I would very much like to trust law enforcement agencies and officers again, but it will take some doing. It took a long time and a lot of bad acts to lose my trust, so I don't expect it to be all that easy to get it back. But this guy just started the turn in that direction.
I'm finding the most encouraging law enforcement actions are coming from the office of sheriff. Maybe it's because they are elected. I don't know, but that is a very powerful office, and it seems that when a sheriff makes the news it's because of a positive thing... or at least an attempt do do what they believe to be a positive thing.
I don't know of any other law enforcement officer subject to election. I think the rest--police chiefs and officers, Sheriff Deputies (ahem. Oops.), FBI agents, etc, are hired or appointed.
Whatever it is--My trust level has been on empty for quite a few years, and I liked things better when it wasn't.
Besides, we elected them already. Now what we have is a set of strong incentives for politicians to sell influence and buy votes, with control of those incentives in the hands of those who benefit from them.
There are many good ways to fix the incentives... but they aren't going to happen.
They don't read the bills they sign, you have to know they aren't going to do the math.
First, the comment about poll manipulation as an art form is an understatement. Poll data has long passed from "probably useless" to "intentionally misdirecting" and it hasn't stopped heading in that direction.
It is so bad, it is impossible to tell if the hidden purpose behind this one and its release is pro or anti gun control. I doubt it is pro or anti game control, but I suppose that's possible. We are such easy targets.
If we weren't so well trained, we would recognize the question as manipulative as well as inane, but somehow we don't. We just fill in the blanks as though we were taking a No Child Left Behind test.
Which would you prefer, Twinkies or tap-dance lessons?
Or this: Would you vote for me if I presented this over simplified polar answer to a complex problem... or this other over simplified polar answer?
This reminds me of the second most amazing thing about the latter career of O.J. Simpson. After the verdict in the first most amazing thing, he made a hobby of pushing his legal luck.
He has finally proved the rule about what happens in Vegas--and now it really looks like the alleged sleazeball Gibbs and whatever his company/organization/halloween costume he is currently wearing will do the same.
I wonder... after losing repeatedly and becoming a poster child for trolling online, plus antagonizing a federal judge or two... what's the next act?
I can help you out with this one, Space. The FCC and the DOJ both combined don't know enough about what they are regulating to fill a dramatic pause.
I'm sure when you were digging around the history of these here now telephone things--which is a fascinating and educational thing to do--you saw how confused everyone was about what they did and what Our Government should do with them.
Seems to me that by the time all of the errors (some understandable) were corrected the phone company (The Phone Company) was being driven to extinction anyway.
So as long as we call it "jailbreaking" and "unlocking", well, those sound like things we shouldn't do--so the default action of a regulator will be to forbid it.
Maybe we should start calling it "owning" or "personalizing" or maybe "privacy protecting". All they read is the title anyway.
I can't help it. This reminds me very much of a new policy that came out while I was on active duty (about an eon and a half ago)to reduce the number of forms in use.
Naturally, the way we were supposed to suggest a form be removed was by filling out a new "paperwork reduction suggestion" form.
I wasn't fast enough to do the obvious, but I was fast enough to win a bet on it. The form vanished within two weeks (light speed for DoD admin). I would love to see the form suggesting its own removal, but I'm certain it was FOUO.
This story would have been better if the memo had actually been classified--and most documents about classification are classified--but I agree it still fits the fossilized culture of secrecy.
Some things change over time, some things don't.
After reading this morning's batch of Techdirt insanity, I've begun to wonder if there isn't some kind of secret rule that requires senior officials in government and business to be morons..at least in certain areas.
Around two decades ago after I noticed that everything I saw on the news relating to anything military, an area where I have considerable experience and expertise, was not only wrong, but space-case wrong. By "space-case wrong" I mean it wasn't only inaccurate, it was breath-taking stupid. Then I read an article that claimed EVERYONE with any expertise in a given area thought the same thing about the news coverage of that subject--but thought the rest of the coverage was okay.
Hmmm. I interpreted that to mean all news in all areas was stupid, but we could only recognize that stupidity if we happened to have some expertise in the area. I stopped watching the news after that... and I think that alone left me better informed.
If the same thing is true about senior officials and the subjects covered here, I'm not sure what I can quit doing.
I suppose in this case it's better to keep an eye on them than to just roll my eyes and shake my head. Maybe alcohol abuse would help. I'd pretend it was fiction, but it isn't believable enough for fiction.
Am I the only one that cringes when I see headlines such as "Limits to free speech?"
If it's limited, it ain't free. I'll go so far as to say yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't some kind of abuse of free speech... it is inciting panic. You could do the same thing by setting off a firecracker or something. All of this also assumes the theater is not, in fact, on fire.
Free speech is often offensive, often untrue, frequently intentionally misleading and hurtful. That's a shame.
If we can't handle the bad with the good then we have to do away with all of it. If you don't think there's enough good to outweigh the bad, that's a shame, too.
Those of us who believe the good far outweighs the bad and maybe even that some of us might be just a touch too sensitive, have to be careful when we are dealing with speech we don't like.
In the US, where we use the phrase "free speech" constantly, that freedom has already eroded. The legal definition of "hate speech" ought to scare hell out of everyone.. but we now have a lot of forbidden words well beyond George Carlin's list.
This bozo on Twitter was merely a thoughtless dimwit. So far, that is legal. Anyone who believes everything they read on Twitter is a moron. That is also legal.
Can't we just move on? Grow up? It isn't all that easy, but it IS that simple.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Aztecian.