"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. And if you repeat that 600 times you will receive enlightenment. In some sense."
"
"
They get it.
He knows. He has the documents.
"Today the House of Representatives approved a watered-down version of the surveillance reform bill known as the USA FREEDOM Act by a vote of 303 to 121. Revisions to the bill demanded by the Obama administration were so troubling that several prominent supporters, including Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), ended up opposing it.
...the bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for "area code 616" or for "phone calls made east of the Mississippi." The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Of course, that's just what they want you to think. The Military Is Shutting Down Its Weather-Controlling Death Beam:
"The official objectives of HAARP are to "identify, investigate, and, if feasible ... serve to enhance future DOD Command, Control and Communications capabilities … Research areas that will be explored include generation of very low and extremely low frequency waves, generation of geomagnetic field-aligned irregularities, electron acceleration, and investigation of upper atmospheric processes." But, earlier this month, the military gave official notice to Congress that it intends to dismantle HAARP this summer. David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, said this is "not an area that we have any need for in the future" and that research funds would be better spent elsewhere. "We're moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere," Walker explained... It's that sort of language that has inspired conspiracy theories since HAARP's inception"
Patton Oswalt is Awesome.
"Thailand's army seized control of the country and suspended the constitution on Thursday after rival factions failed in talks to end six months of political turmoil, causing the nation's 19th coup in 82 years. While General Prayuth Chan-ocha, head of the army and now acting prime minister, did not use the word "coup" in his televised announcement to the nation, he said the takeover was necessary "in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again". The coup became apparent during Thursday's negotiations when Prayuth asked the caretaker justice minister, Chaikasem Nitisiri, whether the government was ready to resign. "As of this minute, the government will not resign," Chaikasem allegedly answered, according to the English-language Nation newspaper. "So, as of this minute, I decide to seize ruling power," Prayuth retorted. An electoral commissioner who was at the negotiations said that Prayuth had told the assembled company: "Everyone must sit still."
...The military's seizure of power has become routine and a sad reality of Thai politics," said Karim Lahidji, of the International Federation for Human Rights. "Two days after it publicly declared that it was not going to stage a coup, the military seized power and plunged Thailand into a deeper political crisis." Observers say Thailand's next move will depend on just how well the various factions, and the public, respond to the military takeover. "This coup looks like many others going back to the 1970s: the language used, the seeming solidarity among the main branches of the security forces," said Michael Montesano, co-coordinator of the Thailand studies programme at Singapore's institute of south-east Asian studies. "They've inherited a mess and how they're going to manage it depends on how much resistance there is to the government that they attempt to install." Connors said, though, that the fact that there had been so much talk of resistance proved this coup was different from all the others. "They've never had a coup like this, in which this potential of mass resistance is so strong," he said. "It's only imaginable that this coup will be incredibly repressive as a response.""
"Tourism officials put a brave face on the latest twist in the long-running civil strife, saying it was too early to gauge the impact on tourist arrivals, which already dipped nearly 6 percent in the first three months of the year. "It might look scary and to outsiders it might sound violent, but if we look at it from another angle it should bring more security and peace which should reassure tourists," said Supawan Tanomkieatipume, vice-president of the Thai Hotels Association. But some travel agencies said they expected a further fall in bookings after Tuesday's news, especially from corporate travelers, who can be more sensitive to political risks."
"Despite the chaos, people on the street have welcomed the military's action. "It's good that the military came out so that everything will be over," said 29-year-old Panatda Butsopha, a street merchant who has been unhappy with prolonged political turmoil and street protests. "I'm not surprised to hear the military staged a coup," said Chatchai Leethahan, a 36-year-old motorcycle taxi driver whose stand is at the center of the commercial district of Bangkok, which has been the backdrop of several government-related protests. "I think where a conflict between two groups continued unresolved, having someone come in to put an end to it is good," said Tueanjit Putipongpokai, a 29-year-old in downtown Bangkok, who came to the city's commercial area to look for soldiers with whom to take selfies. "I don't think the situation can be any worse than it has already been, although I didn't expect the coup to take place this soon.""
Hugh Jackman FTW.
"I want you to be nice..."
"What a tidy but self-defeating fiction the “good faith” presumption has revealed itself to be over my 25 years in the law. The more I study criminal justice, the clearer it is to me that public officials on every level of our justice system are wholly unworthy of the benefit of the doubt the law ascribes to their actions. To even say this, I realize, is to cross some sort of decorous boundary that proper lawyers and judges are still conditioned to observe. But here we are. I am no longer a believer in the presumption of “good faith.” I’ve simply seen too much evidence of bad faith...
Much of this boils down to a failure to understand and appreciate the trappings of public choice. We tend to assume that public employees always act in the public interest — or at least we write our laws and structure our government in a way that assumes it. But there’s nothing transformational about a government paycheck that turns the name on the “payable to:” line into an altruist. This isn’t to say that government employees are especially evil or awful or terrible, only that they’re just as human and fallible as anyone else. Yes, some areas of government attract and reward certain traits and personalities, and that in some cases this is a bad thing. For example, I think that the profession of politics in general attracts and rewards the very sorts of people we should least want running the country...
The fact that the criminal justice system is run by fallible human beings wouldn’t be such a problem if we recognized it, made sure that the system was governed by checks and balances to compensate for it, and structured internal incentives in a way that ensured we were delivering just and fair outcomes as often as possible. But that isn’t what has happened, mostly because our political discourse hasn’t allowed for it...
Progressives tend to be dismissive of public choice theory in general. Conservatives tend to buy into it, except when we’re talking about criminal justice. For whatever reason, conservatives have long believed that while EPA or FDA bureaucrats are susceptible to the trappings and corruption of power, somehow cops and prosecutors are immune to it...
Unfortunately, it’s the politicians who make policy. Naturally, most politicians are either skeptical of public choice theory or oblivious to it. After all, every politician is himself a public servant, and believes he or she obviously got into the profession for only the noblest of reasons. These are the people who make the laws that govern the system, and the people who are supposed to provide oversight and accountability when things go wrong. Throw in the influence of the police and prison guard unions and prosecutors’ associations, and the massive law-enforcement pork available for congressmen to bring home to their districts, and you remove any political incentive for an elected official to position himself as a criminal justice watchdog....
The courts are reluctant to second-guess the motivations of law enforcement officials. The most notorious example of this is the collection of cases that provide a “good faith exception” to Fourth Amendment violations. Instead of guarding the rights of citizens not to be subjected to illegal searches, the courts have chosen not to “punish” police who unintentionally violate those rights. But if a police officer says the violation was unintentional, the courts have put the burden on the plaintiff to prove otherwise. The practical result of many these decisions is to draw a roadmap for rogue cops to violate the Fourth Amendment. Just claim that you made a mistake. And since cops tend to be rewarded for making arrests that lead to convictions, the cops who follow the roadmap have a professional advantage over the cops who don’t...
Not only do courts and bar associations fail to adequately police and punish rogue prosecutors, a prosecutor’s performance is generally measured exclusively on his or her ability to put lots of people behind bars. Yes, there are conscientious prosecutors who decline to charge someone in the interest of justice all the time. But deciding not to charge someone isn’t the sort of thing a prosecutor boasts about in a press release, touts when running for reelection, or that attracts headhunters from high paying white-shoe law firms. Every incentive nudges prosecutors toward charging as many people as possible with the most serious charges possible to seek the longest sentence possible. Between impotent bar associations, courts reluctant to sanction, and prosecutors’ absolute immunity from lawsuits, there’s little to no risk of punishment for going to far. Yes, there are lots of good prosecutors out there. But why should we make it hard on them?"
No comments:
Post a Comment