DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 10, 2008, 05:01:09 PM
-
http://www.counterpunch.com/barry06072008.html (link to the Counterpunch article by Tom Barry)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin (link to the source)
The United States has more people in jail?2.3 million?than any other nation. Although the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, it holds almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. One of every 100 adults in the "land of the free" is locked up.
Land of the free, my ass!
-
Yeah we bad
-
Apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but apparently supports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Man, what a scary world that would be to live in
-
Oh no, how can you be bad? You're the Land of the Free.
-
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
The decision to commit the crime is what freedom is all about.
-
<<Apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but allsupports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Man, what a scary world that would be to live in>>
The "military folk" are invaders, rapists and murderers without a shred of legality to back up their criminal invasion and the "criminals" are mostly drug users and illegal immigrants, scary to no one but you.
Numbers don't lie. If the U.S.A. is the land of the free, China must be the Workers' and Peasants' Paradise.
-
In other words, apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but supports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Again, pretty scary place that'd be
-
<<The decision to commit the crime is what freedom is all about.>>
ROTFLMFAO. So now the world's highest incarceration rate is PROOF of your "freedom." A more literal adoption of Orwell's 1984 I could never hope to find. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Incarceration is Freedom. Bravo, BT!!!
-
<<In other words, apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but supports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Again, pretty scary place that'd be>>
ooooh, yeah, scary! Only to a nation of frightened cowards. Frightened of non-violent drug users - - lock 'em all up. Frightened of non-violent illegal immigrants - - lock 'em all up. Ooooh, how scary if they weren't locked up. Scary to the likes of sirs, anyway.
-
Are you saying that free actions should not have consequences?
Should you be able to shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die?
-
Apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but apparently supports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Man, what a scary world that would be to live in
I think the point that should be taken is that we, as a populace have a giant stick up our collective ass about a lot of stuff that doesn't mean shit anything and we don't take care of each other the way other less crime-ridden nations do.
You reap what you guys sow.
-
ooooh, yeah, scary! Only to a nation of frightened cowards. Frightened of non-violent drug users - - lock 'em all up.
right that is why DC is on virtual lockdown. Non violent my ass
-
I think the point that should be taken is that we, as a populace have a giant stick up our collective ass about a lot of stuff that doesn't mean shit anything and we don't take care of each other the way other less crime-ridden nations do.
You reap what you guys sow.
Remind me again how all the democrat controlled legislatures in all the democrat controlled states wiped all the drug laws off the books.
You guys. sheeesh
The only party that consistently argues against drug laws are the libertarians and they hold their convention at the holiday inn.
-
I think the point that should be taken is that we, as a populace have a giant stick up our collective ass about a lot of stuff that doesn't mean shit anything and we don't take care of each other the way other less crime-ridden nations do. You reap what you guys sow.
You mean, when you break the law, you go to jail. Yea, works for me
<<In other words, apparently Tee not only advocates mass killing of U.S. military folk, but supports all forms of criminals walking the streets. Again, pretty scary place that'd be>>
ooooh, yeah, scary! Only to a nation of frightened cowards.
No, the scary place would be criminals with free roam of the land, pulling whatever crime they want, when they want, with no consequences or repercussions, unless coming from another criminal. Yea, laws, responsibility, and and legal conduct are so..... overrated
Oh, here's a thought....get some Lanya-like american folks to write their legislators, and demand that they stop creating more and more laws
-
<<No, the scary place would be criminals with free roam of the land, pulling whatever crime they want, when they want, with no consequences or repercussions, unless coming from another criminal. Yea, laws, responsibility, and and legal conduct are so..... overrated
<<Oh, here's a thought....get some Lanya-like american folks to write their legislators, and demand that they stop creating more and more laws>>
Well, here's another thought - - suppose the violent criminals were left in the jails and "criminals' committing victimless crimes are let out. Then you'd have the "safety' you pretended to be so concerned about (a phony issue, since no one ever proposed emptying the jails) AND you'd have incarceration rates more in line with countries enjoying REAL freedoms, not the fake product you try to sell to the gullible suckers, mostly your own benighted citizens, who STILL believe against all evidence that America is "the Land of the Free."
-
You mean, when you break the law, you go to jail. Yea, works for me
Yeah, but why do we have SO MANY that (allegedly) choose to break the law?
Desperation. That's why.
-
it's very obvious that no one on the right is prepared to deal with the stats in a serious way. sirs will go on pretending that everyone who is locked up is a violent offender, a menace (funnily enough, much the same way he still insists that Iraq was a menace to the U.S.) and BT advances the argument by pointing out the number of violent drug users roaming the streets of Washington, DC - - as if, since there is no known way to distinguish between violent and non-violent drug users, so all of them must languish in jail indefinitely for the greater good of mankind.
BT also takes another tack - - do the crime, do the time - - without acknowledging that (1) ANY conduct, whether smoking a joint, chewing gum in public or reading a Bible, can be criminalized, depending on the society making the laws, and (2) the more non-violent and/or victimless activity that is criminalized would seem to be a pretty good indicator of the repressiveness of the society that makes the rules.
I was hoping for a more serious discussion of the subject, but so far all that's surfaced on the right is a lot of denial, straw-man arguments (also evidence of denial) and a simple reluctance to draw the necessary conclusions from inescapable fact. Why was I not more surprised?
-
BT also takes another tack - - do the crime, do the time - - without acknowledging that (1) ANY conduct, whether smoking a joint, chewing gum in public or reading a Bible, can be criminalized, depending on the society making the laws, and (2) the more non-violent and/or victimless activity that is criminalized would seem to be a pretty good indicator of the repressiveness of the society that makes the rules.
You skip the part about how laws are made. Elected representatives make the laws. They decide whether possession of a joint is worth 20 years in Texas or a Rose Bowl parade in California.
You apparently posted the article as an opportunity to snark. Show me that the majority of inmates are political prisoners instead of perpetrators of crimes against persons or property and you might have a case.
I doubt you can.
-
China might have many more prisoners if it were not executeing so many (and selling the spare parts).
I would not mind it if Marijuanna were decriminalised and all convictions directly related to distribution or possession of Cannibas were made void. That would open up a few prison beds for better purpose.
That is just me though , how many people agree with that?
During the time Zell Miller was Govenor , the prison space was doubbled , the beds seldom went empty long either. Zell improved his popularity this way , Guliani got tough and made himself Presidential Canadate materiel.
Don't we like tough state government better than lax enforcement over all?
I mean most of us, excludeing me.
-
The United States has more people in jail - 2.3 million - than any other nation.
I guess we're just more effective at catching and convicting law breakers than most other countries.
-
Yeah, but why do we have SO MANY that (allegedly) choose to break the law?
Desperation. That's why.
That's a romaticized outlook. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity and the belief that they won't get caught.
DUI is but one example.
-
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080610/NEWS05/806100317/1007
Detroit saw an 8% drop in violent crime. That news comes seven months after a Washington-based publication analyzed earlier FBI statistics and made the controversial conclusion Detroit was the nation's most dangerous city.
Locking up one or two carreer criminals prevents dozens of crimes every year , if they are makeing their liveing at crime it is cheaper to put them up in the jail.
But can we afford to do without the productive person who breaks the law seldom or almost harmlessly? Laws that tie down the crime career of a harmfull person are worth keeping and the person in question is better out of the hair of the rest of us. How many laws do we have that cause harmless and productive people to wind up in jail?
-
tricky
since it`s a given that all people arrested are presumed guilty.
legally alleged is the word used,but general public opinoin tend to believe guilt.
family law is proof of this
despite what some folks will say ,guilt on the ex-husband is super easy.
-
<<You skip the part about how laws are made. Elected representatives make the laws. They decide whether possession of a joint is worth 20 years in Texas or a Rose Bowl parade in California.>>
Gee, I missed that laws were made by elected representatives. I always thought that they came from a cabal of Jewish international bankers meeting secretly under the foundations of Solomon's Temple and were then carried to America by special couriers and proclaimed by loudspeakers from unmarked black helicopters hovering over the rooftops. Well, that's alright then. If the laws are made by elected representatives, then they can't possibly be repressive, can they?
<<You apparently posted the article as an opportunity to snark. >>
No, no honestly, it started out as a post in praise of America and all the great personal freedoms that the lucky American people enjoy, and then my evil keyboard just took over regardless of what my fingertips were doing, but believe me I meant to show nothing but awe and reverence for the great American Republic and its wonderful freedoms available equally to one and all. Forgive me BT, but it wasn't me, it was my Islamofascist keyboard, never would I dare to snark at the U.S. of A., benefactor of all mankind.
<<Show me that the majority of inmates are political prisoners instead of perpetrators of crimes against persons or property and you might have a case.>>
I don't have to show you any such thing. I never claimed that the majority of prisoners were political, although I am sure that there are many who are. I never claimed that it would take a 50% reduction in prison population to bring it into line with the civilized world either, so I don't need to demonstrate anything about the majority of the prison population to have a case. I HAVE a case. It is in the numbers I cited. Most other countries maintain safer streets with less incarceration. You are swinging at strawmen.
-
I'd leave the sarcasm to Prince.
He's better at it.
-
Who gives a shit? I had fun writing it. And you're not going to manoeuvre me into a pissing match with Prince over who writes better sarcasm.
-
Everyone knows that punishment is rarely an effective means to desired actions.
It is also well-known that "do as I say, not as I do" is an invitation to more crime. When average folk see their "leaders" literally getting away with murder, lies and crimes galore, they feel that the world is their oyster. If no one else is following the rules then why should I?
-
Everyone knows that punishment is rarely an effective means to desired actions.
It is also well-known that "do as I say, not as I do" is an invitation to more crime. When average folk see their "leaders" literally getting away with murder, lies and crimes galore, they feel that the world is their oyster. If no one else is following the rules then why should I?
That is exactly why I couldn't stand Clinton.
-
It is also well-known that "do as I say, not as I do" is an invitation to more crime. When average folk see their "leaders" literally getting away with murder, lies and crimes galore, they feel that the world is their oyster. If no one else is following the rules then why should I?
What a strange statement. I would bet that far less than half of those who rob 7-11's have a clue who their state rep is, or their congressman.
One would also expect crime would be skyrocketing in blue states since they would be more upset with allegations of criminal activity by the current administration.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is suspect you were just employing a rhetorical device .
-
Much of the difference between the US and other countries is due to our locking up people as criminals for drug offenses. This does little to actually deter drug traffic, and locking them up, rather than providing detox programs as they do elsewhere costs more than locking them up.
Decriminalizing marijuana would a logical first step to reducing the prison population.
Prison does not serve as a satisfactory deterrent. Other counties have less crime and many fewer people in prison.
-
Much of the difference between the US and other countries is due to our locking up people as criminals for drug offenses. This does little to actually deter drug traffic, and locking them up, rather than providing detox programs as they do elsewhere costs more than locking them up.
How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?
And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.
-
And you're not going to manoeuvre me into a pissing match with Prince over who writes better sarcasm.
Good. Because I'd win.
Oops. Did I say that out loud?
-
How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?
And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Possession of a small amount of pot MIGHT get you a ticket in BC, like you get when you park illegally, I have heard.
Alaska has largely decriminalized marijuana as well. There are a lot of data about this available.
-
<<How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?
<<And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.>>
Illegal in both countries but I think where the U.S. really went off the rails were with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, which were both tough and inflexible. A couple of years ago, the U.S. sentencing guidelines were declared unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court because the legislative branch was trying to use them to tie the hands of the judicial branch. In order for the judge to deviate from the minimum sentences prescribed by the guidelines, he or she had to hold a "departure hearing" where arguments would be heard to determine if there were sufficient grounds to justify departure from the guidelines. The system seemed to operate in a way where most convicted criminals got only one kick at the can, that is to say, "guideline sentencing." Only the wealthy could afford the extra step of the departure hearing. I think most U.S. criminal defence attorneys were of the opinion that the sentencing guidelines were fairly draconic. A large part of the prison population were sentenced under the guidelines before they were declared unconstitutional. I'm not sure whether the Court as presently constituted would in fact still be of the opinion that federal mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional.
Another big factor is the election of judges and prosecutors, which IMHO blurs the boundaries between the legislative and judicial branches. Once judges and prosecutors have to run for office, they are subject to the same currents and popular prejudices that bring leglislators into and out of power. So the electors now have a hand in choosing both the legislature and the courts which interpret the laws and the constitution, IMHO, a dangerous situation. Popular passions are easily inflamed by random crimes and elected prosecutors and judges are more vulnerable to the pressure of those often negative "get tough on criminals" emotions. If you're campaigning, you don't want a "soft on crime" rep, and it would be well to have a solid conviction rate. Judges can't take a chance on letting some guy off with probation because he knows he'll be crucified if the guy re-offends; leniency could cost him his job. Easier to just hand out the max and never have to worry what happens if the guy re-offends after he serves that max.
And last, I think you've just got a tougher, meaner attitude towards people, particularly the underclass, in some cases caused by religious fanatics and their views on "sin," leading to those ridiculous Texas sentences of 20 years for possession of a joint, etc. Some of it is pure racial prejudice.
There are lots of factors as to WHY the U.S. has such a phenomenal incarceration rate, but since many of the convicts are non-violent perps of victimless crimes, other countries wouldn't incarcerate in many of the same cases.
-
Not sure what federal sentencing guidelines have to do with state courts. Perhaps you could expand on that tangent.
-
There are also state sentencing guidelines.
-
Selected State Sentencing Provisions
ALABAMA: As of 2001, the Alabama Judicial Study Commission was finalizing its creation of a permanent sentencing commission for the state.
ALASKA: Alaska has judicially-created "benchmark" guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished for most (twothirds) felonies. There is no active sentencing commission for the state.
ARKANSAS: State courts employ voluntary guidelines for felonies. There is no appellate review. Arkansas has retained its parole system. There are guidelines which incorporate intermediate sanctions, with preliminary discussions for guidelines in juvenile cases. State sentencing commission was established in 1994.
DELAWARE: Delaware utilizes voluntary guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors. Parole has been abolished in the state since 1990. There is moderate appellate review of sentencing decisions. The state's sentencing guidelines incorporate intermediate sanctions.
DISTRICT of COLUMBIA: The district has created a temporary commission to study sentencing guidelines and report directly to the City Council.
FLORIDA: In Florida, guidelines were repealed in 1997 and replaced with statutory presumptions for minimum sentences for felonies. The state sentencing commission was abolished in 1998 after the adoption of the new statutory presumptive sentences. There is moderate appellate review of sentencing determinations. Parole has been abolished in the system.
IOWA: Iowa has established a legislative commission to study sentencing reform.
KANSAS: Kansas uses presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. There are no guidelines for intermediate sanctions.
MARYLAND: Maryland's legislature created a permanent sentencing commission in 1998. There are voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been retained.
MASSACHUSETTS: In Massachusetts, there are presumptive guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors. A proposal is pending in the legislature for appellate review of sentencing determinations. Parole has been retained.
MICHIGAN: Michigan has been a member of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions since 1999. The state employs presumptive guidelines for felonies, with appellate review as authorized by statute. The state also maintains a restricted parole system.
MINNESOTA: The state has presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. There are no guidelines for intermediate sanctions.
MISSOURI: Missouri uses voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been retained in the state.
NORTH CAROLINA: In North Carolina, there are presumptive guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors, with minimum appellate review. Since 1999, the state has incorporated a special dispositional grid for juvenile cases. Parole has been abolished in the state.
OHIO: Ohio uses presumptive narrative guidelines for felonies. There is limited appellate review. Parole has been abolished and replaced with a judicial release mechanism. The state legislature is also considering structured sentencing for juvenile offenders.
OKLAHOMA: In Oklahoma, presumptive guidelines are in place for felonies. The state has retained a limited parole system. Legislative proposals are pending for appellate review of sentencing determinations.
OREGON: Oregon has presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished.
PENNSYLVANIA: Presumptive guidelines are in place for felonies and misdemeanors, with minimum appellate review. Parole has been retained.
SOUTH CAROLINA: The state employs voluntary guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors with potential sentences of one year or more.
TENNESSEE: There are presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been retained. The sentencing commission was abolished in 1995.
UTAH: The state uses voluntary guidelines for felonies and select misdemeanors (sex offenses). There is no appellate review. Parole has been retained in the state. The state also uses voluntary guidelines for its juvenile sentencing.
VIRGINIA: Virginia has voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been abolished. The state is studying juvenile sentencing guidelines.
WASHINGTON: The state employs presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. Special guidelines for juvenile sentencing are in effect.
WISCONSIN: In Wisconsin, the state employs voluntary guidelines for felonies. Legislative proposals are pending, which do not contemplate appellate review. The proposals also contemplate the abolishment of the state's parole system, as well as the creation of a new permanent sentencing commission.
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/sentencing-and-sentencing-guidelines
-
There are probably studies showing how many current inmates were sentenced under mandatory guidelines, federal OR state, which have since been declared unconstitutional. I should have indicated that the Federal Government had no monopoly on mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Sentencing, of course, is best left to the judge's discretion, since he or she has the best opportunity to consider all of the relevant factors. It's impossible to craft a "one size fits all" policy on sentencing due to the wide range of human variables. A vengeful conservative legislature is almost a guarantee of overflowing prisons.
Personally, I like the system, formal or informal, that seemed to function in the U.S.S.R. - - if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep. I have no idea what percentage of the prison population is serving sentences of 15 years or more, but that would certainly seem to be one way of solving the problem, at least for those convicted of major crimes of violence or massive economic rip-offs. Besides, it's the one sure way I know that guarantees a zero rate of recidivism.
-
Personally, I like the system, formal or informal, that seemed to function in the U.S.S.R. - - if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep.
If we did that, I'm sure our numbers would be more in line with other countries. Even though the US has a death sentence, the number of people executed each year is trivial. Most end up becoming a permanent addition to the numbers you quoted.
-
<<. . . the number of people executed each year is trivial. >>
Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.
But if the policy were put into effect, you'd have to compare the remaining U.S. prison population with the prison pop in other countries, minus those who would have been executed under U.S. rules, to see which country is the more repressive. IMHO, the U.S. would still come off as one of the most repressive regimes in the entire world.
-
Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.
There were 42 last year. China had over 470.
-
OUCH
-
Ami: <<There were 42 [executions] last year. China had over 470.>>
Ami's monkey: <<OUCH>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My exact words were: <<Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.>>
MOST other countries. You know, "most" as in "not all but most?" This should not really be such a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently, for some, it is.
Obviously, some countries have more executions than the U.S. and I think, as most people probably know, China is one of them. So is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So is . . . uh, well, that seems to be it, folks. Apart from China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, no other country in the WORLD executes as many people every year as the "Land of the Free," the good old U.S.A., which by some strange coincidence, also seems to have the most people locked up in cages as well. Freedom, it's wonderful. no sir, can't help lovin all that freedom. Are you glad that you're free? I'M glad that you're free.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions
-
Like I said, we have more people in prison because we're more effective at catching and convicting criminals.
Apart from China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, no other country in the WORLD executes as many people every year as the "Land of the Free," the good old U.S.A.
Well, there is also Iran (317), Pakistan (135), Saudi Arabia (143).
When you express executions as a percent of the population, there are many more countries that execute a higher percent of their population than the US.
-
<<Like I said, we have more people in prison because we're more effective at catching and convicting criminals.>>
What laughable bullshit. Better at imposing mandatory prison sentences for victimless crimes, maybe. Better at expressing racial prejudice in arrest, detention and sentencing policies, for sure. Convicting criminals in an Anglo-Saxon judicial system which unlike all others begins with a presumption of innocence and requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, excluding evidence obtained by torture, force or coercion of any kind, direct or indirect? GIVE ME A BREAK. Get real. In France and most Continental countries, the accused is presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence. There are no Miranda rights. Even Canada didn't have Miranda rights until about 20 years ago. Yeah, you're real good at convicting criminals.
-
GIVE ME A BREAK. Get real.
I don't believe you've provided any sort of statistical evidence to back your claim. You may have presented a few anecdotal cases in the past, but they are insufficient to overcome my doubts.
Therefore, I find my explanation satisfactory and complete under Occam's Razor.
Once you've provided some statistical evidence to the contrary, I'll reconsider my opinion.
-
<<Therefore, I find my explanation satisfactory and complete under Occam's Razor.>>
That's ludicrous. Even under Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation would be that, America having demonstrated no leader-of-the-pack top ranking in catching and convicting criminals, (which in fact is strongly contra-indicated by the factors of presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and Constitutional rights) the higher incarceration rates could only be due to either (a) higher crime rates or (b) longer and harsher sentencing.
-
What a strange statement. I would bet that far less than half of those who rob 7-11's have a clue who their state rep is, or their congressman.
One would also expect crime would be skyrocketing in blue states since they would be more upset with allegations of criminal activity by the current administration.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is suspect you were just employing a rhetorical device .
I was thinking more along the lines of the "president" and nearly every one of his cabinet members.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of the "president" and nearly every one of his cabinet member
I understood your rhetorical device. I just don't buy the causal relationship.
-
We don't catch criminals better than they do in most other places.
People who have lived in Japan tell me that when you report a robbery there, there is a high probability that, not only will they catch the thief, but even that you will get your stuff back. Here, you get a copy of a report to file for your insurance.
We have more people in jails and prisons because we lock people up more often, and when we do, we lock them up for a longer period. We tend to have a higher recidivism rate, and we lock them up more often, too.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of the "president" and nearly every one of his cabinet member
I understood your rhetorical device. I just don't buy the causal relationship.
It could be extended to celebrities, local politicians and so forth.
-
I still don't buy it. People are more influenced by their peers than anyone they see on teevee.
-
Perhaps we should turn capital offenses into a primetime TV reality show. They could show the most entertaining parts of the trial, and at the end of the show, they could have an actual execution. Even though hanging and firing squad perhaps make better TV, they could do a dramatic intravenous poison drip sequence, if they used the right lighting and musical accompaniment.
Some of the revenues from the show could be used as recompense for the victims' families.
-
I still don't buy it. People are more influenced by their peers than anyone they see on teevee.
Pardon my guffaw.
-
Pardon my guffaw.
You disagree?
Please elaborate.