Parenthood.
“African-Americans today are targeted by the abortion industry and suffer deeply because of it,” he said. “Planned Parenthood makes a profit off of their operations. We wanted to reveal their racist past – and the practical racism of their policies today – reflected in their other operations. Planned Parenthood must be held accountable for their actions, both past and present.”
What are the mitigating/aggravating factors here?
On the mitigating side, the ACORN employee caught on film says she was “playing” – she felt the stunt was ridiculous, and responded with silly, over the top answers. She notes that at the beginning of the interaction, she asked if the duo were reporters, and they answered no.
In addition, looking at O’Keefe’s past history, it’s fairly clear he has an agenda in mind, and he will keep calling around/approaching branches of organizations until he gets the type of answer he is looking for.
— matoko_chan · Sep 18, 11:30 PM · #
Matoko is awesome.
— Kate Marie · Sep 19, 01:30 AM · #
Read the link…the jezebel writers agree with Chet.
You might want to take your own advice and read the link again — really, really slowly.
— Kate Marie · Sep 19, 01:36 AM · #
KHatemarie at least one of the ACORN workers thought OKeefe/Giles was a spoof team, like Chet said.
OKeefe/Giles told the truth though about one thing …they are not reporters…they are political activists.
N=4 out of 1200? Statistically insignificant….a joke.
And congress panics like a stampede of waterbuffalo.
Of course “conservatives” would like to see ACORN unfunded…..they would like to see Planned Parenthood unfunded also.
“conservatives” know in their mean little impoverished minds that ACORN exists to steal white votes and Planned Parenthood exists to kill babies and encourage young white girls to have sex.
That is the ugly paranoia of the “low information” conservative base.
This site was more honest back in the day….I remember Reihan acknowleging that conservatives not wanting young girls to have sex was the biggest part of the abortion debate.
That is what I mean about no conservatives (except possibly Conor) having the nads to stand up to the base about pissing on the sleeping bags…..even Manzi and Brooks are pandering now…Reihan has been pandering for a long time.
— matoko_chan · Sep 19, 01:07 PM · #
yup i r teh awesomesauce.
And KHatemarie is a baddie.
She always shows up for these raids in greens, with no enchants or pots, and badly specced, and expecting the rest of the raid to carry her so she can ninja loot.
…
/sadface
— matoko_chan · Sep 19, 01:44 PM · #
Oh yeah…..hows that not wanting young girls to have sex working out for you?
— matoko_chan · Sep 19, 01:47 PM · #
Kate, I honestly don’t understand. Are you saying that any time someone utters the words “underage prostitution”, that somehow cancels out all mirth in the room? How long does that effect last, I wonder?
And hasn’t it been established, now, that no ACORN worker was truly willing to abet actual prostitution, but that they were willing to joke around with young conservative choads?
— Chet · Sep 19, 09:27 PM · #
And hasn’t it been established, now, that no ACORN worker was truly willing to abet actual prostitution, but that they were willing to joke around with young conservative choads?
No. If that has been established (because one of the employees claims to have been joking around), which behavior of its employees does ACORN consider indefensible?
If you don’t understand the difference between the Daily Show mocking the ACORN employees and the ACORN employees “joking around” about underage prostitution, I can’t help you. Does uttering “underage prostitution” cancel out all mirth? Not necessarily, except when it’s supposed to be the source of mirth. Again, I can’t help you if that’s not obvious to you.
— Kate Marie · Sep 19, 10:37 PM · #
Joking around with conservative choads and getting taped doing it is what they consider indefensible, and for good reason – it invites an enormous manufactured conservative shitstorm.
— Chet · Sep 20, 05:05 PM · #
Truly, Kate, your inability to admit to being wrong even after you’ve been demonstrated to be is astounding. How long are you planning to go on with this nonsense?
— Chet · Sep 20, 05:07 PM · #
Joking around with conservative choads and getting taped doing it is what they consider indefensible, and for good reason – it invites an enormous manufactured conservative shitstorm.
First, according to Chet, the conduct of the employees “made perfect sense” and the merry pranksters were being thrown under the bus by cowardly liberals (a la John Edwards in the Marcotte affair), and now the conduct of the employees is considered indefensible “for good reason.” Truly, Chet, as one of the commenters remarked above, this is a bravura performance.
No, Chet, demonstrating that I am wrong requires more than a claim by one of the employees (in the San Bernardino incident) that she was joking. But, again, after your attempt to show that underage prostitution is not necessarily a subject devoid of humor, I’m not surprised that you think you’ve demonstrated something other than your own cluelessness.
At least Freddie has had the sense not to come back here and keep defending his ridiculous claim about anti-entrapment laws.
— Kate Marie · Sep 20, 05:40 PM · #
Kate Marie, your performance is lacking a bit too; you have the point but you’re biffing it. Look: What Chet’s saying is goofy because ACORN’s suing. If it’s legitimately ACORN’s position that any sensible person seeing those videos will “know” the staffers were “playing along,” then their case will get laughed out of court because they won’t have a damage to plead.
A good analogy would be the bit some years back where some journalists went undercover at the Southern “Food Lion” chain and showed all kinds of unsanitary practices: Food Lion then sued the journalists for misrepresenting themselves. Which you can do, but everybody correctly interpreted that action as, wow, Food Lion is doing all this crap, and they’re just piqued at these dudes for telling someone. That’s what ACORN is doing.
I don’t think it’s fair to use that to represent ACORN as a whole (FD: I have friends who’ve worked with them) and I think because of their model there’s reasons there’s incompetent clueless people working in some ACORN offices: but it’s goofy to say that ACORN doesn’t concede that the videos show what you say, because if they don’t concede that it’s hard to figure out what they’re going to tell a civil court.
— Sanjay · Sep 21, 02:19 AM · #
Thanks, Sanjay, an excellent point.
…everybody correctly interpreted that action as, wow, Food Lion is doing all this crap, and they’re just piqued at these dudes for telling someone. That’s what ACORN is doing.
Yes, of course. To be honest, though, I didn’t want to open up a new line of argument with Chet. I mean, he’s still, as far as I know, insisting that there’s a rich vein of humor to be mined out of sex trafficking and underage prostitution. I commented here to begin with because I thought a condemnation of the employees on these videos was fairly uncontroversial, and I was surprised (though, on second thought, I shouldn’t have been) to see someone try to claim that it was all another sympton of the “conservative outrage machine.”
The only reason I’m still commenting on this thread is pretty juvenile, I’ll admit, but it’s because I’m not going to let Chet get away with claiming that the article he cited constitutes a proof of his view or a refutation of mine. Actually trying to persuade him that his view of the matter is wrong seems a bridge too far; he seems pretty unpersuadable. You’re welcome to give it a shot, if you’re so inclined.
FWIW, I don’t think it’s fair to use these videos to represent ACORN as a whole, either. They do make ACORN look really bad, though — which, as you’ve already pointed out, is why ACORN is suing — and I think at least an internal investigation is warranted.
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 02:53 AM · #
Why yes, KHatemarie, since you care so passionately about the SERIOUS PROBLEM of underage prostitution, why don’t you jump upthread ^^ and offer some suggestions about revoking American contractor sponsership of the afghan/chinese child sexslave human trafficking?
Since that is a REAL problem with REAL victims, and not manufactured outrage from political activists posing as reporters posing as pimps and hookers.
— matoko_chan · Sep 21, 03:58 AM · #
I’m sorry but I don’t see the contradiction. Is that because, unlike you, I can see a spectrum of behavior in between “stupid, but makes sense” and “incomprehensibly immoral”?
Why? Wouldn’t she know if she was joking or not? Who would be in a position to contradict her? Can James O’Keefe read minds, too?
— Chet · Sep 21, 04:05 AM · #
Sigh. Chet, the tape is in a position to contradict her. No one is required to believe her version/interpretation of what happened. Even if one does believe her, though, why does that require us to believe the same of the other employees (in Baltimore, N.Y., National City, etc.) whom ACORN has fired?
And why not answer Sanjay’s question, Chet? Why is ACORN suing? If no reasonable person could watch these tapes and conclude that the employees were serious, what damages are they claiming?
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 04:40 AM · #
We also have the ACORN C.E.O. on the record saying she was outraged by what she saw on the tapes and Pres. Obama saying what was on the tapes was inappropriate and deserves to be investigated. Are they taking a view of the tapes that no reasonable person could take, or are they lying? And if they’re lying about their outrage and disapproval, why do they feel the need to lie? If no reasonable person could watch those tapes and think anything other than that the staffers were “having some fun” with the fake pimp, why do they feel the need to pander to the small percentage of idiots who can’t see what you see?
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 04:53 AM · #
I don’t see how; it can only videotape her words and actions, not her state of mind.
Because they can. Because what O’Keefe did is against the law. Because they may not have any choice but to pursue a legal claim on behalf of their employee or they themselves might be subject to a lawsuit. Because taking the employee’s actions out of context makes them look pretty bad (and has already cost them millions in Federal funding.)
Seems like they have abundant reason to sue. But I guess I don’t get it. When you thought they weren’t suing, that was evidence that ACORN knew they were in trouble and had no defense against the accusations. Now that you know they’re suing – that’s evidence that ACORN knows they’re in trouble, and that they have no defense against the accusations.
Is there really no evidence at all that would convince you you were wrong, Kate? It really seems like there isn’t.
— Chet · Sep 21, 06:01 AM · #
When you thought they weren’t suing, that was evidence that ACORN knew they were in trouble and had no defense against the accusations. Now that you know they’re suing – that’s evidence that ACORN knows they’re in trouble, and that they have no defense against the accusations.
Where did you get the idea that I thought not suing was evidence that ACORN knew they were in trouble? I thought firing their employees (from Baltimore, New York) was evidence they knew they were in trouble. All of their subsequent statements seem to indicate the same thing.
Again, if the tapes were so clearly “jokes,” ACORN would have no reason to sue, as they wouldn’t be able to claim damages. What damages are they claiming? If they’re suing “because they can,” that’s further proof of their stupidity, but I suppose they’re making some lawyers very happy.
And you haven’t answered my questions about Obama’s and the CEO’s statements.
As for convincing me I’m wrong, I’m happy to admit I’m wrong when I’ve been presented with a well-reasoned, consistent argument and strong evidence that I’m in error. I’m still waiting.
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 07:16 AM · #
Why, from your own statements, of course:
P.S. ACORN’s actions suggest they agree with me. Or else they’re simply throwing their poor innocent pranksters under the bus.
Did you not say that?
It’s absurd, too, that Acorn is firing these people for merely going along with the gag.
Did you not say that?
Anyway, ACORN doesn’t appear to take your view of it.
Did you not say that?
Amazing how many things you said that you didn’t actually say, Kate.
But they’ve already been damaged, jokes or not. I don’t see how that claim holds up. They have ample reason to sue.
I don’t understand the relevance of Obama, here. He’s black, so he’s expected to defend the conduct of the nation’s black people? He’s the President, so the actions of community organizations somehow reflect on him? He worked for a law firm that worked with ACORN a decade ago, therefore he’s every bit as implicated as the staffers involved?
What, exactly, am I supposed to make of your attempt to inject Obama into the discussion? What, Obama and I can’t disagree on something? He can’t ever be wrong? (I already know that you can’t.)
Quod erat demonstrandum, like someone keeps saying.
— Chet · Sep 21, 04:39 PM · #
I said all those things, Chet, but funny how not one of those statements mentions not suing as the actions of ACORN that I was referring to, and funny how one of the statements specifically mentions firing the employees, which — as I’ve already pointed out — is exactly what I meant when I said ACORN’s actions agree with me.
But they’ve already been damaged, jokes or not. I don’t see how that claim holds up.
Chet, your argument is that no reasonable person can view these tapes as anything other than jokes, with the ACORN employees playing along with the fake pimp to get rid of him. It’s utterly obvious to any reasonable person, according to you, that that’s what is going on. If that’s the case, and if the spoofing of the ACORN employees is as obvious as you claim it is, what damage can possibly have been caused to ACORN by the tapes, and why would ACORN want to spend money on a lawsuit? They can only have been damaged if most reasonable people see the tapes as damaging/harmful to ACORN’s reputation.
I’m using examples of the ACORN C.E.O. and Obama, Chet, because presumably you would agree that they are reasonable people. If that’s not case, why don’t you define what your standard of “reasonable” is; I have a suspicion that, in your quaint little world, “Chet” is the measure of all things reasonable.
I don’t understand the relevance of Obama, here. He’s black, so he’s expected to defend the conduct of the nation’s black people?
As I said above, I used Obama as an example of someone you would presumably consider reasonable, but I find it interesting that that didn’t occur to you. What occurred to you was “he’s black.” Second, ACORN is not an organization of black people. Were you under the impression that it was?
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 04:55 PM · #
Chet,
Correction: Not one, but two of the putative “gotcha” quotes you cited mentioned the firing of the employees (one specifically mentions “firing;” the other mentions “throwing them under the bus,” which was a reference to their having been fired). And the final quote, that ACORN doesn’t appear to take your view of it, was, again, a reference to the fact that their firing of the employees and their outrage at the employees’ actions don’t appear to endorse your view that the employees’ actions made perfect sense. LOL!
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 05:09 PM · #
Kate, again we’re seeing the relentless disingenuity you’ve become known for around here.
But I didn’t say that it was “not suing” that they referred to. I’m simply trying to make clear the game you’re playing: when ACORN seemed not to stand up to the outrage, but meekly and quietly fired the people involved, that was evidence that they had something to hide. When it turned out that they were not going gently into that good night, that they were filing suit in an effort to push back on the manipulated outrage, suddenly that was evidence that they had something to hide.
You’re perfectly and completely unconvincable, Kate. Anything ACORN does is evidence that you’re right, somehow.
But firing the employees – which they have not done in every case – doesn’t “agree” with you. It “agrees” with me. (Is English not your first language, or something? How can actions “agree” with anything?) Employees are far more often fired for jokes that make their employers look bad than they are for using company time and space to aid and abet international prostitution rings. (Surely you won’t dispute that?)
Had these employees actually entered into a conspiracy to aid and abet sexual slavery of minors, they would not have simply been fired – they would have been arrested. It is, after all, against the law. They have not been arrested – because they did not do so. Notably, you have not called for their arrest on those charges – because, dishonestly, you understand that they were not serious but have decided to argue the opposite point.
Well, no. That has not ever been my argument My argument is that these ACORN employees are playing along with what they see as a joke, humoring a costume-party “pimp” for their own amusement and to get him to go away.
That seems incontrovertable from the tapes, given the expressions of amusement, given the laughter and snickering, given the fact that even O’Keefe was forced to admit they seemed bemused by the whole experience. Given that the employees themselves have said “I was only kidding an obvious kidder.” I notice that you have not at any time attempted to refute any of these points, so I don’t see how you can honestly continue to contend that these ACORN employees were just the kind of little Eichmann who would, knowingly and willfully, aid and abet the sexual exploitation of foreign minors.
Again – the damage that has already occurred. Did they not lose millions in Federal funding? Has this situation not been reported as “ACORN employees busted in prostitution scheme” and not “ACORN employees display sense of humor”?
Why do you continue to ignore my answer to your question? Why do you continue to pretend that ACORN has suffered no damage as a result of this incident?
All of the tapes I’ve seen record black staffers of ACORN. Had you not seen the tapes? (That may explain why you were not aware that they were joking around.)
I assume that they are. Neither such figure has asserted that these employees, without a doubt, were willingly and knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to sell underage girls into forced prostitution. They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to you – because you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.”
Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that?
— Chet · Sep 21, 07:04 PM · #
I’m simply trying to make clear the game you’re playing: when ACORN seemed not to stand up to the outrage, but meekly and quietly fired the people involved, that was evidence that they had something to hide. When it turned out that they were not going gently into that good night, that they were filing suit in an effort to push back on the manipulated outrage, suddenly that was evidence that they had something to hide.
Chet, when they fired the employees, that was evidence that the conduct of the employees was outrageous and indefensible, as the C.E.O. has said. When they sued, that was evidence that they understood that the tapes, because of the outrageous conduct of their employees, had done real damage to their reputation. Beyond that, though, Chet, I believe you really mean the things you say you mean. Do me the courtesy of assuming the same of me, because I can assure I mean what I say here. I don’t understand the tactic of constantly questioning your interlocutors’ honesty. What does it gain you?
Notably, you have not called for their arrest on those charges – because, dishonestly, you understand that they were not serious but have decided to argue the opposite point.
I mean what I say. I think (with the possible exception of the woman in San Bernardino) that they were all serious. I don’t know what the law is in a matter like this (where there were no actual underage prostitutes, for instance), but if they can be charged and arrested, I think they should be charged and arrested.
Did they not lose millions in Federal funding? Has this situation not been reported as “ACORN employees busted in prostitution scheme” and not “ACORN employees display sense of humor”?
How did they lose federal funding, and how did the situation get reported as it has been reported, if “everybody” agrees that it was a simple matter of “inappropriate joking?” I guess it’s another case of “Everybody else is a lying liar except Chet, the Last Honest Man in the Universe.”
Why do you continue to pretend that ACORN has suffered no damage as a result of this incident?
You aren’t understanding the point, Chet. Of course, ACORN has been damaged, but only because people have reasonably and correctly concluded that the behavior of the employees was outrageous, immoral, and potentially illegal.
“Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that.”
Seriously, Chet, who is everybody? Can you give me an example of a single person, other than you and one ACORN staffer, who has described the actions of the ACORN employees as “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake?” “Indefensible.” An “outrage.” Those are the assessments I’ve seen coming from the ACORN C.E.O. herself. But apparently everybody but me sees their actions as “inappropriate joking.” Could you provide some citations or evidence for that claim?
They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to youbecause you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between ‘inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake’ and ‘incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.’”
— Let’s see. I consider the actions of the ACORN employees indefensible and outrageous. The ACORN C.E.O. considers the actions of the employees “indefensible” and an “outrage.” It would seem that she and I agree.
All of the tapes I’ve seen record black staffers of ACORN. Had you not seen the tapes?
Then you haven’t seen all the tapes, including the one that Conor specifically referenced in this post. Sheesh. Look again. Even if all the employees on the tapes happened to be black (which they obviously aren’t), it does not follow that ACORN is an organization of black people. In fact, it is not a “black” organization.
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 07:42 PM · #
Chet, you are obviously wrong. The actors in the video might be objectively ridiculous, but you can’t explain away this simple fact. The advice of ACORN’s employees was correct: if you were a pimp and prostitute with underage girls working for you, following the advice in the videos is the preferred way to commit tax fraud (trust me, I’m a badass attorney). You’d have us chalk it up to what, lucky guesswork during a good ole fashioned racketeering Role Playing Game of You-be-pimp-I-be-tax-fraud-facilitator (a veritable method act, with all the right forms and diction)?
I’m curious, though. Why this particular line in this particular sand? It’s such an obvious loser, your position so obviously untenable, that, well, I’m beginning to think your posts are sophisticated parody authored by a diabolically smart conservative. Kind of like Freddie’s, but less funny.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 21, 08:19 PM · #
Yet again, I’m forced to wonder why you can’t distinguish between conduct that is a bad idea – making jokes, on tape, that make your employer look really, really bad – and conduct that is offensively immoral – like willfully and knowingly plotting an international sex slavery ring. Everybody, including Obama and the ACORN C.E.O., can tell the difference. Why can’t you?
Really? I can’t believe it. You believe that they were fooled by this pimp costume, and then proceeded to plan a Federally-criminal enterprise with persons they had only just met in their place of work?
Honestly? The reason I have a hard time believing that you really mean the things you say, sometimes, is that the things you say are occasionally so damn dumb that it’s more charitable to accuse you of lying than to accuse you of being a moron. I’d like to not accuse you of anything at all, so maybe you could stop saying (or believing) dumb things?
Even Conor can’t believe that O’Keefe was able to fool anyone dressed like that. For some reason, he’s unable to move to the next link in that chain of inference – they weren’t fooled.
When did I say that “everybody agrees” that this was just joking? A lot of people have only seen edited portions of the edited tapes. A lot of people haven’t seen the tapes at all – like you, apparently – and have only heard that ACORN employees were caught trying to set up a prostitution ring.
People believe all kinds of wrong things. (That could never happen to you, of course.)
Well, no. You don’t just consider them indefensible and outrageous. You must also consider them a violation of international law by persons so mentally incompetent that they’re fooled by costume-party theatrics. You apparently consider this CIA-level accomplishment in the art of the physical disguise.
You think that these staffers were genuinely fooled, convinced they were collaborating with a criminal mastermind on the basis of his fake fur and sunglasses. Convinced that international prostitution was such a noble goal that they aided and abetted such a project for free. For what reason?
The idea that they were serious is indefensible. How long are you going to continue to defend it?
I never said it was an “organization of black people.” When are you going to desist with these absurd misrepresentations?
— Chet · Sep 21, 08:55 PM · #
I believe you, which is why this is actually a point in favor of my position, not yours. As you say, you’re a “badass attorney.” Could you be smart enough to be a badass attorney at the same time that you were dumb enough to be fooled by this?
If these staffers were smart enough to provide a plausible tax cover for a prostitution ring, they were too smart to be fooled by O’Keefe. QED. It’s the case of the dog that didn’t bark.
— Chet · Sep 21, 08:58 PM · #
I get it, Chet. They were too smart to be fooled by the pimp — as smart as KVS, the badass attorney, in fact — but too stupid to keep from “playing tax fraud” with the college kids just to get rid of them.
The idea that they were serious is indefensible. How long are you going to continue to defend it?
— LOL! Show me the money, Chet. Where are all your cites/links showing that “everybody” thinks the idea that they were serious is indefensible?
People believe all kinds of wrong things.
True dat. In fact, I even know some people who are Trig truthers, and it’s funny how most people disagree with them despite the incontrovertible evidence for their Trig trutherism.
A lot of people haven’t seen the tapes at all – like you, apparently
LOL! But you were the one who insisted that all the staffers on the tapes were black. Were you — gasp! — wrong?
This is too silly to continue with. Chet, maybe you are the brainchild of a diabolically smart conservative parodist, as KVS suggests. It’s pretty to think so, anyway.
— Kate Marie · Sep 21, 09:35 PM · #
Chet,
One small point: how sure are you that O’Keefe wore his goofy costume when he went into the offices? I don’t think there’s any spot in the video where the hidden camera gives a view of what O’Keefe’s wearing, and someone in a different city who turned the duo away before calling the police posted a YouTube video where she says O’Keefe was wearing normal clothes — a suit, maybe? I know he’s got a goofy outfit in the exterior shot, but that’s a different camera.
— william randolph · Sep 21, 10:01 PM · #
That makes no sense. Humor is a trait associated with intelligence.
What?
He says that’s what he was wearing.
— Chet · Sep 21, 11:34 PM · #
Chet,
I haven’t found/seen/heard O’Keefe’s own description of what he was wearing, but I don’t have anything at stake in this argument, so I’m gonna bow out.
— william randolph · Sep 21, 11:59 PM · #
That makes no sense. Humor is a trait associated with intelligence.
So now “playing tax fraud with the college kids to make them go away” is a sign of intelligence again? A few comments upthread you claimed that it was “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake.” My head is spinning.
_Neither such figure has asserted that these employees, without a doubt, were willingly and knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to sell underage girls into forced prostitution. They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to you – because you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.”
Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that?_
I assume that when you say “everybody can tell the difference,” you mean “everybody can tell the difference between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.” If that’s so, and if you’re correct that the tapes “incontrovertibly” demonstrate the former, then you are asserting that “everybody” who watches these tapes can tell that the staffers are joking. If that’s not what you’re claiming, then what are you claiming?
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 12:21 AM · #
Sorry, the passage above is a direct quote of Chet’s:
Neither such figure has asserted that these employees, without a doubt, were willingly and knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to sell underage girls into forced prostitution. They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to you – because you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.”
Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that?
My response is above.
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 12:24 AM · #
Sorry, this passage above is a direct quote of Chet’s:
Neither such figure has asserted that these employees, without a doubt, were willingly and knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to sell underage girls into forced prostitution. They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to you – because you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.”
Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that?
My response is above.
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 12:24 AM · #
Chet chiming in to call someone stupid and dishonest in five . . . four . . . three . . . two . . .
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 12:28 AM · #
Is that because you don’t understand the basic English meaning of words? “Intelligent” doesn’t mean “never makes a mistake.”
Only what I’ve repeatedly stated I’m claiming, Kate. Maybe some more sleep would help with your reading comprehension?
Kate, I don’t want to refer to you as dishonest. Help me out with that by not completely misrepresenting me, and drawing these sorts of distorting “inferences” from my remarks.
I’ve claimed, repeatedly, that it’s far more reasonable to assert that these people were joking, not that they were openly aiding and abetting a costume-party pimp in violating international sex slavery laws for no reason at all. Even Conor seems to get this (“Am I missing something here?”) Your repeated failure to grapple with that point only drives home how completely unconvincable you truly are.
— Chet · Sep 22, 04:12 PM · #
1. I’ve explicated the passage that I directly quoted in a completely reasonable way, Chet. If I’m incorrect, explain what you meant in the passage. Saying you are claiming “only what you’ve repeatedly stated you’re claiming” is a cop out, but I’m not surprised. Tell me how I misinterpreted your exact words.
2. it’s far more reasonable to assert that these people were joking, not that they were openly aiding and abetting a costume-party pimp in violating international sex slavery laws for no reason at all. Even Conor seems to get this (“Am I missing something here?”)
You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread that I’m getting dizzy. I thought Conor was calling them “little Eichmans.” Now he thinks they were joking? Really, which is it? And how on earth does his post constitute a suggestion that the staffers were joking, given its references to the banality of evil?
Seriously, Chet, you’re responding as though everyone else on this thread has somehow conceded your point, when in fact almost no one has. Are there any people (other than the woman on the San Bernardino tape) who have argued that these staffers were obviously just joshing? If your point is so obvious, why isn’t there abundant evidence of other people making the same point?
If you’ve now changed your position and it’s merely “it’s reasonable to believe that no one could be fooled by this fake pimp,” rather than “the staffers were obviously joking,” ummmm, okay. Yes, it’s hard to believe that anyone could be fooled by this guy. But I believe that they were fooled. You seem to believe that there is a causal relationship between “it’s hard to believe they were fooled” and “they weren’t fooled; they were only joking.” There is no such relationship. The conclusion doesn’t not follow from the premise.
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 06:27 PM · #
Correction: “The last sentence above should read “The conclusion does not follow from the premise.”
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 09:00 PM · #
I think the problem is that you “explicate” instead of read; that is, you’re determined to parse my statements in the least defensible way that opens the most avenues for your attack, rather than with the meaning I’ve actually intended. It’s highly disingenuous, of course, and I can hardly believe that it’s tolerated at TAS.
Do you just forget every other post I’ve written each time you read the next one? You develop that impression when you say things like:
But I never said that Conor thinks they’re joking. Conor clearly finds that it stretches credibility, though, to assert (as you do) that O’Keefe’s costume was at all convincing, and that ACORN staffers genuinely believed themselves to be collaborating in a criminal enterprise to smuggle children for sex. (“Normally when someone commits a crime, serial killers excepted, I can at least conceive of why someone might behave in that fashion. Am I missing something here?” he asks, indicating that he finds it absolutely unbelievable that someone would act in that fashion.)
Conor has certainly conceded the point that it makes no sense to assume that the ACORN staffers genuinely saw themselves in the company of a master criminal who they then decided to aid and abet in a scheme to sell little girls as sexual chattel. Indeed he’s very direct with that point in his original post. It’s incomprehensible that anyone would seriously act like that.
Which is why the most reasonable explanation is that they weren’t serious. This interpretation is supported by the videos – they laugh, smile, seem amused rather than conspiratorial throughout, never act like they should keep their voices down or retire to a less eavesdropped location. It’s supported by the staffers themselves, who say they were just pranking some pranksters. It’s supported by O’Keefe himself, who remarks how amused they all seemed by the whole thing. It’s supported by the CEO of ACORN, who has described these actions in terms more suited to pranksters making the company look bad than to a criminal ring of child pimps plotting the rape and corruption of minors. (You seem to think Obama’s condemnation is too stern to refer to a band of irresponsible jokers. I find it far, far too tepid to refer to a band of immoral sexual slavemasters. Remember that Obama voted for the death penalty for persons convicted of such crimes.)
Nobody believes they were fooled. Conor doesn’t even believe they could have been fooled. KVS proved, unintentionally, that they couldn’t have been fooled. The staffers say they weren’t fooled, at these and other locations.
Well, look. I’ll do a Google search. How many people arguing that they were just joking would it take to convince you? Pick a number. 10? 20?
If, in fact, no number of people agreeing with me would be enough to convince you, why did you even bring it up? Seriously, pick a number. I’ll find ‘em.
Nonsense. When a position has no evidence in support, and abundant evidence in contention, it isn’t reasonable to maintain that position (as you do). That’s exactly what it means for conclusions to follow from premises!
— Chet · Sep 22, 09:51 PM · #
Chet, the only thing I proved is that these people know how to commit tax fraud, and were ready to advise accordingly at the drop of a hat without further study.
You’re saying nobody can be that gullible. That’s just silly. Google the effectiveness rate of emails from the prince of Nigeria for just one example, or Youtube old clips from Candid Camera. People — even people with menial public jobs — are stupid gullible all the time.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 22, 10:37 PM · #
It’s highly disingenuous, of course, and I can hardly believe that it’s tolerated at TAS.
LOL! You have got to be kidding me! They tolerate what’s-her-name’s defenses of sexual mutilation tapes, but dastardly, disingenuous me … I’m dangerous. Got it, Chet. But wait! No reasonable group blog would tolerate my subversive behavior. It follows therefore, that a) my behavior is not actually “highly disingenuous” [we’ll call this the Chet Formulation], or b) TAS is not a reasonable blog. If a, then you’ve been hoist by your own petard. If b, then what are you doing here?
I noticed you refused to explain what that direct quotation did mean, Chet. I welcomed your correction/explanation. You haven’t provided it. No surprise there, either.
Now, run along and google, google, google, dear boy. I’m sure for every post you find that claims the staffers were joking, I can find one that takes them seriously.
There really isn’t any point in going on with this. KVS clearly takes the best approach with commenters like you, though he’s also correct that Freddie is at least good for some laughs.
— Kate Marie · Sep 22, 11:15 PM · #
Haven’t I answered this a number of times around here? I’m here because it’s a front-row seat to the complete dissolution of an American political movement, largely because it tolerates (celebrates!) people like you. (Pass the popcorn, please.)
You’ve quoted a number of things that I said. If you thought I was important that I explain a particular remark, please indicate it by quoting it again and I’ll explain it. I didn’t realize it was that important to you.
But you haven’t answered my question yet. How many do I need to find? Be specific.
Oh, so we’re doing it by consensus, now? You keep moving the goalposts. Typical behavior for those who can’t be wrong.
Certainly not, if you’re going to insist on being evasive and avoiding direct questions. How many such posts do you require to be convinced? Pick a number.
Look, I want to be absolutely clear on what you’re saying. You’re convinced, absolutely, that the evidence is clear that these staffers knowingly and willfully intended to collaborate with what they thought was an actual pimp in what they believed was a criminal enterprise?
That’s your position? Just want to be clear on that. That’s the only explanation, that they were collaborating because they wanted to be part of a criminal prostitution ring?
— Chet · Sep 23, 12:45 AM · #
I don’t have any idea why they abetted the “pimp,” old sport, and I’ve never made any claim that I did have any idea.
No, old sport, you’re the one who believes “they were joshin’” is the only explanation. I believe that my interpretation of their actions is correct and reasonable. Are any other explanations possible? Sure, why not, old sport? You seem, unless I’m utterly mistaken, to be claiming that their collaboration in tax fraud and underage prostitution was impossible, which brings me to the direct quotation. I’ll just copy and paste from my comment upthread:
Neither such figure has asserted that these employees, without a doubt, were willingly and knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to sell underage girls into forced prostitution. They don’t “agree with you”, except as it appears to you – because you have some kind of mental inability to distinguish between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.”
Everybody can tell the difference, it seems, but you, Kate. How do you explain that?
I assume that when you say “everybody can tell the difference,” you mean “everybody can tell the difference between “inappropriate joking that was probably a mistake” and “incomprehensible immoral corruption of minors.” If that’s so, and if you’re correct that the tapes “incontrovertibly” demonstrate the former, then you are asserting that “everybody” who watches these tapes can tell that the staffers are joking. If that’s not what you’re claiming, then what are you claiming?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 01:28 AM · #
But you believe that they did – that they willingly and knowingly decided to participate in what they believed was an actual criminal enterprise.
Is that correct? That’s your position?
I don’t see how that interpretation follows, frankly. I’m asserting that they were joking. I’m asserting that neither Obama nor the ACORN CEO think they were serious about their plans to participate in the rape of children. I’m asserting that, even though they suspect these guys were kidding, they’re nonetheless disapproving of antics that make ACORN look reprehensible on tape. Remember the context in which I made that remark? Recall that you were arguing that, if they were just joking, neither Obama nor the ACORN CEO would have anything but full-throated support for these staffers. The purpose of my remark was to show you how that’s not necessarily so. There’s plenty of space between “child prostitution” and “happy joke time that nobody minds” for conduct that, while not immoral, is nevertheless a bad idea. This is an example of such conduct (it is not an example of happy joke time that nobody minds, as you have repeatedly tried to distort my remarks.)
That, like they said – like they appeared to be – they were joking. That “they were serious” is not a reasonable interpretation, because it is contradicted by ample evidence and supported by none. And that that explains why Conor is so puzzled (it’s the answer to his question “Am I missing something here?”)
I don’t think any of that is particularly complicated. I don’t think any of it is particularly contentious, for that matter.
— Chet · Sep 23, 03:23 AM · #
I’m asserting that neither Obama nor the ACORN CEO think they were serious about their plans to participate in the rape of children. I’m asserting that, even though they suspect these guys were kidding, they’re nonetheless disapproving of antics that make ACORN look reprehensible on tape.
The ACORN CEO said the conduct was an outrage and indefensible. I don’t see how you can assert what you’re asserting unless a) you can read the CEO’s mind, or b) you think it’s the only thing she could possibly mean because “everyone” can see that the staffers are joking. Let me amend that. I suppose you can assert anything you want.
Yes, as I’ve said several times, I believe that the staffers on the tape (with the possible exception of the woman in S.B.) willingly collaborated with prostitution and tax fraud.
You keep saying “they’ve” said they were joking. I haven’t read a statement like that from any of the staffers, except the one woman. Do you have a link?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 03:36 AM · #
Language too weak to plausibly be referring to the forced prostitution of children.
Then why did they go to the police immediately afterwards? Seems counterproductive to involve the police if you’re trying to take part in a prostitution ring, doesn’t it?
Boy, you just keep getting wronger and wronger, don’t you?
— Chet · Sep 23, 02:41 PM · #
Outrage
Two days later is not immediately afterward, Chet. LOL!
Two days later suggests he got scared.
Boy, you just keep getting funnier and funnier, don’t you?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 02:50 PM · #
By the way, do you have that link to an article in which the other employees claim they were joking?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 02:52 PM · #
Wow, amazing. There’s absolutely no circumstances under which you would admit to being wrong, is there?
LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff?
— Chet · Sep 23, 04:44 PM · #
What does the word “immediately” mean to you, Chet?
By the way, do you have that link to an article in which the other employees claim they were joking?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 07:09 PM · #
Seriously – at the point where your arguments are about what words mean, I’m done. Can’t imagine anything more boring.
— Chet · Sep 23, 08:54 PM · #
Chet, with all due respect, words matter (didn’t our President say exactly that during his campaign?).
If the guy in San Diego had immediately called the police, I likely would have conceded that there was some evidence he wasn’t collaborating with the fake pimp.
On the other hand, the fact that he called the police at all kind of cuts against your argument that these staffers were just playing along with the fake pimp to get him to go away, doesn’t it? If he knew all along the guy was a phony, why was he calling the police at all?
— Kate Marie · Sep 23, 11:17 PM · #