I own a Serious Bicycle, and it would be a faux pas to put a kickstand on it, much less regenerative braking! You might as well chuck your all-carbon frame and make it out of steel tubing.
I think you would have more luck appealing to self-hating middle aged people with plenty of money who only use their cycles twice a year.
I had to slog my way through all five pages of the dull anecdote-filled profile of some random internet entrepreneur just so I could deride it on Slashdot. There are a handful of studies cited in TFA, all of which have been reported on before, and none of which actually establish the premise of the article. My primary conclusion was that the boring subject of the article (and possibly the rest of his family) would benefit a lot more from pharmaceutical amphetamines than from junking his Blackberry.
My approval of Congress is as nonexistent as the next guy's, but I still think calling Representatives and Senators "Congresscritters" makes you sound like a parody of a right-wing milita member.
It is true that the content of the after-action reports was seriously under-reported, but that is all. There is no evidence that Manning (or Wikileaks!) edited the video. Wikileaks released a short version on youtube, but the 39-minute version was available the whole time. That video may very well be the only one Manning had access to, since the included sections of the video were the only actions that were under review (by the military). Considering that Manning released ~250,000 diplomatic cables (only a tiny fraction of which could have been incriminating), I find it hard to believe he would go to the trouble to edit out a part of the video that showed U.S. helicopters gunning down even more Iraqis, child-less or not.
A higher body count would have only added to the effect of the video--that the helicopters were just orbiting that area of the city, looking for groups of "military-aged males," at least some of whom are armed, to kill without warning. You can (I guess) argue in favor of that as a military tactic, but it wouldn't have made the pilots any more sympathetic to a civilian audience.
I believe it (it's in the reports that were released along with the video), although that is apparently what happened in the "missing" 30 minutes, not beforehand. I don't think that refraining from shooting obvious children is enough to make the policy of executing all the military-aged males in the area justified, however.
If you watch the video, the end actually seems even more dubious than the incident at the beginning. At the end they fire three missiles into a building as what appear to be random civilians walk by (the target building is on a street with moderate traffic). After the first one is hit, a few more rush in to the rubble, only to be (presumably) hit by subsequent missiles.
I doubt that releasing the video of the Apaches executing yet another random group of Iraqi men standing around their neighborhood with AKs would really "soften the blow." It would just reignite this story, which is already basically dead in the minds of the public and the media.
This quote seems like a much more cogent encapsulation:
To summarize, the Internet is the solution. The internet is the problem. We're connected, but not engaged. We're "networked" but not mobilized. We're Friends and Followers, but not active and acting.
We've come so far, we have so far to go.
The internet has allowed people to become much more informed than they once were, but it also lends itself to pointless bloviating on/. that ultimately accomplishes no political change. Like this.
I was using police beatings as an example of excessive force; the same arguments you made would apply to many beatings. You might note that I continue on with "submission holds are dangerous." I didn't say you were logically unjustified either, just guilty of a "corrosive attitude." You're only a fucking moron because I felt like throwing your ad hominem right back at you.
I think that your response actually reinforces my point.
Especially since he said only AFTER his arm was nearly dislocated did he become compliant.
Sure, excessive force yields compliance! No one questions that. But is that really the only way, or the best way to obtain compliance? Wouldn't it have been better for the police to obtain compliance without dislocating his arm? The AC himself says that he would have complied if they had even warned him of the consequences. It's possible that in this case the AC was lying, and the cops actually warned him and tried more reasonable procedures, but there are plenty of cases where there is evidence that they didn't.
I think that supporting the use of force as a first resort just because it works and/or can be legally justified is a corrosive attitude equivalent to condoning arbitrary violence. To say, "well, the officers could make a good legal argument to support their actions" is a far cry from saying "I think they were actually totally right and justified in this." Why the hell would you want to promote that sort of behavior? Are uppity criminal suspects a serious societal problem, which we must combat with hair-trigger extrajudicial violence? The police already have the massive weapon of "resisting arrest" charges; there is no need for them to unnecessarily maim suspects on top of that. If "just give me an excuse" becomes the police motto, are they still there to "protect and serve?"
Man, $35 fine for 84 in a 65! That's the real story there!
Seriously, though, some of the legal reasoning seems pretty insane.
Using the time-speed-distance math formula, the pilot determined the speed of the white vehicle to be eighty-four miles per hour in both
the second and third quarters of the mile and seventy-seven miles per hour in the
fourth quarter.
So right off the bat, we have the government's assertion that he was going 81.67 mph averaged over 33 seconds.
2:46 p.m. – 57 mph; 2:48 p.m. – 50 mph; 2:50 p.m. – 44 mph; and 2:52 p.m. – 50 mph.
[...]
On May 15, 2009,
Barnes filed a motion to dismiss his case because the prosecutor failed to provide
him with (1) a copy of the video from the ground trooper’s cruiser, which he
maintained would show that there were other cars in the area that matched the
description of his car and would provide the audio of the conversation between the pilot and the ground patrol, and (2) the ground trooper’s notes/log that would show
the tickets he gave to other motorists that day. This motion was overruled later
that same day.
It goes on. Basically, if there is a moral here, it is that you can't get away with arguing pro se, even in traffic court. Especially when every time the appellate court quotes you they have to include a sic.
These documents reflected a rate of speed of fifty miles per hour
at the time the troopers purported that he was traveling at eighty-four miles per
hour. However, Barnes did not have an independent recollection of his speed at
that time. In addition, Barnes testified that the GPS provided the average of his
speed over a two-minute time frame. In other words, the GPS did not give his
specific speed at a specific time, but an average speed over two minutes. Further, Barnes presented no evidence from a person with personal
knowledge regarding how the GPS calculates speed, whether there is any type of
calibration of the equipment used to detect speed, whether the methods employed
by his particular company to detect speed are scientifically reliable, or the
accuracy of the GPS’ speed detection.
It seems like they are saying he needs to mount an O.J. Simpson "dream team"-quality defense in traffic court to establish reasonable doubt (that the pilot was either lying or wrong in his identification of the right "white vehicle").
The prosecution is relying on ~11 second averages, while Barnes has two minutes. If his GPS were correct, then he would have to have traveled 38 mph (in a 65 zone) for the remainder of the two minute period recorded to still average 50 mph. That isn't absolute proof, but it certainly casts a doubt. In opposition, the government offered only the testimony of two officers. His GPS proof is also rejected because one of the officers said that the slow speeds reported (which Barnes attributed to truck traffic) are unlikely on that highway at that time. Since no video (Appelate Court: "Barnes has not shown that a video of the incident even exists") was presented, however...
And what's with the fixation on his independent recollection? Traffic court is fucked. There seems to be an incredibly unhealthy weight attributed to (notoriously unreliable) testimony, and a rejection of physical ("circumstantial") evidence. If the cops can get away with "his traffic excuse is implausible, because we say so" then the defendant should be able to get away with "it is common knowledge that GPS is fairly reliable, and the cops are declining to produce physical evidence that almost certainly exists, which could potentially contradict my testimony." Especially since the discrepancy in reported speeds was so massive. The defendant was obviously incompetent in representing himself, but this is traffic court! It would not be plausible for a normal defendant to get an engineer who designed the GPS chip on the cellphone to testify on his
To be fair, they were already doing that in Ohio (and no doubt many other states), they were just claiming that the radar substantiated it.
With modern technology, there is really no excuse to not require radar/laser guns with video cameras that keep verifiable logs, or video of the car traveling a known distance. Then there really wouldn't be questions about the evidence (faking it would be too expensive to bother with, anyway).
The flip side here being that you are entirely ignorant of (or willfully ignore) the legal concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and support arbitrary and illegal "papers-please" checks?
The GP does no service to the logical power of his argument by repeatedly using pejoratives, but even if he truly is a total asshole, justifying police beatings because suspects are unsympathetic is itself a corrosive attitude. It sounds like the GP believed he was being falsely arrested, and so was resentful and subtly rebellious toward the arresting officers. This is an attitude that cops probably encounter quite frequently, and they, in turn, resented it and applied the maximum "justifiable" force in retaliation, even though it was unnecessary to complete the arrest. Submission holds are dangerous (especially when done by amateurs), and should not be doled out like candy.
People are assholes, and criminals are probably assholes more often than the average, but that shouldn't give police a right to let out their frustrations with violence. Representatives of the government shouldn't be accorded that leeway; instead, we should expect them to be professional and measured in their responses, not bullies in uniform who intentionally escalate tense situations in response to any perceived slight to their authority. It's a thankless job, but so is nursing. They have to learn to deal with it.
Batons are more lethal than tasers. A handful of people have been killed by tasers (usually misuse of tasers--they shouldn't be shooting suspects in the neck, 20 times, etc.), but a shitload of people were permanently injured or paralyzed by beatings with clubs.
I totally agree, however, with your point that instead of applying the maximum force justifiable, the minimum force practicable should be used. "Minor" overuse of force even seems to be culturally acceptable to some extent. Just watch Cops: an unending parade of violent apprehensions of extremely petty criminals, which is unironically presented as heroic. Apparently everyone also accepts that "running" is tantamount to giving the police carte blanche to beat the shit out of you when they catch you. Since running (actually, not following any police instruction) in the first place was "resisting," the police are given extraordinary discretion in seeking "compliance."
The solution is not getting rid of tasers, however (though we might consider getting rid of chemical sprays like Mace), since police would still be free to beat suspects down. Legislating on this topic seems extremely tricky, however, since the nature of intentional police escalations and the "reasonable" amount of force are extremely difficult to quantify.
One fairly compelling argument I have read states that perverse incentives are at the root of police brutality. Police unions will strenuously oppose, often with successful lawsuits, the firing of any officer who uses excessive force. Even if that situation were different, if the police admit to (legally) excessive use of force, they will inevitably (and justly) be slapped with a lawsuit which will often take a large chunk of cash out of the city and/or police budget. It is thus in the interest of police officials to zealously defend officers who use excessive force, perversely condoning the excessive use of force itself. A solution might lie in creating a legal remedy for excessive force that does not disincentivize admission of guilt and remedial action on the part of police departments. What that solution would specifically be, I have no idea.
That was the original promise of Tasers: no more near-death billy-clubbings. And indeed, I think that that promise has been fulfilled to a large extent; the trend of replacing non-impact compliance measures with tasings is a separate matter altogether.
Just because a state is a (republican) "representative democracy" does not mean that the state bureaucracy will not pursue its own interests in an authoritarian (and Orwellian) way. The two party distinction is also somewhat arbitrary; I would think that Obama's (Change!) sudden embrace and indeed expansion of all of Bush's national security policies would speak to that.
Obviously this isn't literally done by "big brother," but police attempting to stop people from recording their actions are motivated by a desire to rewrite history, and to maintain sole control of their "narrative" in a truly Orwellian way (there is no police brutality...the police will protect you...you love the police). People who challenge the narrative are not being put in thought police reeducation facilities...but they are being put in prison. This also reinforces the notion that the law doesn't really have any meaning beyond how the police choose to apply it, for their own reasons. In this interpretation, they are supported by certain legislatures and judiciaries. When exactly can we invoke Orwell?
Please don't construe my remarks to imply that I believe people don't abuse Orwell all the time; I agree that they do. Invoking 1984 too much dilutes its impact as a metaphor (as in the case of Hitler). People throw around the term "Orwellian" in connection with any big-government program (e.g. the recent healthcare legislation), even though Orwell (Blair) himself would ironically have been in favor of going much further.
That said, I think that eliminating the right of citizens to record government conduct so that the government can lie about it later without consequence is authoritarian on enough counts that it is legitimately "Orwellian." If only outright dictatorships could be "Orwellian," why did Orwell write in England, in English? Any steps toward Communist-style tyranny would be the fault of the people who elected the Parliament, after all, and thus actually "democratic."
Sure, all the questions were objectionable in one way or another; that one was objectionable in pretty much every way. Speaking of logic impairment...
I just got around to reading the replies to my comment, and finally my empathy kicked in: I have put myself in the author's place, and formed a consistent theory of her motivations. She obviously feels deeply traumatized by Ayn Rand generally, and by Nathaniel Branden's brand of psychology (c.f. "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" and "How to Raise your Self-Esteem") specifically. When she says that "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself" is a "pernicious notion," she is actually saying "Ayn Rand is pernicious, and Nathaniel Branden is her pernicious prophet." I think the author's deep loathing for objectivism (which may be perfectly rational in origin) has unfortunately lead her into an associational fallacy.
I found my theory so compelling I'm posting it four days late; alas, I must be an incurable narcissist after all.
I too find that decision disturbing. Previously, I imagined there was no way the Court would back Attorney General Holder on his absurdly expanded vision of the emergency exception to Miranda, but in addition to reducing liberty in its own right, this decision certainly augurs in Holder's favor; the Court is very willing to throw precedent to the wind and substantially erode Miranda (Damn you, Kennedy!).
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion basically destroys the burden on the government to show both that the suspect understood his (Fifth Amendment) Miranda rights and that he waived them.
I had a strong premonition that Kennedy had written the opinion when I read in the LA Times article that it was a 5-4 decision revising Miranda. After actually reading the majority opinion, however, I wonder why Roberts bothered to assign it to him: Thomas could just as easily have written the same thing. It is only characteristically Kennedy insofar as he comes out with some new doctrine, and then claims that it is perfectly consistent with the precedent that it substantially ignores. In this case, though, I doubt even the "really" conservative justices would have had the balls to explicitly reverse parts of Miranda, so it could have been written by any of them.
Reading the facts of the case, it seems clear to me that the suspect (Thompkins), did not waive his rights, and understood them only to free him from the necessity of answering, not to actually enable him to end the interrogation. The only evidence that he understood his rights was that he could read, and had read the Miranda warning. If that was all that was required for understanding, it would have been superfluous to specify that understanding was required in the first place. This ruling cannot be construed as anything but a further erosion of Miranda. Justice Sotomayor writes powerfully in dissent:
The Court concludes today that a criminal suspect waives his right to remain silent if, after sitting tacit and uncommunicative through nearly three hours of police interrogation, he utters a few one-word responses. The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of “waiver” must, counterintuitively, speak—and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police. Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 (1966) , has long provided during custodial interrogation. The broad rules the Court announces today are also troubling because they are unnecessary to decide this case, which is governed by the deferential standard of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. 2254(d). Because I believe Thompkins is entitled to relief under AEDPA on the ground that his statements were admitted at trial without the prosecution having carried its burden to show that he waived his right to remain silent; because longstanding principles of judicial restraint counsel leaving for another day the questions of law the Court reaches out to decide; and because the Court’s answers to those questions do not result from a faithful application of our prior decisions, I respectfully dissent.
[...]
Rarely do this Court’s precedents provide clearly established law so closely on point with the facts of a particular case. Together, Miranda and Butler establish that a court “must presume that a defendant did not waive his right[s]”; the prosecution bears a “heavy burden” in attempting to demonstrate waiver; the fact of a “lengthy interrogation” prior to obtaining statements is “strong evidence” against a finding of valid waiver; “
I agree. There was nothing like Apple's "app store" until very recently; how does he think people have been selling consumer software for the past twenty years? Did he get all the software on his laptop from an "app store?"
More versatile developers will succeed on other platforms where "Shifty Jelly" is apparently not willing to tread.
Blackberry OS doesn't even have stores, but it certainly has software; Android is less "wild" than that. I find it ridiculous to say that people can't market software without a tightly controlled application store. There has never been a successful tightly controlled compulsory application store until Apple's. Since phones have become general computers, why is it so hard for people to buy software the same way they do for their laptops?
Apparently "ShiftJelly" isn't willing to develop for other platforms, but that just means that more versatile developers can succeed instead.
I was convinced that it was going to be some kind of gross "get-off-my-lawn" Republican screed (Kids don't need self esteem! They need to play Cowboys v. Indians outside like the Greatest Generation! The idiot box is destroying their minds!) until I got to the second half where the author blames Ronald Reagan and conservatism for destroying empathy in the millennial generation (!!!). I think that she is not so much liberal as insane.
I gave up in disgust after looking at the first question. "Legitimate" psychological tests don't ask you to self diagnose; they ask a large number of concrete questions that can be used to infer psychology.
The person who wrote the article obviously has a massive agenda, and it is not clear that it is grounded in empiricism. I stopped reading TFA (much like the test...) when I got to this:
Another factor is the "self esteem movement" and its pernicious notion that "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself."
I don't know if the "self esteem movement" is effective or not (I would guess "not"), but what the fuck is she really advocating here? Self-hatred is okay? If you don't like yourself, you don't believe that other people should like you either, which is a formidable obstacle to love. Whether we go about creating it the right way or not, calling self-esteem "pernicious" seems...pernicious.
The author also absurdly idealizes the past, seriously advocating "playing outside" as a panacea. She should take pushing her books to the next level and give Dr. Laura Schlesinger a run for her money on the radio. Malevolent conservatism vs. malevolent liberalism. They could have their own malevolent channel, where anything goes (except facts).
She spends the last half of the article railing against Social Darwinism, which (after it was invented by Ronald Reagan!) apparently created the empathy epidemic. It is interesting that reliable polling data invariably indicates that the (40% more sociopathic) millennial generation is overwhelming more liberal (the only true measure of empathy, according to the author) than the Tea-Partying baby boomers, who enjoyed such empathetic childhoods, romping under the open sky. Either there is no empathy epidemic, empathy is not closely correlated with political leaning, or both (my bet). In any event, the author obviously doesn't really care.
I think the way I used "tolerate" is consistent with your etymological view. I meant it in the sense that you describe: that you could disapprove of religion and condemn it, but still not (say) try to end it by force, because you believe that would be an even worse outcome.
It is indeed ridiculous and intellectually dishonest for me to say "I think religion is completely irrational bullshit" but at the same time say "I totally respect your choice to believe [completely irrational bullshit]," since in fact, I don't. That is why I have come over the years to a more militant atheism.
I am inclined to agree that the GP is complete bullshit, but how can you seriously propose that a hardline skeptical position (reality doesn't exist) should be the default?
Positing that reality doesn't exist requires rejecting absolutely all the evidence that is available. It is also utterly impractical: even religions generally do not take that position. I think it requires more faith to reject all experience than to accept the existence of physical reality in the absence of a plausible alternative. If physical reality doesn't exist (all experience is an illusion), then we have hardly lost anything by using the scientific method, which only purports to make predictions about physical reality anyway.
I won't disagree that you can't convince someone of the efficacy of the scientific method, who believes experience does not reflect reality, but I do take issue with your characterization of the acceptance of experience as a "leap of faith." It's an assumption, to be sure, but one that is useful as hell. If true reality is unknowable (or knowable only by revelation), then what is the point of taking actions which affect the false reality revealed by the senses?
People who make assumptions based on things other than the experience of (presumed) reality are nevertheless generally still accepting large parts of experience as fact. You may know actual radical skeptics (why are they bothering to talk to you if you don't exist?), but imputing that position to even a substantial minority of theists would be inaccurate.
I always found a lot more "spiritual beauty" in masses of a pre-Vatican II nature myself--no audience participation, the whole thing in Latin, etc. On the whole, however, I prefer Symphony tickets. When you're down to defending the existence of religion based on its value as an art form, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. If people were only in religion for the "spiritual beauty," it wouldn't be such a problem.
I have found this interview with Daniel Dennett interesting. Unfortunately Charlie Rose was on vacation at the time, and instead Bill Moyers repeatedly bombards Dennett with inane questions. Moyers illogically tries to make an argument for theism on the basis that people universally appreciate the "spiritual beauty" of (Catholic) cathedrals, and Dennett makes the hilarious rejoinder that he found Aztec temples quite moving as well. If only it weren't for all that human sacrifice...Dennett nevertheless attempts general apology for religion--in a futile attempt to appear non-threatening to the mainstream audience, I think--on the grounds that it gives people purpose, and mobilizes large groups in a way that secular institutions never do.
That's the best he can do, and it isn't even a particularly good argument. You know what secular phenomenon similarly mobilizes large groups of people? Nationalism. If people aren't convinced by rational arguments, I would argue that it is probably not a good idea to mobilize them in the first place. Science has shown that people aren't particularly good rational decision makers, but it doesn't follow that decisions made on an irrational basis are superior. "A social glue that can be perfectly benevolent," you say. Well, I could say the same about radical jingoism, but I don't see anyone around here advocating that.
There is a difference between tolerating religion, and respecting it. If one's religion has any meaning at all, it has to influence one's worldview. The moment this leads to justifying a position because [God said so], rationality has been abandoned. "Respecting" that is a violation of your scientific worldview; you are implicitly condoning the very worst sort of argument to authority. If all such positions can be and are justified on other grounds, however, then why bother with the religion in the first place? It's superfluous cognitive dissonance.
Slashdot Mirror
I own a Serious Bicycle, and it would be a faux pas to put a kickstand on it, much less regenerative braking! You might as well chuck your all-carbon frame and make it out of steel tubing.
I think you would have more luck appealing to self-hating middle aged people with plenty of money who only use their cycles twice a year.
I had to slog my way through all five pages of the dull anecdote-filled profile of some random internet entrepreneur just so I could deride it on Slashdot. There are a handful of studies cited in TFA, all of which have been reported on before, and none of which actually establish the premise of the article. My primary conclusion was that the boring subject of the article (and possibly the rest of his family) would benefit a lot more from pharmaceutical amphetamines than from junking his Blackberry.
My approval of Congress is as nonexistent as the next guy's, but I still think calling Representatives and Senators "Congresscritters" makes you sound like a parody of a right-wing milita member.
It is true that the content of the after-action reports was seriously under-reported, but that is all. There is no evidence that Manning (or Wikileaks!) edited the video. Wikileaks released a short version on youtube, but the 39-minute version was available the whole time. That video may very well be the only one Manning had access to, since the included sections of the video were the only actions that were under review (by the military). Considering that Manning released ~250,000 diplomatic cables (only a tiny fraction of which could have been incriminating), I find it hard to believe he would go to the trouble to edit out a part of the video that showed U.S. helicopters gunning down even more Iraqis, child-less or not.
A higher body count would have only added to the effect of the video--that the helicopters were just orbiting that area of the city, looking for groups of "military-aged males," at least some of whom are armed, to kill without warning. You can (I guess) argue in favor of that as a military tactic, but it wouldn't have made the pilots any more sympathetic to a civilian audience.
I believe it (it's in the reports that were released along with the video), although that is apparently what happened in the "missing" 30 minutes, not beforehand. I don't think that refraining from shooting obvious children is enough to make the policy of executing all the military-aged males in the area justified, however.
If you watch the video, the end actually seems even more dubious than the incident at the beginning. At the end they fire three missiles into a building as what appear to be random civilians walk by (the target building is on a street with moderate traffic). After the first one is hit, a few more rush in to the rubble, only to be (presumably) hit by subsequent missiles.
I doubt that releasing the video of the Apaches executing yet another random group of Iraqi men standing around their neighborhood with AKs would really "soften the blow." It would just reignite this story, which is already basically dead in the minds of the public and the media.
To summarize, the Internet is the solution. The internet is the problem. We're connected, but not engaged. We're "networked" but not mobilized. We're Friends and Followers, but not active and acting.
We've come so far, we have so far to go.
The internet has allowed people to become much more informed than they once were, but it also lends itself to pointless bloviating on /. that ultimately accomplishes no political change. Like this.
I think that your response actually reinforces my point.
Especially since he said only AFTER his arm was nearly dislocated did he become compliant.
Sure, excessive force yields compliance! No one questions that. But is that really the only way, or the best way to obtain compliance? Wouldn't it have been better for the police to obtain compliance without dislocating his arm? The AC himself says that he would have complied if they had even warned him of the consequences. It's possible that in this case the AC was lying, and the cops actually warned him and tried more reasonable procedures, but there are plenty of cases where there is evidence that they didn't.
I think that supporting the use of force as a first resort just because it works and/or can be legally justified is a corrosive attitude equivalent to condoning arbitrary violence. To say, "well, the officers could make a good legal argument to support their actions" is a far cry from saying "I think they were actually totally right and justified in this." Why the hell would you want to promote that sort of behavior? Are uppity criminal suspects a serious societal problem, which we must combat with hair-trigger extrajudicial violence? The police already have the massive weapon of "resisting arrest" charges; there is no need for them to unnecessarily maim suspects on top of that. If "just give me an excuse" becomes the police motto, are they still there to "protect and serve?"
Seriously, though, some of the legal reasoning seems pretty insane.
Using the time-speed-distance math formula, the pilot determined the speed of the white vehicle to be eighty-four miles per hour in both the second and third quarters of the mile and seventy-seven miles per hour in the fourth quarter.
So right off the bat, we have the government's assertion that he was going 81.67 mph averaged over 33 seconds.
2:46 p.m. – 57 mph; 2:48 p.m. – 50 mph; 2:50 p.m. – 44 mph; and 2:52 p.m. – 50 mph.
[...]
On May 15, 2009, Barnes filed a motion to dismiss his case because the prosecutor failed to provide him with (1) a copy of the video from the ground trooper’s cruiser, which he maintained would show that there were other cars in the area that matched the description of his car and would provide the audio of the conversation between the pilot and the ground patrol, and (2) the ground trooper’s notes/log that would show the tickets he gave to other motorists that day. This motion was overruled later that same day.
It goes on. Basically, if there is a moral here, it is that you can't get away with arguing pro se, even in traffic court. Especially when every time the appellate court quotes you they have to include a sic.
These documents reflected a rate of speed of fifty miles per hour at the time the troopers purported that he was traveling at eighty-four miles per hour. However, Barnes did not have an independent recollection of his speed at that time. In addition, Barnes testified that the GPS provided the average of his speed over a two-minute time frame. In other words, the GPS did not give his specific speed at a specific time, but an average speed over two minutes. Further, Barnes presented no evidence from a person with personal knowledge regarding how the GPS calculates speed, whether there is any type of calibration of the equipment used to detect speed, whether the methods employed by his particular company to detect speed are scientifically reliable, or the accuracy of the GPS’ speed detection.
It seems like they are saying he needs to mount an O.J. Simpson "dream team"-quality defense in traffic court to establish reasonable doubt (that the pilot was either lying or wrong in his identification of the right "white vehicle"). The prosecution is relying on ~11 second averages, while Barnes has two minutes. If his GPS were correct, then he would have to have traveled 38 mph (in a 65 zone) for the remainder of the two minute period recorded to still average 50 mph. That isn't absolute proof, but it certainly casts a doubt. In opposition, the government offered only the testimony of two officers. His GPS proof is also rejected because one of the officers said that the slow speeds reported (which Barnes attributed to truck traffic) are unlikely on that highway at that time. Since no video (Appelate Court: "Barnes has not shown that a video of the incident even exists") was presented, however...
And what's with the fixation on his independent recollection? Traffic court is fucked. There seems to be an incredibly unhealthy weight attributed to (notoriously unreliable) testimony, and a rejection of physical ("circumstantial") evidence. If the cops can get away with "his traffic excuse is implausible, because we say so" then the defendant should be able to get away with "it is common knowledge that GPS is fairly reliable, and the cops are declining to produce physical evidence that almost certainly exists, which could potentially contradict my testimony." Especially since the discrepancy in reported speeds was so massive. The defendant was obviously incompetent in representing himself, but this is traffic court! It would not be plausible for a normal defendant to get an engineer who designed the GPS chip on the cellphone to testify on his
To be fair, they were already doing that in Ohio (and no doubt many other states), they were just claiming that the radar substantiated it.
With modern technology, there is really no excuse to not require radar/laser guns with video cameras that keep verifiable logs, or video of the car traveling a known distance. Then there really wouldn't be questions about the evidence (faking it would be too expensive to bother with, anyway).
The flip side here being that you are entirely ignorant of (or willfully ignore) the legal concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and support arbitrary and illegal "papers-please" checks?
The GP does no service to the logical power of his argument by repeatedly using pejoratives, but even if he truly is a total asshole, justifying police beatings because suspects are unsympathetic is itself a corrosive attitude. It sounds like the GP believed he was being falsely arrested, and so was resentful and subtly rebellious toward the arresting officers. This is an attitude that cops probably encounter quite frequently, and they, in turn, resented it and applied the maximum "justifiable" force in retaliation, even though it was unnecessary to complete the arrest. Submission holds are dangerous (especially when done by amateurs), and should not be doled out like candy.
People are assholes, and criminals are probably assholes more often than the average, but that shouldn't give police a right to let out their frustrations with violence. Representatives of the government shouldn't be accorded that leeway; instead, we should expect them to be professional and measured in their responses, not bullies in uniform who intentionally escalate tense situations in response to any perceived slight to their authority. It's a thankless job, but so is nursing. They have to learn to deal with it.
In conclusion, I think you're "a fucking moron."
Batons are more lethal than tasers. A handful of people have been killed by tasers (usually misuse of tasers--they shouldn't be shooting suspects in the neck, 20 times, etc.), but a shitload of people were permanently injured or paralyzed by beatings with clubs.
I totally agree, however, with your point that instead of applying the maximum force justifiable, the minimum force practicable should be used. "Minor" overuse of force even seems to be culturally acceptable to some extent. Just watch Cops: an unending parade of violent apprehensions of extremely petty criminals, which is unironically presented as heroic. Apparently everyone also accepts that "running" is tantamount to giving the police carte blanche to beat the shit out of you when they catch you. Since running (actually, not following any police instruction) in the first place was "resisting," the police are given extraordinary discretion in seeking "compliance."
The solution is not getting rid of tasers, however (though we might consider getting rid of chemical sprays like Mace), since police would still be free to beat suspects down. Legislating on this topic seems extremely tricky, however, since the nature of intentional police escalations and the "reasonable" amount of force are extremely difficult to quantify.
One fairly compelling argument I have read states that perverse incentives are at the root of police brutality. Police unions will strenuously oppose, often with successful lawsuits, the firing of any officer who uses excessive force. Even if that situation were different, if the police admit to (legally) excessive use of force, they will inevitably (and justly) be slapped with a lawsuit which will often take a large chunk of cash out of the city and/or police budget. It is thus in the interest of police officials to zealously defend officers who use excessive force, perversely condoning the excessive use of force itself. A solution might lie in creating a legal remedy for excessive force that does not disincentivize admission of guilt and remedial action on the part of police departments. What that solution would specifically be, I have no idea.
That was the original promise of Tasers: no more near-death billy-clubbings. And indeed, I think that that promise has been fulfilled to a large extent; the trend of replacing non-impact compliance measures with tasings is a separate matter altogether.
Just because a state is a (republican) "representative democracy" does not mean that the state bureaucracy will not pursue its own interests in an authoritarian (and Orwellian) way. The two party distinction is also somewhat arbitrary; I would think that Obama's (Change!) sudden embrace and indeed expansion of all of Bush's national security policies would speak to that.
Obviously this isn't literally done by "big brother," but police attempting to stop people from recording their actions are motivated by a desire to rewrite history, and to maintain sole control of their "narrative" in a truly Orwellian way (there is no police brutality...the police will protect you...you love the police). People who challenge the narrative are not being put in thought police reeducation facilities...but they are being put in prison. This also reinforces the notion that the law doesn't really have any meaning beyond how the police choose to apply it, for their own reasons. In this interpretation, they are supported by certain legislatures and judiciaries. When exactly can we invoke Orwell?
Please don't construe my remarks to imply that I believe people don't abuse Orwell all the time; I agree that they do. Invoking 1984 too much dilutes its impact as a metaphor (as in the case of Hitler). People throw around the term "Orwellian" in connection with any big-government program (e.g. the recent healthcare legislation), even though Orwell (Blair) himself would ironically have been in favor of going much further.
That said, I think that eliminating the right of citizens to record government conduct so that the government can lie about it later without consequence is authoritarian on enough counts that it is legitimately "Orwellian." If only outright dictatorships could be "Orwellian," why did Orwell write in England, in English? Any steps toward Communist-style tyranny would be the fault of the people who elected the Parliament, after all, and thus actually "democratic."
Sure, all the questions were objectionable in one way or another; that one was objectionable in pretty much every way. Speaking of logic impairment...
I just got around to reading the replies to my comment, and finally my empathy kicked in: I have put myself in the author's place, and formed a consistent theory of her motivations. She obviously feels deeply traumatized by Ayn Rand generally, and by Nathaniel Branden's brand of psychology (c.f. "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" and "How to Raise your Self-Esteem") specifically. When she says that "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself" is a "pernicious notion," she is actually saying "Ayn Rand is pernicious, and Nathaniel Branden is her pernicious prophet." I think the author's deep loathing for objectivism (which may be perfectly rational in origin) has unfortunately lead her into an associational fallacy.
I found my theory so compelling I'm posting it four days late; alas, I must be an incurable narcissist after all.
I had a strong premonition that Kennedy had written the opinion when I read in the LA Times article that it was a 5-4 decision revising Miranda. After actually reading the majority opinion, however, I wonder why Roberts bothered to assign it to him: Thomas could just as easily have written the same thing. It is only characteristically Kennedy insofar as he comes out with some new doctrine, and then claims that it is perfectly consistent with the precedent that it substantially ignores. In this case, though, I doubt even the "really" conservative justices would have had the balls to explicitly reverse parts of Miranda, so it could have been written by any of them.
Reading the facts of the case, it seems clear to me that the suspect (Thompkins), did not waive his rights, and understood them only to free him from the necessity of answering, not to actually enable him to end the interrogation. The only evidence that he understood his rights was that he could read, and had read the Miranda warning. If that was all that was required for understanding, it would have been superfluous to specify that understanding was required in the first place. This ruling cannot be construed as anything but a further erosion of Miranda. Justice Sotomayor writes powerfully in dissent:
The Court concludes today that a criminal suspect waives his right to remain silent if, after sitting tacit and uncommunicative through nearly three hours of police interrogation, he utters a few one-word responses. The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of “waiver” must, counterintuitively, speak—and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police. Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 (1966) , has long provided during custodial interrogation. The broad rules the Court announces today are also troubling because they are unnecessary to decide this case, which is governed by the deferential standard of review set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. 2254(d). Because I believe Thompkins is entitled to relief under AEDPA on the ground that his statements were admitted at trial without the prosecution having carried its burden to show that he waived his right to remain silent; because longstanding principles of judicial restraint counsel leaving for another day the questions of law the Court reaches out to decide; and because the Court’s answers to those questions do not result from a faithful application of our prior decisions, I respectfully dissent.
[...]
Rarely do this Court’s precedents provide clearly established law so closely on point with the facts of a particular case. Together, Miranda and Butler establish that a court “must presume that a defendant did not waive his right[s]”; the prosecution bears a “heavy burden” in attempting to demonstrate waiver; the fact of a “lengthy interrogation” prior to obtaining statements is “strong evidence” against a finding of valid waiver; “
If you're not sure of the right answer, you believe that the default action should be to outlaw, then?
Even EMTALA cannot actually force hospitals to provide care, it merely does so de facto by making compliance a precondition of Medicare participation.
I agree. There was nothing like Apple's "app store" until very recently; how does he think people have been selling consumer software for the past twenty years? Did he get all the software on his laptop from an "app store?"
More versatile developers will succeed on other platforms where "Shifty Jelly" is apparently not willing to tread.
Blackberry OS doesn't even have stores, but it certainly has software; Android is less "wild" than that. I find it ridiculous to say that people can't market software without a tightly controlled application store. There has never been a successful tightly controlled compulsory application store until Apple's. Since phones have become general computers, why is it so hard for people to buy software the same way they do for their laptops?
Apparently "ShiftJelly" isn't willing to develop for other platforms, but that just means that more versatile developers can succeed instead.
I was convinced that it was going to be some kind of gross "get-off-my-lawn" Republican screed (Kids don't need self esteem! They need to play Cowboys v. Indians outside like the Greatest Generation! The idiot box is destroying their minds!) until I got to the second half where the author blames Ronald Reagan and conservatism for destroying empathy in the millennial generation (!!!). I think that she is not so much liberal as insane.
The person who wrote the article obviously has a massive agenda, and it is not clear that it is grounded in empiricism. I stopped reading TFA (much like the test...) when I got to this:
Another factor is the "self esteem movement" and its pernicious notion that "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself."
I don't know if the "self esteem movement" is effective or not (I would guess "not"), but what the fuck is she really advocating here? Self-hatred is okay? If you don't like yourself, you don't believe that other people should like you either, which is a formidable obstacle to love. Whether we go about creating it the right way or not, calling self-esteem "pernicious" seems...pernicious.
The author also absurdly idealizes the past, seriously advocating "playing outside" as a panacea. She should take pushing her books to the next level and give Dr. Laura Schlesinger a run for her money on the radio. Malevolent conservatism vs. malevolent liberalism. They could have their own malevolent channel, where anything goes (except facts).
She spends the last half of the article railing against Social Darwinism, which (after it was invented by Ronald Reagan!) apparently created the empathy epidemic. It is interesting that reliable polling data invariably indicates that the (40% more sociopathic) millennial generation is overwhelming more liberal (the only true measure of empathy, according to the author) than the Tea-Partying baby boomers, who enjoyed such empathetic childhoods, romping under the open sky. Either there is no empathy epidemic, empathy is not closely correlated with political leaning, or both (my bet). In any event, the author obviously doesn't really care.
I think the way I used "tolerate" is consistent with your etymological view. I meant it in the sense that you describe: that you could disapprove of religion and condemn it, but still not (say) try to end it by force, because you believe that would be an even worse outcome.
It is indeed ridiculous and intellectually dishonest for me to say "I think religion is completely irrational bullshit" but at the same time say "I totally respect your choice to believe [completely irrational bullshit]," since in fact, I don't. That is why I have come over the years to a more militant atheism.
I am inclined to agree that the GP is complete bullshit, but how can you seriously propose that a hardline skeptical position (reality doesn't exist) should be the default?
Positing that reality doesn't exist requires rejecting absolutely all the evidence that is available. It is also utterly impractical: even religions generally do not take that position. I think it requires more faith to reject all experience than to accept the existence of physical reality in the absence of a plausible alternative. If physical reality doesn't exist (all experience is an illusion), then we have hardly lost anything by using the scientific method, which only purports to make predictions about physical reality anyway.
I won't disagree that you can't convince someone of the efficacy of the scientific method, who believes experience does not reflect reality, but I do take issue with your characterization of the acceptance of experience as a "leap of faith." It's an assumption, to be sure, but one that is useful as hell. If true reality is unknowable (or knowable only by revelation), then what is the point of taking actions which affect the false reality revealed by the senses?
People who make assumptions based on things other than the experience of (presumed) reality are nevertheless generally still accepting large parts of experience as fact. You may know actual radical skeptics (why are they bothering to talk to you if you don't exist?), but imputing that position to even a substantial minority of theists would be inaccurate.
I always found a lot more "spiritual beauty" in masses of a pre-Vatican II nature myself--no audience participation, the whole thing in Latin, etc. On the whole, however, I prefer Symphony tickets. When you're down to defending the existence of religion based on its value as an art form, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. If people were only in religion for the "spiritual beauty," it wouldn't be such a problem.
I have found this interview with Daniel Dennett interesting. Unfortunately Charlie Rose was on vacation at the time, and instead Bill Moyers repeatedly bombards Dennett with inane questions. Moyers illogically tries to make an argument for theism on the basis that people universally appreciate the "spiritual beauty" of (Catholic) cathedrals, and Dennett makes the hilarious rejoinder that he found Aztec temples quite moving as well. If only it weren't for all that human sacrifice...Dennett nevertheless attempts general apology for religion--in a futile attempt to appear non-threatening to the mainstream audience, I think--on the grounds that it gives people purpose, and mobilizes large groups in a way that secular institutions never do.
That's the best he can do, and it isn't even a particularly good argument. You know what secular phenomenon similarly mobilizes large groups of people? Nationalism. If people aren't convinced by rational arguments, I would argue that it is probably not a good idea to mobilize them in the first place. Science has shown that people aren't particularly good rational decision makers, but it doesn't follow that decisions made on an irrational basis are superior. "A social glue that can be perfectly benevolent," you say. Well, I could say the same about radical jingoism, but I don't see anyone around here advocating that.
There is a difference between tolerating religion, and respecting it. If one's religion has any meaning at all, it has to influence one's worldview. The moment this leads to justifying a position because [God said so], rationality has been abandoned. "Respecting" that is a violation of your scientific worldview; you are implicitly condoning the very worst sort of argument to authority. If all such positions can be and are justified on other grounds, however, then why bother with the religion in the first place? It's superfluous cognitive dissonance.