Justice

Posted on June 8, 2013 by Michael

Cameron D’Ambrosio had his free speech rights attacked last month. The obvious reason? Paranoia and fear following the Boston Marathon bombings. The official reason? He wrote a song in which he boasted about how the bombings were nothing compared to what he would do. Authorities (not of the moral variety, clearly) claimed he was a terrorist or some stupid, trumped up horseshit charge like that. The grand jury wasn’t buying it:

An Essex County grand jury declined Thursday to bring an indictment against Cameron D’Ambrosio, 18, so prosecutors will formally file a motion to drop the charge of making a bomb or hijack threat, said Carrie Kimball Monahan, a spokeswoman for the district attorney.

She declined to comment on the grand jury’s decision.

Neither D’Ambrosio nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Thursday night.

Authorities said D’Ambrosio was arrested May 1 after police learned that he had posted a message on his Facebook page that read in part, “Ya’ll want me to [expletive] kill somebody?” and “[expletive] a Boston bombing wait till you see the [expletive] I do.”

The posting did not say where any bombing would occur and did not single out any person or group, but it also allegedly referred to the White House.

D’Ambrosio pleaded not guilty the following day in Lawrence District Court, and he was held without bail.

In a statement, Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon said his department disagrees with the decision but respects the ruling.

“Several judiciary levels have confirmed the probable cause in this case, as it has worked its way through the criminal justice system,” said Solomon. “We will continue to take all threats against our community seriously.”

Fuck you, Joseph Solomon. If you took your job seriously, you wouldn’t target the First Amendment rights of high school kids. Indeed, had D’Ambrosio been a successful rap artist with gobs of money, you never would have gone after him. The only reason you ignored the constitution, you fuck, is because you thought he was a soft target you could use to make a point. You wanted to send a chill down the spine of anyone who might think of expressing themselves in a way in which you disapprove, so you tried to set a brand new, anti-speech precedent by arresting a kid. Your actions suggest you wish for us to be less free. I find that scummy, you scumbag.

Evan Greer of the Center for Rights, an Internet freedom and civil liberties group, praised the grand jury’s decision in a statement.

“While today is a major victory for Cam, the chilling effect that this case has already had on free speech cannot be undone,” Greer said. “It’s imperative that we send a clear message to all government officials that attacks on freedom of speech will not be tolerated.”

What I would like to do here is use some overt play on words where I suggest that Joseph Solomon’s phone line becomes inundated with calls, except instead of “inundated” I use some phrase like “phone bombed”. It’s sort of like photobombing or, say, rapping about a bombing. It has nothing to do with using any actual explosives and anyone who thinks otherwise is a mook. Unfortunately, I find myself chilled. Who knows what will happen to me if I use my First Amendment rights in a way that upsets anti-free speech crusader Joseph Solomon?

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

More on the destruction of the Fourth Amendment

Posted on June 5, 2013 by Michael

In case you missed it: The Supreme Court has ruled that the police can take a DNA sample from a person without probable cause, without a warrant, and without a conviction. So long as a person has been arrested for a felony, he is subject to an intrusion upon his body. It’s an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment that, given the specific arguments of the Court, will undoubtedly lead to DNA sampling for absolutely any crime for which one may be arrested, including jaywalking or running a red light.

There are incredible problems with all this. First, unlike with fingerprinting, the point of DNA sampling is not to identify a suspect. The sole point is to solve other crimes. This is the explicit intent of the state legislatures that have passed such laws. It is exactly the same as if a state legislature declared that a person’s home was automatically subject to being searched upon that person’s arrest. The police are now allowed to go on horseshit fishing expeditions.

Second, while there are often restrictions placed upon what the police are allowed to do with your DNA, that can be changed on a whim by a given state’s governing body. Moreover, do you trust the government to keep its blinders on? If you had a 100 page journal and a judge told the prosecution that it could read it but it had to stick to pages 14-17, do you really think that would happen? Of course not. Pages 1-13 and 18-100 would be absolutely scoured, regardless whether or not the information found therein could be used directly against you.

The only civil liberties decisions of the past 100 years more important than this one are Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia. Every American is forever subject to suspicionless searches and seizures, less the states pass a sorely needed amendment to the constitution.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Pure bullshit, Pure Rage, Rights | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

Bachmann not seeking reelection

Posted on May 29, 2013 by Michael

First Minnesota rejects amending bigotry into is constitution. Then it goes in the complete opposite direction it had been heading and stops trampling the rights of gays in marriage all together. And now there’s this wonderful news:

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann said early Wednesday that she will not run for re-election in 2014.

The Minnesota conservative made the announcement in a video posted on her website.

“After a great deal of thought and deliberation, I have decided next year I will not seek a fifth congressional term,” Bachmann said in the 8-and-a-half minute video. “After serious consideration, I am confident that this is the right decision.”

This is excellent. Bachmann was an historically ignorant fool that never added one good thing to this country’s well-being. I’m glad to see her gone. I hope she never makes a return to politics.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Genetically modified crops

Posted on May 26, 2013 by Michael

As someone who has a high number of liberal friends on his social media outlets, I frequently see anti-Monsanto and anti-genetically modified food posts and pictures. Just this weekend there were all sorts of protests, including in my home state. Now here’s the thing: I don’t get it.

I’m not one to defend large corporations (which, incidentally, are not people but rather government-defined entities), but I’ve never considered myself part of the anti-Monsanto crusade that’s out there. I understand the desire to label food as a matter of general principle, but I’ve seen scant evidence that GM food holds any characteristics that should cause alarm. Indeed, I once saw a poll where one of the major reasons people were weary of such food was because it had DNA in it. Come on. That small family-owned farm with the kindly old couple that’s been growing organic potatoes for the community for decades is serving up a big healthy dose of DNA every season.

I also understand the misgivings people have about some of the lawsuits Monsanto has out there, but from what I’ve read, it’s all been greatly exaggerated. They certainly have a huge advantage in the market place by virtue of their size and wealth, but I’m not convinced they’ve been particularly unfair to other farmers. (Though I do worry about legislation for which they lobby. But that’s a feeling I have regarding every corporation.)

I’d be interested to learn what all this fuss is really about. I don’t think anyone has nothing but ulterior motives here, but I do wonder how much of the outrage is based upon legitimate concerns and how much is based upon the dissemination of false information.

Filed under: Biology, Politics and Social | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Good job, Lois Lerner. Kind of.

Posted on May 26, 2013 by Michael

Lois Lerner of the IRS was recently called to testify in front of Congress. She rightly recognized that speaking to the government is, generally, not a good idea:

Lois G. Lerner, the head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations office, said in advance of Wednesday’s testimony she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer questions from House members during committee hearings about the IRS’s targeting of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lerner then appeared before the committee, read a prepared statement, and said she was invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.

“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said in her statement. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

“Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I’ve done something wrong. I have not,” she said. “One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I’m invoking today.”

The only problem with this is that by making any statement at all, Lerner may have waived her Fifth Amendment rights. There’s a bit of a debate going on about this, so I’m not entirely sure what the outcome will be. It sounds like a witness is allowed to say a few things, such as where Lerner asserts her innocence, without waiving any rights, but that may be tested here. For my two cents, I hope they do test her and I hope she stands her ground. I hope she then wins the overwhelming right to continue with her day unmolested by government questions. Because, of course, the only reason these congresspeople would call her back would be to intimidate her with the backup of embarrassment. That is, calling her back would be for the sake of daring her to take on the government, something they hope she doesn’t do. Then, if she does do that, the backup plan is to simply embarrass her by virtue of shining a public spotlight on her lack of testimony – congress and everyone else damn well knows that guilt is assumed of those who refuse to testify against themselves.

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

Bravo, Ronald Lindsay

Posted on May 23, 2013 by Michael

In my last post I spoke of the feminist mantra of “Shut up and listen!” Specifically, I was alluding to a speech by Ronald Lindsay as given at a conference titled Women in Secularism. Here is the meat of what he said:

But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.

For this Lindsay has seen backlash in the feminist community. Here’s one response:

At best it was terrible tone deafness which was then exacerbated by his position of power in the organization, his race and gender and socioeconomic status, and the fact that he was giving the opening address not a lecture.

I also agreed with Rebecca Watson that it was particularly bad for these apparent misunderstandings to be delivered by a wealthy white man who was part of the organization in charge of the Women in Secularism conference. In other words, it was a poorly expressed, poorly timed message delivered by exactly the wrong person for the message.

First, Lindsay did a great job expressing his message. I only quoted a small portion of his speech, but if one is to read the whole thing, it shouldn’t be difficult to grasp his message. It has clarity and it was poignant. Second, it is not only overtly sexist but overtly racist to dismiss a person’s message on the grounds of sex and race. Indeed, that’s practically the definition of sexism and racism. Third, his message wasn’t even wrong. I’ll get to why that is in a moment, but first here’s another response:

If Ron LIndsay was opening an NAACP conference, he’d be the guy who’s like, “Welcome! WHERE’S WHITE HISTORY MONTH?”

Criticizing a particular use of a concept and the tactics of a movement is far different from being oblivious to the historic reasons for something such as black history month. The situations aren’t even close to being analogous.

Now here’s why his message isn’t at all wrong. Lindsay was saying little more than, ‘Telling one side to shut up is not how adults go about having a discussion.’ I entirely agree with him. If the goals here are to increase understanding, get a message out there, and change minds, then shutting down 50% of the population is, frankly, stupid. Just imagine if Martin Luther King did that. Imagine if he told white people that they needed to excuse themselves from the discussion. First, the crowd that was hostile to him in the first place would only harden their position, and the crowd that was in the middle would have walked away. That is, if today’s strategy of caricature, Internet feminists was applied to the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, black people and other minorities wouldn’t even be close to where they are today.

(I raised MLK’s clear strategy in a discussion with a check-out-my-fem-cred male on Facebook. In doing so, I specifically had A Letter from a Birmingham Jail in mind. Amazingly, he cited the letter as though it were some divisive piece of trash that would have supported the ‘Shut up’ mantra of feminists today. The reality is that the letter goes on about engaging and negotiating with the opposition – a hallmark of MLK’s life – before encouraging moderate whites to stand up and speak, to be a part of the discussion.)

So, I say bravo to Ronald Lindsay. It took courage to address such a groupthink idea in front of a group that does nothing but support the groupthinkery.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »

What feminism told me this weekend

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Michael

I was going to title this post ‘What feminism taught me’, but it doesn’t seem that feminists are much into teaching so much as they are into decreeing. Case-in-point, I had a Facebook discussion with someone who went to town defending the feminism mantra ‘Shut up and listen!’ My objection, first was that that isn’t how adults have a conversation. Shutting down the speech of one side in order to validate the speech of the other side is just asinine. But to make things worse, this was all in response to a white guy calling bullshit on the mantra. And why does it matter that he was white? It shouldn’t, but in the feminist world, being a white guy who disagrees with any aspect of third-wave feminism is ‘privileged’* and ignorant. Indeed, what feminism told me this weekend was that adults should treat each other like children, especially if one of those adults is white and male; a view becomes all the less worthwhile based upon the sex of the person saying it. (You’ll never believe it, but when I called out this blatant definition-of-the-very-concept-of-sexism sexism, there was little agreement to be had.)

I’m going to have more on this soon, complete with specific references. I just wanted to throw this out here now because I found it so incredibly irritating that a person would devote time to fighting against the degradation of views on the basis of sex when it comes to women yet engaged in that very same type of degradation when the speaker was male.

*The word ‘privilege’, of course, has become a code to indicate an outsider.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Cons vs Liberals

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Michael

Conservative: I hate welfare moochers!

Liberal: Do you know corporations are making record profits?

Con: Good! Nothing wrong with money!

Liberal: And despite these profits, workers aren’t seeing shit. In turn, the taxpayer subsidizes the worker. Otherwise people will starve and die.

Con: Lazy workers!

Liberal: No, you fucking myopic idiot. You’re paying more in taxes because places like Wal-Mart refuse to paying a living wage, even though they very well could. The taxpayer is the moral agent here; the corporation is the moocher that is taking advantage of our desire to not see people suffer and die. That is, they know we’ll prevent suffering, so they line the pockets of a few at the expense of many without fear that this system will ever change.

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

The dishonesty of Howie Carr

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Michael

Howie Carr is a conservative talk show host out of Boston. He’s very entertaining and I enjoy listening to him on my way home from work, but he has a tendency to engage in some pretty overt dishonesty. For instance, he was discussing a comment made by a Democratic leader about South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. First, here’s the story:

While he was chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Dick Harpootlian was known for his “pithy and pungent comments.” Now, he’s trying to apologize and clarify such a remark he made last week about GOP Gov. Nikki Haley.

Harpootlian said he hoped South Carolina voters next year send “Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from” — a comment that many Republicans believed was racist because of Haley’s Indian heritage. Haley, South Carolina’s first female and minority governor, is up for re-election in 2014.

I can see how people would make such an interpretation, but I’m not really buying it. Haley is from South Carolina, not India. Harpootlian clarified:

“I’m the grandson of immigrants. She’s not from India,” Harpootlian said Tuesday on MSNBC. “She’s from Bamberg, South Carolina, where she was an accountant in her parents’ clothing store called Exotica. All I’m suggesting is she needs to go back to being an accountant in a dress store rather than being this fraud of a governor that we have.”

This is where my beef with Howie Carr comes in. In response to the above quote, Carr asked “What’s wrong with being an accountant? Why does this guy have a problem with people who work in the dreaded private sector?” (Paraphrased.) I think the issue here is obvious: Harpootlian didn’t say anything about there being anything wrong with accounting. All he said was that he wants to send Haley back to what she did prior to becoming governor. For some context, consider the 2004 VP debates. Joe Lieberman light-heartily said something to the effect of his wife sometimes wishing he was back in the private sector. Dickface Cheney responded with a zinger about hoping to help Lieberman get there. Now, imagine someone like Howie Carr hearing this. Is there a chance he would question why Cheney thought there was something wrong with the private sector? Would he question why Cheney found Lieberman’s previous occupation problematic? I doubt it.

Of course, the reason Carr wouldn’t question Cheney is obvious. Aside from the political bias of it, he believes Cheney doesn’t have a history of undermining the private sector, so he’s going to give him the benefit of any doubt. Interestingly, I think this point can be enlightening when we consider why people tend to give Harpootlian the benefit of the doubt: modern Democrats don’t have a history of saying racist things and undermining the social and economic status of minorities. Republicans, on the other hand, do. I mean, who is going to assume the best of intentions of a party that made early voting illegal on the specific Sunday (in Florida) when black churches bus voters to the polls? History matters here.

(I realize the first line of attack from most Republicans will be to point out that Democrats prior to and around the middle of the 20th century tended to be the overwhelmingly racist party. This, like Carr, is pretty dishonest. Those Democrats were largely conservatives who later became Republicans as how we defined the major parties evolved.)

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

Why New Yorkers should consider Anthony Weiner for mayor

Posted on April 17, 2013 by Michael

As just about everyone knows, Anthony Weiner went from being a U.S. House member from New York to resigning as a result of a sexual picture he mistakenly Tweeted to a woman who wasn’t his wife. And as just about everyone should know, there were only two problems with what he did (from a public standpoint). One, he wasn’t careful enough about his online actions, thus sending a lewd photo of himself. I consider this to be pretty minor because I wouldn’t be stopped from voting for someone who has nude or lewd photos online, but there is a problem with him sending the picture over a social media feed where people didn’t sign up for that sort of thing. Two, he lied and denied about his affair. That’s pretty much never the way to go with these things.

As I wrote about Gen. Petraeus a few months ago, these sex scandals are hardly even stories. Unless the official involved had his office or political/military decisions compromised as a result of an affair, I do not care. That appears to be the case with Petraeus, so that was a non-story. As for Weiner, the only story was his lying. And now that some time has passed, he’s hoping that he can get by that with a huge political comeback:

Democrat Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress in disgrace two years ago, is weighing a bid for New York mayor, but a poll released on Tuesday suggests his political comeback would be an uphill battle.

Only 40 percent of city voters say they would consider voting for him, while 52 percent said they would not, according to the NBC New York-Marist poll.

Among Democrats, his chances were slightly higher, with 46 percent saying they were open to a Weiner candidacy and 50 percent opposed to the idea.

Weiner’s standing with the public has improved in the two years since he admitted to sending lewd messages to women and resigned from his seat in the House representing parts of Queens and Brooklyn.

He had been considered a front-runner to be the city’s next mayor but when he resigned just a quarter of voters polled thought he should run for mayor.

For those New Yorkers who once supported Weiner but no longer do, I think they should reconsider. If their problem with him is the fact that he lied about everything (and for some time, at that), then there’s nothing I can say about that. Not voting for a guy because of his public dishonesty is perfectly valid. However, if people aren’t voting for him because he cheated on his wife, I say boo. That’s an issue for him and his wife, not the citizenry at large. He isn’t a lesser lawmaker and leader because he isn’t a good husband. Infidelity certainly isn’t anything to praise, but it isn’t a federal crime.

I don’t know if Weiner is the right choice for New York City mayor. I live 6 hours away and don’t have an interest in the politics of big cities, much less living in one. However, I do believe that Weiner deserves fair consideration based upon his policy and lawmaking record. Leave his personal life out of it.

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »