Genes and intelligence

Posted on March 18, 2009 by Michael

More Evidence That Intelligence Is Largely Inherited: Researchers Find That Genes Determine Brain’s Processing Speed

In a study published recently in the Journal of Neuroscience, UCLA neurology professor Paul Thompson and colleagues used a new type of brain-imaging scanner to show that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain’s axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And since the integrity of the brain’s wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought.

What the study found was that myelin thickness corresponds to intelligence. That is, the more fatty covering of the axons in your brain, the more intelligent you are likely to be. And because myelin thickness is genetically linked, intelligence has a genetic link.

What’s important to remember here is that intelligence isn’t soley about genetics. We are not our genes. Environmental influences are still overwhelmingly strong in determining intelligence. Take the South. I doubt there’s really such a large contingent of people with thin myelin gathered below the Mason-Dixon line. It’s more likely a lack of education funding and general principles praising intellectual achievement (see last 50 thousand election cycles, especially the last three national elections).

Because the myelination of brain circuits follows an inverted U-shaped trajectory, peaking in middle age and then slowly beginning to decline, Thompson believes identifying the genes that promote high-integrity myelin is critical to forestalling brain diseases like multiple sclerosis and autism, which have been linked to the breakdown of myelin.

Weird how science does good things.

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Let freedom ring

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Michael

Freedom of information, that is.

I recently gave an update on my experience using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. On two separate occasions I got stonewalled by some Lieutenant who was not familiar with the act (nor with humility). Eventually, the city manager gave me the information. A couple of days later I got this (emphasis added).

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

I have been advised you have made contact twice this week with Lt. J. Chris Read requesting copies of any disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I am now aware that you made your first request on Monday, Mark 9th and returned on Wednesday, March 11th. Each time you received a verbal denial from Lt. Read advising that the information you were requesting is confidential as personnel records are confidential.

I must apologize that as you are aware, should there be a final written decision relating to a disciplinary action taken against an employee, that information is not confidential and you would have a right to access of that information. Your request should have been handled differently and following a review of the individual’s personnel file, you should have been advised that there are no disciplinary action documents in the file. I have personally checked the officer’s personnel file and can state that there are no disciplinary documents of any kind in the file.

As a result of how your request for information was handled by a member of my staff, I have undertaken a review of our procedures pertaining to public access to records. All Police Supervisors are to review our Standard Operating Procedure, Public Access to Records, to ensure that a request for information is handled properly.

Again, there is no information pertaining to disciplinary action regarding Officer Richard Dubois to provide to you per your request. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Sincerely

Chief Wayne M McCamish

Quality response. This covers the department from the $500 fine to which Lt. Read potentially subjected them since it covers both my requests within 5 business days of receiving them. While it would have been interesting to see the whole process of a fine being assessed to either the police department or the city itself, I’m far happier to see that the law was followed correctly. Regardless, I’ve contacted a local paper to see if they’re interested in having me write this story for them (I’ve written for them in the past [usually about local hiking]).

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Language

Posted on March 15, 2009 by Michael

Language is a dicey thing. It’s especially dicey for scientists. Take Einstein for example. He used to use the word “God” quite often. He usually did not mean anything related to the Christian god (or any other god concept). Let’s look at the Einstein phrase “Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?” He wasn’t literally asking if any particular god had a choice. He was asking if the Universe could have come into being in more than one way. Incidentally, the fact that the answer to this question is unknown should throw some light on that awful argument, the “anthropic principle“. Allow me to digress.

The anthropic principle is the creationist delusion that their particular god made the Universe with humans soley in mind. It’s likely the most arrogant concept ever presented. Beside that, it basically says “Humanity (or life in general) is too well adapted to the Universe for everything not to have been made for humans/life”. Humans are evolved to the Universe (at least one, insignifcant part of it that holds no special relevance). The whole argument ignores this fact. Of course, that is the creationist motif: hear no facts, see no facts, speak no facts. What’s more, it’s just an argument from personal incredulity: “The Universe is just too perfect to not be for me! I can’t believe anything else! It’s too much!” Mooks.

But I return. Language in biology can be difficult. In order to popularize the subject, scientists will use personifying terms. “Genes want to replicate”, or “Cuts and bruises want to heal”. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with this. It’s human nature to do this. We call computers stupid or say “the flowers danced in the sun” (for the more poetic among us). Of course, there is a contingent of people who hear these terms and think they are literal. They also happen to often be people who don’t realize the Bible is metaphoric in its entirety and therefore take it literally.

Take the comment section from a recent thread. Not to harp on a particular commenter, but the term “code” is taken wildly out of context. Rather than read for what it is, it is read as being something with intention at its root. Let’s examine.

Biologists may say “DNA codes for the genome”. This is true, but it has no connection to intentionality. What it means is simply that DNA is in one form until it is translated and transcribed into another form. In other words, it goes from being a series of amino acids into a series of proteins and enzymes. This does not require some grand creator or intelligence. It requires a slow, gradual process that provides for plenty of random variation while being governed by a non-random mechanism. Evolution by natural selection fits the bill.

Filed under: Creationism, Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Common sense wins

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Michael

The atheist bus campaign has been whirling around the globe over the past several months. It was briefly stopped in Ottawa because of a stupid policy that states this:

…religious advertising which promotes a specific ideology, ethic, point of view, policy or action, which in the opinion of the city might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system is not permitted.

The only religious ad which could fit into that description would be one that says “No one is wrong and everyone is the best at everything” (thank you, Principal Skinner for that one).

Fortunately, the city council has some common sense.

Council voted to allow the ads — which read “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” — to be displayed on OC Transpo buses after city solicitor Rick O’Connor told councillors the ban wouldn’t hold up in court.

They saw the obvious legal troubles and put their foot down. It’s the anti-Dover of behaviors. Of course, not everyone can be so smart.

Orleans Coun. Bob Monette said the ads are offensive and shouldn’t be allowed on public property.

“I believe they are in very poor taste and derogatory to anybody who believes in God,” he said. “I am concerned they are judging other people’s beliefs. It’s public property and it’s inappropriate.”

That’s exactly what it’s doing. What doesn’t judge other people’s beliefs? Why is that a bad thing in the least? Besides that, when, exactly, did religion earn this hyper-respect? Its ideas are flimsy at best. It has done nothing to show it has any worth in an intellectually-concerned society. Creationism/intelligent design-creation go to support this point.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Being right feels so good

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Michael

I recently wrote about my experience obtaining information using the Maine Freedom of Information Access Act. I wanted any “final written decisions” relating to a local police officers disciplinary record. Another officer told me that was not public information. He asserted that his 20 years of experience trumps what the law actually (and explicitly) says. In short, the man was largely ignorant of the law – and too stubborn to admit it even when faced with undeniable evidence.

After going to the City Manager, I received a letter in the mail. Here is the body of it.

I am in receipt of your request for copies of all disciplinary action taken against Officer Richard Dubois. I have reviewed the officer’s personnel file and find no records of disciplinary action. Augusta Police Department Officers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which prevents written disciplinary action from remaining in an officer’s personnel file in excess of two (2) years unless a similar violation has occurred (relevant language enclosed).

As an aside, I noticed your internal posting this afternoon and enjoyed it. I recommend your journalism professor give you an “A”!

In other words, I am absolutely right that the information for which I asked is public. It just so happens that the information is only left in personnel files for a certain period of time, i.e., some of the stuff I wanted simply does not physically exist any longer (assuming it did at all). For the time when the information does exist, Officer Dubois has had no disciplinary actions taken against him.

Oh, what to do now, what to do now. I can take the high road and enjoy that feeling of being vindicated humbly (minus this current indulgence). Alternatively, I can request the information of Lt. Read and be sure to post it. In addition, I can also be sure the local newspaper hears about this. Furthermore, I can be sure to explore all possible avenues as they related to the officer/police department being fined for not issuing me the required letter explaining why they feel the need to break the law. Guess which road this persistent defender of rights is going to take?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Maine Freedom of Information Access Act

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Michael

There is a law in Maine similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. It allows the public to access information that is produced through government agencies (with notable exceptions). Many states have similar laws on the books, all varying in one manner or another. One of these states is Massachusetts. Recently, the Boston Globe used the act in order to obtain the disciplinary record of asshat trooper Michael Galluccio. This gave me an idea.

I am currently taking a journalism class because I was too slow at signing up for the classes I actually wanted (though I am enjoying this class). One of my assignments is to obtain information using Maine’s FOIA. Until I saw the Galluccio story, I was at a loss of what to do. However, with the knowledge that disciplinary records are public information in one state, I decided to pursue the record of a particular officer at the Augusta Police Department in hopes that Maine law is sufficiently similar.

Backstory: Sometime ago in high school I got a parking ticket. I was parked at the end of a series of spaces where there were yellow diagonal lines. Clearly, I was illegally parked. I do not dispute that. However, on the ticket the officer wrote “sidewalk”, indicating that the reasoning for the ticket was that I was parked on the nearby sidewalk. This was not the case. 1) Those yellow lines would not extend to a public sidewalk. 2) I went to City Hall and obtained a property blueprint for my school. It was clear that I was not on the sidewalk. I brought this to the attention of several officers, including the one who issued the ticket. Of course, they refused to admit they were wrong. It would be one thing to give me a ticket I technically deserved. Unfortunately, what they did is issue me a ticket for an offense I did not commit. It would be like arresting someone for assault who actually committed theft. The sentence (for the sake of argument) may be roughly the same, but that does not mean that the thief is guilty of something else simply because the result is similar. Just the same, I was never guilty of parking on a sidewalk. The ticket is bunk.

So fast forward to my journalism class and the Globe article and I’ve got my idea. I am going to get the disciplinary record of the officer who issued me the incorrect ticket. I make out a FOIA letter (which is a courtesy, not a required form) and head on down to the APD. I am told by Lt. J. Christopher Read that personnel files are not public information. Bummer, right? Possibly. I follow this up with a call to the Globe. They say he is almost certainly wrong. I then also ask my instructor. She says basically the same thing. I go the next necessary step and find the exact wording in the act.

Personnel records pertaining to municipal, county, and state employees are for the most part confidential. For example, complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action are confidential. However, if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline.

It is clear. If a state employee is disciplined and there is a final written decision, it is public information. I am entitled to it. Now armed with this information, I make some corrections. First, I obtain the name of the offending officer. I originally only knew him as Officer 135. I now know his name is Richard Dubois. I also change my timeframe. I originally asked for all records dating to January 2001. I figured that covered a couple of years prior to my ticket and it also wasn’t so much as to be a pain in the butt. Because I was given incorrect information, however, I have updated my timeframe to date to either 1990 or Richard Dubois’ date of hiring; if they’re going to make me do extra work, I’m going to return the favor.

I bring my updated information back to the APD and speak with Lt. Read again. I present my new letter and read, verbatim, the part of the act I have bolded above. He tells me personnel files are off limits. I again inform him that the exception is when disciplinary action is taken. He tells me that is simply my interpretation and he has been “at this for 20 years”. In other words, the explicit text that says “if disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential” can be interpreted to mean something other than, well, that final written decisions related to disciplinary action are not confidential. One wonders what Lt. Read thinks it means. I guess 20 years on the job gives a person super special reading skills and insights. Or it makes them stubborn. Draw your own conclusion.

After it has become clear that Lt. Read is not going to give me the information to which I have a law-given right, I inform him that he needs to give me a written response within 5 business days because the law clearly states that to be the case. He says – and I quote – “I’m not going to do that.” I then ask him if he is aware that there is a $500 fine associated with violating the act and he says “That’s fine.” I presume that is code for “I acknowledge the fact you have just told me, but I do not want to admit that I am ignorant of a tremendous amount of this law.” I then ask Lt. Read if he wants a copy of my letter. My intention here is quite kind, if I do flatter myself: the man is wrong and I know he is wrong. If he checks with other supervisors or simply reads the law, he may realize this. Without my letter, he will not be able to contact me and will thus be forced into violating the law. He says he does not want it. I inform him that I have an identical letter addressed to the City Manager, William Bridgeo.

Once I leave, I head over to City Hall. Mr. Bridgeo was in a meeting but I gave all this information to the clerk/secretary/whathaveyou in the office. She asks for the name of the officer who refused to give a written response, makes copies of my letters along with my excerpt of the act, and tells me that, yes, a written response is required. (She said 10 days, but seemed unsure and soon qualified that it may depend on the information requested. At any rate, a written response is required.)

Further information: I originally saw Lt. Read on Monday, March 9, 2009. I saw him next, new letter (and different dates) in hand on Wednesday, March 11, 2009. He has 5 (or 10) business days to give me a written response to my first request. The second request is being handled by a more responsible entity.

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Lt. J. Christopher Read of the Augusta Police Department in Augusta, Maine

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Those silly conservatives

Posted on March 11, 2009 by Michael

With all the patently silly conservatives running around, I may make this into a series.

Today’s silly conservative is none other than John Lott. I recently wrote about how Lott deleted my comments concerning some stupid things he said. This happened on Facebook. To reiterate, I criticized Lott for, essentially, claiming that Ashley Judd represented all Democrats (among some other dumb things he said). He promptly defriended me. Cute.

Up until now I haven’t been entirely sure what he did with my comments. I presumed he deleted them, but had no proof. Well, because of my super-slick spy skills*, I infiltrated Lott’s friends list and confirmed that, yes, he did indeed delete the comments.

Let’s just recap: I made a couple comments about an article he posted. He responded to these comments. They apparently were not offensive enough to delete. I then put the final nail in his coffin and called him out for making a clearly dumb statement. Despite what one may conclude from reading this here blog, I actually was quite appropriate with my comments. I then found myself defriended. After this, Lott went so far as to delete everything I said – that includes the comments he did not previously deem offensive enough to delete. Apparently this 50 year old man has the temperament of a child.

*I had a friend send him a friend request.

Update: This must be the fastest update ever.

I left a comment on John Lott’s blog. He made a post about plagiarism where he is essentially insinuating that PubMed is a bad source for information. I presume this is because I have cited PubMed several times on his blog, but maybe he grew to hate that particular science outlet from somewhere else. At any rate, his post was specifically about plagiarism, but it isn’t a far cry to say unethical behavior is highly related. So naturally, I pointed out to Lott that it is well documented that his behavior is unethical. What did he do? He changed my post to say “This post has been removed by a blog administrator.”

Let’s take a moment to review Lott’s behavior over the years (and to avoid any insinuation from the 50 year old child, the following comes from the previous link).

  • he almost certainly fabricated a mysterious survey and certainly behaved unethically in making claims for which he had no supporting data
  • he presented results purporting to show that “more guns” led to “less crime” when those results were the product of coding errors
  • he pretended to be a woman called “Mary Rosh” on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.
  • he probably was the person who anonymously accused Steve Levitt of being “rabidly antigun”

    All those claims are backed up quite well, too.

    Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

    George Will is a mook

    Posted on March 10, 2009 by Michael

    Really, it’s as simple as that.

    Q: You have felt the righteous wrath of those who believe in man-made global warming. Are you still all there?

    A: Oh, heavens. Yeah. The odd thing about these people is, normally when I write something that people disagree with they write letters to the editor or they write a responding op-ed piece. These people simply set out to try and get my editors to not publish my columns. Now I don’t blame them, because I think if my arguments were as shaky as theirs are, I wouldn’t want to engage in argument either.

    That is George Will getting a proverbial blowjob from some hack journalist. It is in response to an article he wrote about global warming where he just flat out made stuff up. Carl Zimmer wrote about the errors Will made in his piece, exposing the fraud for what he is. The rest of the blogging community did roughly the same (though certaintly not with the same talent level of Zimmer). Here’s the jist.

    To recap: George Will wrote a column in which he tried to downplay the evidence that global warming has already affected the Earth, and that it will have bigger impacts in the future. Various bloggers have pointed out examples where Will misrepresented scientific studies in this column. The most glaring one was this: “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

    The Research Center put a statement on their site explaining that Will was wrong. On February 15, the day Will wrote his column, there was substantially less ice than on February 15, 1979: the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

    Zimmer goes on to explain that comparing one specific day to another specific day is erroneous. It is not how climate is measured – that’s how weather is done. Anyone who isn’t functionally retarded knows there’s a significant difference. Will did not recognize the difference. We’re left to connect the dots.

    Of course, now some journalist with a hard-on for Will is giving him an opportunity to reply to his critics. We’ve seen his dumb rhetoric above. How about a little meat?

    Q: The big issue was about how much global sea ice there is now compared to 1979.

    •A: And that of course was a tiny portion of the column. The critics completely ignored — as again, understandably — the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.

    Looks like the proverbial blowjob isn’t going so well. We just have some flaccid words.

    Zimmer already addressed this in his earlier response.

    George Will wrote a column in which he tried to downplay the evidence that global warming has already affected the Earth, and that it will have bigger impacts in the future.

    Of course, I’m not a fundamentally dishonest conservative, so I’ll be fair. Will’s initial point is that there was concern for global cooling in the 1970s and now there is not. Okay, fair enough. He can make that claim. However, this is not his primary point. His primary point is that because there was some science (which he exaggerates) that sided with global cooling 30-40 years ago, that science which supports global warming today cannot be trusted. This reminds me a recent post about 50 reasons one should not believe in evolution.

    12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.

    That is essentially to what this comes down. Will is a conservative who does not want to do things which will cost large corporations significant amounts of money. That is his motivation for being anti-global warming. The same goes for the vast majority of conservatives who are widely known figures. They’re blatant liars. They have no concern for truth or science. It’s all about their economic, religious, or ideological dogma they’ve come to adopt. All else must fall before it.

    But let’s return to the core of Will’s flaccid words. He’s saying that his primary point was about global cooling hysteria. In truth, that was not his primary point: as I pointed out, he is saying that science’s self-correcting nature makes it currently wrong. That is, his primary point is that some science was wrong in the past, so global warming is wrong today. Okay, so now that some actual truth has been told, let’s continue.

    As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

    If Will’s primary point was that he was addressing “global cooling hysteria”, wouldn’t this be entirely unrelated? Oh, hold the phone. That’s right. His primary point is actually that today’s science must be flawed because of yesterday’s science. One wonders why he would even bother citing today’s science, but if I’ve connected the dots from earlier correctly, he may very well be functionally retarded.

    But regardless, Will is using this to try and support his point that today’s trend in science must be wrong about global warming. Do you see the issue, Will? You made a statement and then tried supporting it with evidence. That evidence does not, in fact, support your statement. By attacking that evidence, bloggers like Zimmer are, in effect, attacking your primary point (obscured as you tried to make it, you liar).

    Imagine a high school kid in a wood workshop. He makes a chair. The seat and back are well done. But he royally screwed up on the legs. They’re of inferior material, too thin, shaky, poorly attached: in short, he made a bad chair. The teacher comes by and tells him that the chair is bad. But no, the student objects, “The legs are just a tiny portion of my chair! You can’t ignore the seat. That’s the primary piece of the chair!” The teacher then proceeds to fail the student for being a stupid jackass.

    Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

    Discovery Institute is shut out; whines

    Posted on March 6, 2009 by Michael

    The Vatican held another meeting trying to squeeze its tiny God into the ever shrinking gaps of reality as brought to us by science. (Apologies for the FOX Noise link, but it is an AP article.) Even though they have most things fully 1/2 wrong, them there Catholics do have some things entirely correct.

    The Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design research, says it was shut out from presenting its views because the meeting was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation, a major U.S. nonprofit that has criticized the intelligent design movement.

    Good. The Discovery Institute is filled with hacks who are purely motivated by religion, not science. They are, by definition, liars.

    Organizers of the five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University said Thursday that they barred intelligent design proponents because they wanted an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

    The implication being – though not as eloquently as I am about to put it – is that people who actually think intelligent design is science are fucking mooks who have no idea what science actually is. Honestly. Can any IDist actually give one prediction made by intelligent design ‘theory‘? Does any IDist understand why his failure to do this is one of the major reasons intelligent design is not science?

    Muslim creationists also complained about the conference.

    Oktar Babuna, a representative of a prominent Turkish creationist, Harun Yahya, was denied the right to speak at the opening session Tuesday.

    Notice this says “right to speak”. I assume this is in the same sense that I have a right to swing my fists. That right ends once it impedes someone else’s liberty. At that point, we no longer refer to my fist-swinging as a right: harassing, dangerous, disturbing, etc, perhaps we call it one of these, but certainly not a right. So surely Babuna couldn’t have been figuratively swinging his fists with his gaping mouth of creationist inanity, correct? After all, he was denied a right, not the ability to harass people or spew dumb, disturbing ideas of stupidity.

    Participants took the microphone away from Babuna when, during a question-and-answer session, he challenged them to give proof of transitional forms of animals in Darwinian evolution.

    Organizers said he hadn’t formulated a question and was just stating his point of view.

    Babuna said afterward that the conference was clearly undemocratic. A statement from Yahya said, “Although there are discussion parts, they want this discussion to be one-sided.”

    Surprise. It looks like Babuna took his verbal fists and started throwing them around the conference. It’s fortunate there’s no muscle to back them up.

    Scientists can keep pointing to these fossils, but creationists just keep asking the same question over and over. They’re like little kids who keep asking their parents “why?” no matter what the answer. They aren’t actually seeking any information, truth, or answers; they just want attention because no one takes their childish ideas seriously.

    Filed under: Creationism, Evolution, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

    Troopergate resolved

    Posted on March 6, 2009 by Michael

    Asshole trooper Michael Galluccio‘s ticket to a man trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital has been tossed out. Of course, someone had to keep internalizing the rules.

    Even after John Davis appealed the $100 ticket and a Cambridge clerk magistrate tossed it out, the department refused to give up. A lawyer for the State Police challenged the clerk magistrate’s decision and appealed late last month to restore the ticket. A hearing was scheduled before a Cambridge District Court judge March 18.

    Davis’s attorney, David Lucas, said that in a dozen years, he’d never seen the State Police appeal a traffic ticket. He couldn’t quite believe the department’s prosecutor was going to pursue one against a woman in labor.

    “When I asked, ‘Are you sure the State Police want to be on record as appealing this?’ what he said was, “I just wouldn’t have any credibility if I did not appeal this,’ ” Lucas said.

    Right, well, the law is black and white. Just like reality. There are no shades of gray in life. If the State Police want any credibility they need to internalize rules. It makes sense. It’s basically their job to forgo reasoning for the sake of snap judgements based upon internalization. It works a lot of the time because that internalization happens to coincide with actual reasoning, but it’s still a huge fallacy. So it comes as no surprise that the police didn’t drop the appeal based upon any worthwhile reason.

    But within an hour and a half of being contacted by the Globe, the State Police dropped the case. State Police Colonel Mark F. Delaney “immediately ordered it to be rescinded,” Procopio said.

    The media was ready to pounce on this. That’s the only ‘reason’ the appeal was dropped. It was PR, pure and simple. The police don’t care that none of asshole trooper Michael Galluccio’s actions made any sense. It’s that they didn’t want a big PR flap over a $100 ticket.

    He also said state troopers are expected to make judgment calls all the time. “We understand that there may be a backlash to that,” said Procopio. “That goes with the territory, and we understand that. That said, we make the calls based on public safety and the interest of justice – and not public opinion.”

    And now the department spokesman is lying. He’s a fucking liar. There’s really no sugar-coating this one. The department makes a move that is blatantly motivated by public opinion and then goes on to say that the police simply do not do that. Rescinding the appeal after discovering the Globe is doing a follow-up? Nah, they just filled out the wrong form, said the wrong words, and slipped up with the wrong intentions. All an honest mistake.

    Fuck these people.

    Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

    « Previous Page — Next Page »