MikeC’s Techdirt Profile

mikec

About MikeC


http://www.linkedin.com/mdcody



MikeC’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 10th, 2016 @ 4:05pm

    Gender Wars

    "We are a pack of biased little idiots and the sooner we realize it the better and then, maybe need we can all be big enough to talk about our problems without getting all murderous on each other...

    yea right who am I kidding we are terrible and evil and there will never be peace until there is only 1 culture left on the planet."


    I created a desert and called it peace...

  • Jan 21st, 2016 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: It's called satire Mike.

    From a career journalist, why is it bad satire? I merely applied what is current Michigan gun law and substituted journalist for it. It's not anti journalist, just showing how corrupt political agenda's are and how the narrative changes when it's something a person is not in favor of. That would seem to be the purpose of satire.

    In the spirit of mocking any idea that a journalist need to register their activities, I would think that fits the spirit of the original article quite well. Just curious

  • Jan 20th, 2016 @ 1:52pm

    If the Pen is mightier than sword - should it be registered?

    The saying goes that the pen is mightier than the sword, then it must be even more dangerous in the wrong hands.

    How can we allow this much deadly force to wielded by those who are un-registered and un-regulated? We must at once give the government the tools and power to protect us from a such a force so it can be only be used for good.

    We must think of the children, they might be corrupted or mislead. If you seek to wield this power, you must have a background check so we know you are not a criminal or heaven forbid mentally a danger to yourself or others. If you aren't a registered journalist how can we be sure you aren't writing inflammatory copy that will endanger or even offend someone?

    So I can see the need for the below kinds of processes:


    Every place where there are large gatherings of diverse people should be JFZ (journalist free zone) so we can be sure there will be no drive by journalistic attacks. No offensive stories, no reason for people to feel unloved.

    Police need you to disclose if you are CJP(concealed journalistic press) credential holder so they can be safe in the performance of their duties. You must surrender you stories to any officer if he/she feels it is necessary for their own or bystanders safety.

    Every time you transfer a journalistic story to another person, you need to fill out RI-69(journalist story transfer) form. Keeping one copy, giving one to your reader and dropping one off to the local law enforcement office so they can enter it in the Journalist Registry.

    Every time you send in a story you can not just publish it, it must go through a FJL(federal Journalism License) holder who will background check your publisher to insure it's not going to some with some criminal or mental issue that would prevent them from legally publishing your story.

    This is just a start of the things we need to do to protect everyone from irresponsible journalistic activity so we can prevent mass misleading lies from being published to the detriment of our society.

  • Jan 20th, 2016 @ 1:35pm

    Re:

    When reporters start killing people with their journalism, maybe we can start considering this bill.

    I am assuming that is sarcasm? How much space do we have to talk about all the people irresponsible journalism helped to be killed?

  • Sep 16th, 2015 @ 9:41am

    Re:

    Don't worry we all know no one in the government actually uses these databases.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe/maybe not but when you the result of not being prepared it your family buries you -- then you can't afford not to be prepared "each and every time" you face any situation. Maybe cop's need better tools. They tried taser's but they can kill too (not as surely as a .40S&W round) but public outrage is still the same. So they get hit for doing that ... it's a no-win situation but that doesn't excuse this clearly criminal act.

    It sucks but it's the world, we put cops in a position where they are never judged reasonably so they seem to be resulting more and more to brute force when considered communication and restraint in their actions would be called for. When you deal with the dregs of society you get to the point that you see every interaction as adversarial to the extreme.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There are plenty of jobs more dangerous than that of police work, yet that doesn't give the ones in those jobs excuse to open fire 'just in case'. As such, I fail to see how cops should get a pass because they might be in danger of suffering significant harm at some point during their career."

    That is not you said in the first message, you said they are trained to view the public as a danger and I said of course they are, because there is a chance in every case that the public they are dealing with is lethal. You should wear a seat belt every time you drive "in case you get in an accident not because you are going to get into one". The cop has to treat each case as lethal jeopardy because it might be and to not be ready for that is a death wish.

    Does that mean they should kill folks on a whim, NO WAY!! The cops in this case should be prosecuted for murder. The over stepped their authority, committing a criminal act that can't be justified. That is not a reason for any cop not to be ready to respond to a lethal threat in every case, they can't afford otherwise. What they need to do is be able restrain that lethality when it's not required. Just because you need to be ready to kill doesn't mean you have too.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There are plenty of jobs more dangerous than that of police work, yet that doesn't give the ones in those jobs excuse to open fire 'just in case'. As such, I fail to see how cops should get a pass because they might be in danger of suffering significant harm at some point during their career."

    That is not you said in the first message, you said they are trained to view the public as a danger and I said of course they are, because there is a chance in every case that the public they are dealing with is lethal. You should wear a seat belt every time you drive "in case you get in an accident not because you are going to get into one". The cop has to treat each case as lethal jeopardy because it might be and to not be ready for that is a death wish.

    Does that mean they should kill folks on a whim, NO WAY!! The cops in this case should be prosecuted for murder. The over stepped their authority, committing a criminal act that can't be justified. That is not a reason for any cop not to be ready to respond to a lethal threat in every case, they can't afford otherwise. What they need to do is be able restrain that lethality when it's not required. Just because you need to be ready to kill doesn't mean you have too.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re:

    "First, police are trained to always see the public as a threat"

    Cop has no choice in this. If it means that 999/1000 people do not intend him harm, 1/1000 the cop is dead. He has to treat every situation as potentially lethal or know that he will not make it home sometime in his career.

    Now the stacked in his favor part I support. It's that way because the same folks who review depend on the cops to do the job for them... sort of a built in conflict of interest. There needs to be an independent review somehow.

  • Jul 7th, 2015 @ 1:44pm

    Let's see - ban it and no will use it to break a law

    Or to paraphrase - "when exposing flaws is outlawed only outlaws will have access to the flaws" ...

    Because we all know that if it's illegal then no one will be able to do it right? Sounds like anti-gun, anti-drug,anti-bullying, etc.. arguments to me - make the "insert bad item of your choice" illegal/hidden and no one will be able to do bad things with it. IE: Don't let anyone expose the flaws in the system, then no one will be able to exploit them for bad things.

  • Jun 24th, 2015 @ 5:54pm

    Re: For want of a soldier

    "MikeC do you really mean to imply that people should be paid not by the effort that they put in, but by their personal or economic power?"

    No I mean to imply people are paid on perceived value. 1 out of a 100 can be killer broker, 50 out of a 100 can be a waitress, 90 out of a 100 can be a soldier -- value/scarcity of talent is what gets you paid. Don't make it right, just makes it so. That is why a great waitress can make more than a poor one, but is limited. Doesn't mean they don't have value, doesn't mean they don't bust there ass -- means there is a limit to their percieved value to society, reduced by the amount of folks who can do what they do, even if not so well. Always someone waiting to take your spot. Just not as many are killer brokers.

    In my career I've been better at what I do than 90% of the folks I've met in my profession. New much younger folks coming in push more every day and willing to work for less -- hence I have to give better ROI.

    I get paid well because of what I can do ... it's not
    liberal or conservative, it's the value delivered. A great waitress can only add so much value to society, other professions add more to the bottom line, hence they get paid more.

  • Jun 23rd, 2015 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: So we're back to the feudal era...

    Who makes more: a banker or a USMC grunt on the front line? Which one works harder?

    --- which one affects more people every day?

    Who makes more: a minimum wage waitress or a stockbroker? Which one works harder?

    which can can add move value to our economy with a single decision?

    I agree a lot of folks bust their rear for not enough money, I tip very well to a good waitress for just that reason. However I don't devalue a person just because of how someone perceives their amount of physical labor or physical risk (USMC) ... it's all about what is valued. If you don't value it fine -- are you paying their salary? If you aren't well then you don't get a vote. I think lots of folks are overpaid too. But I am not "directly" paying them so I don't get a say unless it's with my purchasing dollar or proxy vote. Wish it wasn't so, but this is the real world not the world I wish it was most of the time.

  • May 28th, 2015 @ 3:32pm

    Does is matter at all?

    Do anyone, really "DOES ANYONE" think this will make the slightest bit of difference to what the NSA/FBI/CIA/XXX groups will collect or do? In fact I would have to argue if for some reason it sunsets, it's made illegal even, someone will manufacture a reason (one that will probably get some innocent people killed) to reinstate it or they will just ignore the law - just like they are doing now.

  • May 28th, 2015 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Bigot yes, reasonable no, moron most likely, but incorrect probably not.

    -- Andrew Rosenthal, NYT Editor

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 12:20pm

    How Inefficent

    In the US we don't need to change the law, we just have a lawyer at the DOJ interpret the law for us and then classify that interpretation, so no one knows it was done.

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 10:41am

    Re: privacy policy

    Further -- franchisee's don't have to comply at all:

    Franchisees

    Some of our locations are owned and operated by independent franchisees that are neither owned nor controlled by G6 Hospitality, its affiliates or subsidiaries. Each franchisee may collect Guest Information and use such information for its own purposes. G6 Hospitality does not control the use or access of such information collected by franchisees.

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 10:38am

    Re: privacy policy

    Guess is doesn't violate Motel 6 Privacy:

    Compliance with Law

    We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.


    Their choice I guess.

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 10:36am

    Does that make the info public knowledge - IE FOIA?

    Can you request those lists w/a FOIA req? Do they notice local officials and other leading lights who might use that hotel for shall we say extra curricular activities? Could end up with all kinds of interesting scenarios?

    Want to bet when someone is going to request a copy of all those lists in conjunction with some court civil or criminal case? They are opening themselves up to all kinds of non-intended consequences here.

  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 6:34pm

    Since suspects keep going for the cops gun maybe........

    The obvious thing in common is the "he/she went for my gun" excuse why you beat the daylights, living tar --"life" out of the otherwise non-armed suspect.

    A simple trail of logic here has determined the most dangerous thing to the officers life is all the guns they each bring to the scene of the crime. In these cases it keeps seeming the "perps" are all unarmed and if the officers didn't have guns then they would be a lot safer.

    Further proof is submitted in the fact every time there is a big gun fight -- the suspects are shot dozens of times while the officers expend hundreds of rounds. If you calculate the misses by the officers it would seem they are a much bigger threat to themselves and "innocent" camera wielding bystanders than any of the criminals they are protecting us from. Remove the officers weapons and problem would be greatly reduced if not solved.

  • Apr 8th, 2015 @ 2:14pm

    The real problem is the courts

    The real problem in the majority of these cases is not the police. It's the court system - our government of checks and balances has failed. The court system does not check the government or it's enforcement function, the police.

    This case is one of the few where the courts have stood up and done their job. From the supreme court on down we have been failed by the system designed to protect us from this kind of tyranny. I honestly haven't the slight idea how to fix this within the confines of the system since the system itself has failed.

More comments from MikeC >>