Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Universe Prince

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15

3DHS / Adult human relationships

« on: August 04, 2010, 04:04:55 AM »

A pair of blog posts to share. First up, a feminist woman (no, that's not redundant) gets in touch with her inner slut. No, really. She says so.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/26/my-sluthood-myself/

My Sluthood, Myself.
by Jaclyn on 7.26.2010

Last summer, I suffered the breakup of a relationship that I had thought would be permanent. Now, I’ve been through my share of break-ups, even of quite serious relationships, but nothing ever broke me like this one.

Since then, I’ve had sexual interactions of the orgasmic kind with 9 different people, none of which I was at any time in a committed relationship with.

I’m not telling you this to shock (though I am specifying the number because we all need to get over the whole “OMG! Be ashamed of your NUMBER! It’s either too big or too small!” thing). I’m telling you this because of something else that’s also true about me: I’d really like to be in a long-term, probably monogamous relationship. That’s right, folks, I’m a slut who craves a stable, loving, committed relationship. File me under “Lookin’ fer luv: ur doin it wrong.”

That’s the story we get sold, right? That women who sleep around are destroying their chances at True Love. Something to do with bonding hormones getting all used up? Or is it that we have so little self-esteem that no one could love us? Or maybe it’s that we’re all used candy wrappers or dirty masking tape. I can never remember.

Thing is: I’ve done it the other way. Until my mid-30s, I was largely a serial monogamist. Not for any grand ethical or philosophical reasons – it was just what felt comfortable to me. That’s not to say that I didn’t have some wild adventures in college, or never went to bed with someone on a first date – I did on occasion. It’s just that when I did, I’d often wake up the next day in a relationship. Let me tell you: not the best recipe for partnership bliss.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood is scary. Because we’ve been taught to fear it all our lives, and that training doesn’t just go away because we understand the agenda behind it. And because there are real risks involved. Society likes to punish slutty women. And so do a lot of individual men, some of whom frequent Craigslist Casual Encounters.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger.

[...]

I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me. Sluthood gave me the time and space to nurse a shattered heart. It gave me a place where I could exist in pieces, some of me craving touch, some of me still too tender to even expose to the light. Sluthood healed the part of me that felt my body and my desires were grotesque after two years in a libido-mismatched partnership. Now I felt hot, wanted, powerful. My desire and enthusiasm was an asset, not an unintended weapon. Even now, with more time passed, now, when I am actually ready for and wanting a more emotional connection, sluthood keeps me centered. It keeps me from confusing desire and affection with something deeper. It means I have another choice besides celibacy and settling. It means I won’t enter another committed relationship just to satisfy my basic need for sex and affection. It gives me more choices, it makes room for relationships to evolve organically, to take the shape they will before anyone defines them.

[...]

I’m telling you this because juries still think women who even look like they might possibly be sluts are “asking for it.” I’m telling you this because some people still think it’s OK to drive a teenage girl to suicide because she was probably a slut. I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “fuck like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.

Next up, a man shares some things he has learned about women and about being a man.

http://micah.sparacio.org/07/28/2010/10-things-ill-teach-my-sons-about-women/

10 Things I’ll Teach My Sons About Women
July 28, 2010

Sometimes the truth is not comfortable.

So if you’re not comfortable with a reality that betrays our ideals, don’t read on.

The most important thing I’ve learned about women is that you’ve got to be indifferent to their attempts at harnessing you in an emotional net and controlling you. Sounds harsh, but you’re the man. You need to be in charge of yourself. You should not be controlled. You need to lead. You need to make decisions. Forget all the nonsense about equality. Women don’t want that, even if they say that they do (duplicity of intentions is not uncommon in relationships).

What’s important is to understand how women operate at a biological and emotional level. Ultimately, women are not looking for nice guys. They are looking for strong, confident, powerful men. Men who make them feel secure… comfortable. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective as women needed men they could rely on to protect both them and their children.

[...]

You must become the man you want to become without regard to women… it is only then that you will find that the task of gaining and keeping the attraction of a woman is as simple as breathing. And by doing this you can beat the jerks and the thugs (the one’s who get all the girls) at their own game.

[...]

1. Be confident

Women are attracted to confidence. The irony is that your confidence should not be for the sake of women. It should be natural. Make yourself the best man you can be. Let your confidence derive from who you are. Aim to be the best man you can be simply because that’s who you want to be.

[...]

5. Understand hypergamy

At a biological (subconscious) level women are always trying to upgrade. Men have a hard time understanding this because for most men, at a subconscious level, all that matters is that a woman have a certain level of fitness. Any woman who meets that threshold is fair game. Doesn’t matter if she’s an upgrade or downgrade.

With women it is different. Women are constantly keeping their eyes out for an upgrade (usually in the form of acquiring more power). But they are also constantly keeping their eyes on other women that might be a threat to their current situation (flirting with other women on occasion, within view of your partner, is a great way to fight hypergamy).

So why does this matter? Well, because awareness is the key here. Don’t for a second think that the girl you are with transcends her biological nature. Be prepared. Women are not nearly as innocent as the media portrays.

But it matters even more because you can do things to control hypergamy. 1) don’t be a pushover 2) don’t give her emotional control over you (once she’s dominated you, she’ll definitely start looking for the next guy) 3) keep relationships with other women and flirt from time to time

Most importantly, prepare yourself for reality. Don’t get caught of guard. Know what you want. Keep an eye out. Confront. And be prepared to walk away.

[...]

9. Ditch the nice guy stuff

A friend once said to me: “Things changed when I became a nice guy. Women started to hate me.”

Your goal is not to be nice. Your goal is to be a confident you. There’s no need to be an arrogant prick or a bad boy. You can beat the thugs and pricks and bad boys at their own game. All they have going is that women perceive them to be strong, confident men. And that’s what women want. You can outdo them by being strong and confident and smart.

Oh, one other thing. It’s out of fashion, but you shouldn’t be afraid to maintain the high ground as an honorable gentleman. A guy who treats his woman well, but who also isn’t afraid to walk away with dignity when she starts playing games.

Yes, I know. This is a long post. I am certain you can handle it. This is important stuff. So pause for a moment, rest your eyes, take a drink of water, and read it again.

3DHS / Does pornography equal obscenity?

« on: July 13, 2010, 11:39:37 PM »

Does pornography equal obscenity? There is a case in federal district court that may be about that very question. Of course, my question is, why is this even in court in the first place? Why is anyone trying to prosecute a producer of pornography in A.D. 2010 United States of America? This does not speak well of our society, in my opinion.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/the-trial-of-john-stagliano

So you would think a small businessman like John Stagliano would be held up as a model of entrepreneurship in the United States of 2010. Stagliano built his Southern California company from scratch into a business now worth millions, creating dozens of full-time jobs with benefits (and providing well-compensated work to hundreds of others, too). Included among those jobs were hires necessary for the specific purpose of compiling the bureaucratic paperwork his industry is required to maintain by various levels of government.

Despite the red tape, Stagliano's California business, Evil Angel, has thrived. Then in 2004, Stagliano invested millions into the Las Vegas economy with an original, dance-centered production show on the Strip. The Fashionistas ran for years, far outlasting better known competing Broadway-generated titles such as Avenue Q, Spamalot, and Hairspray. The show proved a surprise favorite with critics, myself included, who were awed by the artistically ambitious choreography, costuming, and tight storyline told through music and dance.

I became friends with Stagliano after he closed Fashionistas to concentrate on Evil Angel, and so it seemed unlikely I would ever be called upon to write about him again. But then in 2008 something shocking happened: Stagliano was charged by the United States government with enough crimes to potentially put him in prison for the remainder of his life. How could this happen?

Because outside Vegas, Stagliano's day job is as a pornographer. Indeed, within the subculture of pornography, Stagliano is revered for being the originator of the "gonzo porn" genre, in which the viewer is brought more directly into the proceedings, often via performers themselves holding cameras. Stagliano has won numerous artistic awards from his indutry peers, almost too many to count. His movies are taught in graduate film programs, and psychiatrists have used them to treat patients with sexual issues.

Evil Angel not only distributes Stagliano's films, but also the work of other directors he hand-picks. In this, Stagliano turned out to be as good a connoisseur as director. By 2008, the year he was charged with obscenity, Evil Angel was perhaps the most successful adult DVD distributor in the country.

[...]

But none of this history explains the prosecution of John Stagliano in 2010 for making movies with consenting adults and selling them to other consenting adults. When did his business suddenly become criminal? Why has the power and majesty of the United States government, the financial and personnel resources of the FBI, all joined forces now to try and send Stagliano to prison?

Here is the final piece of the puzzle. In 2005, under then-President George W. Bush, the Department of Justice formed the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF). The ideological slant of the task force's "mission" is clear from its website: "Enforcement is necessary in order to protect citizens from unlawful exposure to obscene materials." In Stagliano's case, for example, an FBI special agent special-ordered movies that Evil Angel distributed. He then purchased the DVDs on the taxpayer's dime. There was never a single complaint from any actual citizen.

[...]

If [Stagliano] loses this case, almost any current adult content could be declared obscene.

3DHS / government oil spill projections

« on: June 24, 2010, 11:42:38 AM »

Once again, I find that government regulations contributed to the problem rather than actually helping.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325131111637728.html

BP PLC and other big oil companies based their plans for responding to a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on U.S. government projections that gave very low odds of oil hitting shore, even in the case of a spill much larger than the current one.

The government models, which oil companies are required to use but have not been updated since 2004, assumed that most of the oil would rapidly evaporate or get broken up by waves or weather. In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank, real life has proven these models, prepared by the Interior Department's Mineral Management Service, wrong.
More

Oil has hit 171 miles of shoreline in southern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northern Florida. Further, government models don't address how oil released a mile below the surface would behave—despite years of concern among government scientists and oil companies about deep-water spills.

3DHS / Anti-drug war message I guess conservatives won't like

« on: June 11, 2010, 11:21:00 PM »

Sting, Soros, Montel and More: We are the Drug Policy Alliance.mp4

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/11/sting-cant-be-right-about-the

A rainforest-saving rock star condemning drug prohibition and endorsing an organization funded by leftish billionaire George Soros was an irresistible target for Bill O'Reilly. Last night the professionally indignant populist, whose passionate support for the war on drugs has not driven him to learn much of anything about it, mocked Sting with assistance from Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. O'Reilly, who apparently has not read John Stuart Mill, began by using his favorite drug-related factoid to rebut Sting's support for individual autonomy:

O'Reilly: You know what galls me about this? Sting [affecting an effete British accent]: "We have sovereignty over our own bodies." Seventy percent of child abuse and neglect in this country is substance abuse driven, most of it narcotics.

Kelly: Exactly right. They actually say it could be even higher than that. It could be as much as 80 percent.

O'Reilly: You know, what do you have to say about that, Sting? How about the rain forest, putting that aside and looking at child abuse once in a while? Ooh.

Far be it from me to contradict what "they" say, but O'Reilly and Kelly seem to have pulled these numbers out of their asses. According to Childabuse.com, "Among confirmed cases of child maltreatment, 40% involve the use of alcohol or other drugs." According to Childhelp USA, "Nearly one-half of substantiated cases of child neglect and abuse are associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse." According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, "Substance abuse may be a contributing factor for between one-third and two-thirds of maltreated children in the child welfare system." Furthermore, these estimates refer to "substance abuse" generally, the vast majority of it involving alcohol, not "narcotics." Finally, the causal interpretation of these associations remains controversial, so O'Reilly's assumption that more drug use means more child abuse is unsubstantiated.

More fun with fake numbers:

O'Reilly: The reason we have a war on drugs is to protect people from people who get intoxicated and do terrible, terrible things. We have alcohol, that's legal. You don’t compound the problem.

Kelly: But cocaine is not the same thing as alcohol. [You have a] 75 percent addiction rate on people who try cocaine and 10 percent on alcohol.

A 1994 study (PDF), based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey, estimated that 17 percent of cocaine users qualify for a diagnosis of "substance dependence" at some point in their lives, suggesting that Kelly is off by a factor of more than four. The same data indicate a lifetime addiction rate of 15 percent for alcohol. Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also indicate that addiction rates for alcohol and cocaine are similar.

3DHS / my nomination for quote of the week

« on: June 10, 2010, 05:07:15 PM »

From senior editor at Reason magazine Radley Balko:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/10/the-latest-in-pants-wetting-an

In a display of unified, bipartisan dimwittery, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are joining together to ban prepaid cell phones. Because an inept terrorist once used one in a failed plot.

If only we could get a terrorist to use a reactionary, grandstanding politician in some future plot. Maybe the government would finally ban those, too. Or at least no longer allow them on airplanes.

3DHS / "Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool."

« on: June 09, 2010, 04:49:59 PM »

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html

But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

[...]

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.

3DHS / Legalizing Away Drug Violence

« on: June 08, 2010, 12:30:38 AM »

Drug legalization advocate and Senior Editor at Reason magazine Jacob Sullum talks to Will Cain of National Review Online about why drugs should be legalized.
Legalizing Away Drug Violence

3DHS / Do police on duty have an expectation of privacy?

« on: May 31, 2010, 12:04:09 AM »

Radley Balko is picking on poor ol' police officers again. He seems to think private citizens ought to be allowed to record on duty police officers in the course of the police officer's work.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal

In a column last month I wrote about Anthony Graber, a Maryland man who was arrested for posting a video of a traffic stop to YouTube. Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle by Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulher. Uhler drew his gun during the stop. Graber was wearing a camera on his helmet. Graber thought Uhler's actions were excessive, so he posted the video to the Internet. Days later, police raided the home of Graber's parents. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. He was charged with violating Maryland's wiretapping statute. In an interview he gave to blogger Carlos Miller shortly after, Graber said, "The judge who released me looked at the paperwork and said she didn’t see where I violated the wiretapping law."

In my previous column, I interpreted that to mean the judge had dropped the charge. Apparently that isn't the case. Graber is due in court next week. He faces up to five years in prison. State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly has also charged Graber with "Possession of an Interception Device." That "device" would be Graber's otherwise-perfectly-legal video camera.

[...]

Maryland is an all-parties-consent state, which means you have to get permission from all parties to a conversation before you can record it. But unlike Illinois and Massachusetts, Maryland's law does include a privacy provision. That is, if the non-consenting party does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the conversation that has been recorded, there is no violation of the law. State and federal courts across the country have determined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. This is why someone can snap your photo in public without your consent.

[...]

In 2000, Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr. was asked to issue his opinion (PDF) on whether a plan by the Montgomery County Police Department to install recording devices on patrol officers would violate the wiretapping statute. To date, Curran's opinion has not been modified or changed.

Curran determined that because protocol for the plan required officers to inform motorists they were being recorded, it did not. But Curran was also asked to determine what would happen if an officer inadvertently recorded someone without informing him first. Curran again said the officer would not have violated the statute. But a footnote to that opinion included the following language:

It is also notable that many encounters between uniformed police officers and citizens could hardly be characterized as “private conversations.” For example, any driver pulled over by a uniformed officer in a traffic stop is acutely aware that his or her statements are being made to a police officer and, indeed, that they may be repeated as evidence in a courtroom. It is difficult to characterize such a conversation as “private.”

I suspect most people would find this to be common sense. No one expects what they say to a cop during a traffic stop to be private. But when you combine that with how some Maryland cops and prosecutors are interpreting the law, such as in Graber's case, you get a perverse result: When a cop pulls you over or detains you for questioning, he—the public servant with the badge and the gun—retains a right to privacy for the entire encounter. You don't.

To no one's surprise, I agree with Balko. Things like this are why I don't trust law enforcement. They get my respect, but not my trust. Law enforcement always assumes a position of special privilege. (Also, this is an example of why I believe the supposed anti-racial profiling clause in the Arizona immigration law is meaningless. It's not going to stop police profiling anybody. But that is a whole other argument.) Which is not say law enforcement doesn't have such a position. But there is a difference between being allowed the use of force or speeding to a crime scene, and insisting private citizens have no right to record the actions of law enforcement. That law enforcement is law enforcement means private citizens should be able to record uniformed officers on duty. Law enforcement to should be held to a higher standard, and being recorded by private citizens is one very important way of making sure that happens. Think I'm being unfair? I'll close with this, from the same article:

Graber's case is starting to spur some local and national media discussion of the state's wiretapping law. As I mentioned in my column last month, his arrest came at about the same time the Jack McKenna case broke nationally. McKenna, a student at the University of Maryland, was given an unprovoked beating by police during student celebrations after a basketball game last February. McKenna would probably still be facing criminal charges and the cops who beat him would likely still be on the beat were it not for several cell phone videos that captured his beating. According to Cassily's interpretation of the law, if any of those cell phones were close enough to record audio of the beating, the people who shot the videos are felons.

[...]

Whatever [Maryland law enforcement officials] motivation, their legal justification is dubious. The McKenna case is a strong argument in favor of more citizen monitoring of on-duty police. The police not only beat the kid, they then lied about it in police reports. The security camera footage of McKenna's beating, which is controlled by University of Maryland Campus Police, mysteriously disappeared. The officer in charge of the camera system is married to one of the officers involved in the beating. Does anyone really think the charges against McKenna would have been dropped—and the officers who beat him suspended—if it weren't for the cell phone videos?

3DHS / something a little different

« on: May 19, 2010, 12:01:54 AM »

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/the-most-beta-book-ever/

I’m not an anti-chivalry crusader. If you want to be Gallant to the world’s Goofuses, go right ahead. You’ll be digging your own celibacy grave, but that’s one less competitor to me. If you live in some weird time warp American town where gallantry will help get you laid with hot babes, then be all the white knight you can be. Game is about doing what works.

But you’ll be working against the odds. Millions of men from all over the world have reached the conclusion through actual experience in the field that opening doors, throwing jackets over puddles, waiting to sit until she’s been seated first, and buying her drinks are tingle killers of the first order. Gallant doesn’t go home with the babe in 2010 America; Gallant watches perplexed as the babe thanks him for the free drink and then make outs with Gus the Inconsiderate Douchebag.

[...]

About the only reason I could recommend chivalry as a course of action for the typical man would be if we lived in a world where nearly all men stopped indulging women, and white knighters abandoned their lances for a more cynical, self-centered calculation. With chivalry long dead, a lone knight-errant could conceivably stride onto the scene and turn girls’ heads by doing something no other man is doing. In such a scenario, where women theoretically craved the chivalric attentions of men, buying a girl a free drink might actually be good game. But I really don’t see any evidence for this happening at all in our lifetimes. Chivalry is pretty much dead as it is, and girls are still responding positively to “I don’t buy girls drinks, but you can buy me one.”

Yep. I'm stirring the pot. But I should also say, I think the guy is probably right.

3DHS / A politician's word...

« on: May 11, 2010, 12:09:44 PM »

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/10/gin-girls-and-governance

Originally elected as a Democrat in 1999, [Las Vegas Mayor Oscar] Goodman now has no party affiliation. [Reason] Senior Editor Radley Balko interviewed the mayor in February, days before Goodman dissed the commander in chief.

Q: What shaped your political philosophy?

A: I’m a criminal defense lawyer by profession, so I have an inherent distrust for government. I rarely put a client on the witness stand. I usually made my case by showing the government didn’t behave properly, either under the Constitution or by its methodology. That’s a pretty successful way to practice criminal law.

[...]

Q: Prior to politics, you represented accused organized crime figures. What’s the biggest difference between politics and the mob?

A: My clients gave me their word, and their word was their bond. They always paid me. They always thanked me at the end of the day. In the political world, none of that happens. A politician’s word usually doesn’t mean a damn. His word is for the moment.

3DHS / They know who you are

« on: May 04, 2010, 02:25:08 AM »

Pennsylvania embraces Orwellian advertising
Orwellian Tax Collection Commercial

3DHS / "increased government accountability in the oil industry"

« on: May 02, 2010, 05:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Plane on April 30, 2010, 09:03:47 PM

From CNN's Charles Riley

[...]

[Sarah Palin] also called for increased government accountability in the oil industry, saying that while accidents will always happen, companies "must be held accountable."

Huh. Looks like support for bigger government to me.

3DHS / 3D movies

« on: May 02, 2010, 05:32:23 PM »

3D movies: fad? trend? good? bad? too soon to tell?

3DHS / obscenity or art (probably NSFW)

« on: April 30, 2010, 07:49:08 AM »

No, there is no actual nudity shown, but I think you'll know why I say probably NSFW when you watch it.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

3DHS / lawful contact

« on: April 30, 2010, 07:38:40 AM »

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/29/mysteries-of-an-immigration-la

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

The law says cops must inquire anytime "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." Since most of the state's illegal immigrants are Latinos, the natural impulse of police may be to interrogate every Latino with whom they cross paths.

[...]

[Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text] told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have "lawful contact" with someone—when "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law."

In fact, the law doesn't define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of "contact" is "immediate proximity," which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.

Law professor Miller says "lawful contact" could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him—something police are allowed to do—he may have established "lawful contact."