Alas, I have an early flight to New York this morning for some BigLaw legal ethics training, so I’m turning the blog over to the ethical readership, where I know it will be well cared for.
Write about whatever you like, as long as what you like involves ethics or leadership, and is devoid of nasty things and political rants. Also remember that if there are mosre than a single link in your post, it would be read until I get it out of moderation, and I can’t guarantee when that will be today.
Ethics Alarms 
I have many Leo friends and I have work closely with law enforcement for 25 years but I just can’t believe we are still allowing no knock raids to continue on non violent suspects. When executing a warrant things can get dangerous but most of the time just a little background, you know investigative work, allows for a fairly accurate risk assessment. Far too many innocents have been killed on suspicion of drug dealing, something that shouldn’t even if true result in the direct use of force. Entering a home without warning results in use of lethal force. No knock raids have thier place but when doing a risk assessment the operation should be planned to lower the risk not increase it, if the cops can’t clearly articulate a risk that a no knock raid would mitigate and not raise the danger level to a non violent suspect than the operation shouldn’t be used. The preservation of evidence can’t be a justification anymore, history has demonstrated that it is being abused and is resulting in innocents being killed in thier own homes. What is the ethical fix? I hate taking tools away from law enforcement but something has to change. Personally I would like to see the limited immunity many Leo’s enjoy be at risk when applying for a no knock warrant.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/698342870/after-botched-raid-houston-community-wants-a-change-to-polices-no-knock-warrants
In Indianapolis about a year ago, there was an incident in which a teenage boy was shot after a raid in which his brother, who wasn’t in the house, was shot. The father told the news that he reasoned with the police officers after the fact that someone asleep at night, hearing the door being busted down, will naturally assume that they are being robbed and might try to defend themselves. According to him, they agreed that it was a reasonable assumption to make.
Drat…his brother was being SOUGHT and the kid that was there was shot. Hopefully, that makes more sense.
I think it was in Indiana where the legislature passed a law that held that it would be considered self defense for a home owner to shoot an officer in a no-knock raid if it could be demonstrated that the officers failed to identify themselves appropriately. I have no idea how that would work though – who would testify, as an officer, that they had not identified themselves when breaking down the door?
What prevents a home invader from shouting “POLICE!” when breaking into an occupied house?
Nothing. It’s happened before in fact.
I saw this story. It really does seem they just fabricated this warrant. But what if it gets even worse and they execute a no-knock warrant at the wrong address. Say you hear someone break into your front door, and you go downstairs to confront them with an AR-15. You see it is the police. What are your options at this point?
(1) Let the police kill you. You are currently pointing an AR-15 at a police officer, you are going to be shot and killed if you do nothing. It is likely the police will hold a press conference afterwards either (a) talking about this tragic ‘accident’ or (b) talking about how you were actually a violent drug dealer.
(2) Kill them all. If you don’t kill them all, you will either be killed or could go to jail on fabricated charges. Your only hope is to make sure the only side to the story is your side. This is a really horrific option, but the action of the police across the country make this a viable, if desperate option. It isn’t likely to be successful, since 10 member SWAT teams seem to be making these raids on elderly women and suburban families.
The no-knock warrants need to stop. The use of SWAT teams for routine search warrants needs to stop.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/minneapolis-swat-team-raids-wrong-house
From that story:
“Reliable figures on the frequency of erroneous raids are hard to come by. Federal agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, said they do not keep track.”
Heh. I just bet they don’t.
They have these numbers. Releasing them would cause a shit storm blue leaning jurisdictions do not want.
No-knock raids on residences in Texas are generally not a good idea. They are generally not likely to result in a non-violent resolution; that is not worth the risk to anyone. It was clear, from the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of the raid in its edition the morning after, that (1) the operation was botched and (2) certain high-ranking police officials intended to spin the results of the raid according to their personal agendas. “I hate taking tools away from law enforcement but something has to change.” And, “if the cops can’t clearly articulate a risk that a no knock raid would mitigate and not raise the danger level to a non violent suspect then the operation shouldn’t be used.” I agree with you 100%, Steve-O.
Texas is NOT the place to bust into a house. Blue controlled cities, however, are another story, as the Houston raid shows.
There is significant evidence that the search warrant invalid. The attesting officer lied about criminal and drug activity at the home to obtain the warrant. Two people were killed (both unarmed) and several police officers were injured.
The attesting police officer has been charged with perjury and has been arrested. The DOJ and the FBI are investigating for civil rights violations, and about 1400 cases involving the police officer are under review, one case has already been dismissed.
The police chief has rewritten the no-knock policy.
jvb
John, I read your comment twice. First time, nodding my head. The second time, when I read, “Two people were killed (both unarmed)…” I went, “Wait – WHAT?!”
Were all the wounded LEOs wounded by friendly fire? Who WAS shooting the bullets that hit the cops? I guess I haven’t been following the story closely enough. It matters extra to me because I have family in local LEO jobs.
Thanks for any further enlightenment! (from a Steely Dan fan – Rush, OK)
No. You are correct. I apologize for the incorrect information and sloppy writing. That is what I get when I try to post via cell phone.
Two civilians were killed in the incident. One of them did, in fact, have a firearm and opened fire when the police entered. No police officers were killed.
Dennis Tuttle, 59, and Rhogena Nicholas, 58, died in the Jan. 28 raid, which had been planned after an informant purportedly told police the couple’s house was used for heroin dealing. No heroin was found at the residence, and Police Chief Art Acevedo and the Houston police later were forced to backtrack after initially saying the two suspects had opened fire on officers as soon as they reached the door of the house in the Pecan Park neighborhood, south of downtown Houston. The official narrative changed after it emerged that the police seemed to have opened fire first — shooting the couple’s dog.
According to reports, here’s how Houston Public Media describes the revised account of the incident:
“The shootout occurred when a group of officers were serving a ‘no-knock’ search warrant to seize heroin at 7815 Harding Street. According to a timeline, a pitbull dog attacked them upon entering the house and an officer shot and killed the dog. Subsequently, a male suspect came from the back of the house and opened fire. An officer was hit on one of his shoulders and fell on a sofa in the living room.
“At that time, a female suspect went towards the fallen officer reaching over him and tried to get his gun and that’s when back-up officers shot the female suspect, after which an exchange of gunfire continued. The suspects, a married couple, died in the shootout.”
The police chief and the Harris County District Attorney held a “town-hall” styled meeting. The conversation at the town hall grew testy at times, with members of the crowd sometimes shouting accusations against the chief and his department.
Seeking to dispel calls for his department to turn the investigation over to an outside agency, Acevedo said, “About three weeks ago, when this incident happened, we were describing our officer — now an officer who’s being criminally investigated — as basically a hero.”
But that changed after Houston police uncovered what it believes to be criminal misconduct by one or more of its own officers, the chief added. The Chronicle and other media outlets have identified him as Officer Gerald Goines, a 30-year police veteran.
jvb
“…a pitbull dog attacked them upon entering the house…”
Jack is busy, so it falls to me to reveal this bit of propaganda as the crap it is:
1. The is no such breed as a ‘pitbull.’ The defamed animals are of an American Terrier group of breeds
2. The dog was likely called that name in an attempt to make it seem more dangerous, itself a bald faced biased lie. American Terrier dogs are loving protectors of their families. There is no evidence they are inherently dangerous, unless abused to make them so. My basset hound, if trained and abused to be so, would be more dangerous than a non-abused American Terrier.
No animus to those in the thread: this was aimed at the lying police who killed innocent civilians and covered it up.
Remember that I am giving information from the news reports and not verifying certain details. I presume the pit bull reference wad intended to show the victims were bad people and deserved to die. Besides, the dead fired on police, so they deserved to die as well.
jvb
Thanks, John, for both of your follow-up comments. I was a little panicky, honestly, when news of the raid and shootout broke. I had no way of knowing who in my family (who were LEOs) might be on that scene. When I looked at the TV coverage, all I could keep thinking was: I had never in my life seen that many flashing police car lights concentrated in so small an area. There was a search going on for a third suspect (other than the couple who were killed), who was believed at the time to have fled on foot in the neighborhood. I found out only this past weekend that my closest (blood-related) family member had been in the thick of the aftermath, right at the scene of the shootout. I’m actually grateful for the delay in knowing!
Most disturbing to me were the comments by…I can’t remember his title or position in the Houston PD, and am unsure even about his name…Grimaldi? That just popped out of my memory. (I don’t have the newspaper available.)
Anyway, he understandably was pissed off about five officers being wounded. (One of the wounded was not hurt by a bullet or weapon or direct attack, it turned out). But, the way the guy went on, about officers having targets on their backs…well, at some point he crossed a bright line with me, saying something along the lines of “we have your number” (in some reference to people who either don’t trust cops, or who are deliberately, in his view, trying to give HPD cops a bad rep). I read that, and went (thinking), “WHOA! Dude, you are threatening THE GENERAL PUBLIC! Shut UP! You’re just goading people in a way that will only further incentivize more people to have a negative attitude about your officers and about the whole HPD.”
Anyway, it was a quoted statement in the Chronicle that came across FAR too arrogant and police-state-y for my comfort or tolerance. I mean, I don’t expect every cop to have the communications graces of a seasoned diplomat. But, a cop of high rank who speaks to media needs more competence at that job-task than what was reflected in the quote I read. (Which reminds me: I want to find out Grimaldi’s badge number. He’s an asshole unfit for police business, in my estimation, until he acts in ways that prove otherwise.)
Grimaldi, the opposition head, did overstep his boundaries. He did an interview the next morning to clarify his comments. He was responding to recent physical attacks on police (literal) and political attacks on law enforcement in general.
He tempered his comments later when he learned about the fraudulent warrant. He is popular with police, though.
jvb
Erm . . . Grimaldi is the head of the police officers’ union. Autocorrect decided that it was “opposition”. I don’t know why.
Lucky, I am glad your relations were not injured in this incident. The attesting officer is in a world of trouble at the moment.
jvb
Thanks again, John. I did chuckle, yesterday, when I saw “opposition” in your comment. If it’s any consolation, that word prompted me to remember Grimaldi’s position – head of the union. Ordinarily, I would say, “That’s Julie Principle Territory” when someone in a position like that talks like he did. But seeing as he is in the Houston Police Department, “threat-communication” is NOT cool. (I used quotes to distinguish what he said from “hate speech.” As if it matters, in ethics terms – HAH!)
I would have to go back and look through but I thought he had a revolver.
Not only was the search warrant invalid, the drugs they ‘found’ at the place may have been planted. I mean, if you are going to plant drugs once, wouldn’t you do it to cover an operation where you murdered two people?
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-police-shooting-affidavit-confidential-13620120.php?t=e45e3142bc
Saw in the comments, but not in any of the articles that they do not have the firearm that the owners supposedly used.
Steve,
Retired from a 40+year career in law enforcement, I still teach law enforcement and corrections ethics. I have always been concerned about no-knock warrants due to all the reasons you cite. Early in my career, I worked in drug enforcement for a time and had occasion to apply for and execute no-knock warrants. As you cite, the dangers are many. I can only speak for the judges to whom I applied for these warrants, but in my experience it was never automatic or a rubber stamp from the judge to get the no-knock provision. We needed to show intelligence waaay beyond the “he might be armed” level to have a no-knock provision approved, and I personally saw very few no-knock provisions approved solely on the “destruction of evidence” issue. Also,we were always required to give vey detailed directions to and descriptions of properties to be searched to eliminate those “wrong house” mistakes. Supervisors of drug investigators have a legal (vicarious liability) and ethical responsibility to curb the “go, go, go” tendencies of some investigators and ensure the thorough risk assessment, etc. that you describe I can only hope that the vast majority of jurisdictions continue to operate to a high standard in this regard. Sometimes the police manpower response level to serve search warrants seems excessive to me; having also been involved in SWAT operations and training I know that there is such a thing as having too many officers deployed in a confined area, creating unnecessary safety issues due to crossfire, mistaken identity and other issues. I have personally seen a few near-tragedies in this regard. LE policies need to be tight on the use of no-knock warrants and the service of warrants generally.
Sounds like you were with a department who did things correctly. I read a piece discussing numbers a few months ago and i will look later and see if I can’t find the article but the bottom line was over the years no knocks have increased and are getting deadlier.
This case linked even had the contentious issue of executing the resident’s pet. When step one of your raid is to kill a dog owned by a non violent suspect, using lethal force right out of the gate and destroying property, things have to change, this is not ethical policing and it is counter to the founders and bill of rights intent.
Unless some big and public reforms happen soon, no-knock raids might go the way of civil asset forfeiture. That would be better than randomly hurting people for bad warrants, but worse than having a useful tool in law enforcement’s hands, when used properly.
I know I constantly push against the protections police officers have in the line of duty, and have more than once butted heads with our host over that topic (I butt because I care, or something), but I gotta say that the one reason I do not dismiss law enforcement as a profession (as I do with public teachers) is because there are good ones talking loudly against abuses and pushing for improvement (as evidenced by other comments in this thread).
Query: How would any of us like our lawyer testifying before Congress as to our affairs and character?
I assume Cohen is doing this at the express direction of Hillary Clinton, er, Lanny Davis, his, believe it or not, lawyer.
I guess, “Don’t put anything in writing you wouldn’t want to have appear on the front page of the New York Times” needs to be revised to “Don’t tell your lawyer anything you wouldn’t want him to tell Congress in an open hearing televised by CNN.”
Not a good day for the legal profession.
I heard there will also be testimony about the president making racist comments in private. I think it’s clear this hearing will most likely be a rumor fest. I don’t recall “racism” being illegal. Discrimination is illegal, but making comments in private is not illegal. May as well bring up other “locker room talk”, because that violates the Federal Locker Room Talk Act. It would be funny if there were any allegations of blackface.
Is this the same Lanny Davis who successfully excused perjury twenty years ago?
This is a travesty. I turned it off. If Cohen cannot demonstrate that Trump knew he (Cohen) was a corrupt lawyer and still retained him I don’t put much stock in anything he says.
Why should I consider this anything other than a charade to placate those who will recommend how long he stays in jail. I wonder if there is any linkage between this testimony and Mueller’s charge that Manifort kept lying which allowed the plea deal to be vacated.
You bet. Clintonista in chief. Frankly, I wonder who’s paying Lanny’s fees. I also wonder if Lanny is paying Cohen’s living expenses these days. It just seems like a totally inside job.
I bet Stormy Daniels will be subpoenaed by the Dems in the House next, then Michael Avenetti. The resistance now has a stage in D.C. They can put on whatever kangaroo courts they wish for at least the next two years.
Many sites have reported that Cohen was told that if he didn’t cooperate, they would go after his kids. They would find his kids guilty of felonies, ruining their lives. If this is true, he is just doing what he has to do.
Has it been determined who is paying Michael Cohen’s legal bills?
In the last few days, Rotten Tomatoes has sold out/made it clear they are bowing to progressives. Over a silly superhero movie, that most of the target demographic is uninterested in because of a dull hero or militantly woke actress, Rotten Tomatoes shut down a simple interested/uninterested functionality. But instead of ignoring the brouhaha limited to online geeks, Disney/MCU/Rotten Tomatoes managed to triple down and censor movie interest rating and lit a firestorm.
Registered users of RT can’t leave negative interest (it was turned off Monday), and negative reviews of released properties in the SF sphere, even detailed ones by longtime users, are called bots and Russian trolls. (sound familiar?) Note that online geeks have done and shown analysis that the *article* decrying the bots attacking Captain Marvel came out before the steep drop in people wanting to see the movie, not after the drop it was documenting.
By RT folding, they lost all trust among aware MCU fans. But because the suspicious timing of pulling the metric a week before the protected movie’s release when interest is tanking- The Streisand effect is in full action. They even hid the thousands of comments on the announcement that were all against the removal. As a number were documenting the fall in rating, there’s plenty of evidence of the removal, which was admitted in a new blog was for Captain Marvel. Removing the ability to leave any opinion, particularly a negative one, makes a review site useless.
(I find negative reviews more useful because they are detailed and more open about good and bad) For my own writing, many of the more helpful reviews ARE the detailed explanation of what’s wrong. Positive OR negative trolls are easy to discount- because there’s no helpful detail or they are incoherent.
Silencing users on RT piles more on to them being progressive shills. Comparing pro reviewers to the public reviewers for star Trek Discovery/SW the last Jedi vs the Orville and Alita battle angel is interesting. Someone said angry youtube movie reviews were more helpful, well these geeks are starting to crowdsource to make a RT alternate as the bias keeps getting more heavy-handed. RT makes money on clicks, so I hope the favors were worth seiing out. Rotten tomatoes were for expressing dislike, that’s what they NAMED the site for: negative opinions. Let people get reviews to guide their viewing, but the RT site is now rotten.
The opposite effect can be seen with ‘The Orville’. The leading critic score went from 11% to 100% once Disney bought Fox. You can see how much of the critics’ opinions are based on who owns the show. They don’t dare give a poor review to something owned by a major studio because it may cost them advance tickets, interviews with actors, etc.
People here used to disparage me when I told them they were being gaslighted… but the evidence has become so blatant even the readers of the NY times know not to trust a word they say.
The progressive media has been lying so long they no longer even know there is another way. Truth is whatever they write, and can change upon a shift in the wind.
The actress’s speeches about movie critics were transparently meant as a preemptive strike against negative reviews. Her point is basically that white people can’t understand certain movies which “aren’t for them” and so their negative reviews are ignorant or racist.
She used “A Wrinkle in Time” as an example of a film mistreated by the whiteness of critics. In what I’m sure is a coincidence, A Wrinkle in Time is a Disney film that lost money because no one of any color liked it (it was terrible) and it also butchered its source material.
Looks like Disney thinks they have another bad movie on their hands and are doing what they can to put fear into critics. I could be wrong (it might be great, and I don’t see how it wouldn’t make at least 300 million just from geeks wanting to see the end credit sequence.)
I personally just think it looks really generic; without the MCU clout that trailer is just a perfectly bland superhero movie. The wife and I aren’t gonna waste getting a babysitter to go see Captain Soccer Mom.
It’s my understanding that this was done to prevent negative reviews of movies before they’ve been released. If there’s anything else involved (I’d read nothing about Russian ‘bots, but, admittedly, I could have missed that), it’s news to me.
In the case of “Captain Marvel”, changing the traditionally male Captain to a female has apparently upset a number of vocal fans. I do reject the notion that every fictional character has to be made a female at least once, but I don’t see the point of giving negative reviews to a film before it’s released based solely on a preconceived idea that one is not going to like the interpretation of the character.
It rather reminds me of the negative reviews Star Wars fans kept giving the new canon books – prior to reading them, of course – because they were upset over the repackaging of the original Expanded Universe into an apocryphal Legends designation.
To each their own, of course. I was a huge fan of the EU, but I can allow others to play in my sandbox if they want. I have no emotional attachment to the MCU so I can go see one of their films with no real clue as to what’s been changed. I also see the benefit of negative reviews. But reviews – positive or negative – for a film you haven’t seen (or a book you haven’t read) isn’t beneficial at all. And I find angry YouTubers less beneficial.
I’ve never read a single extended universe book in my life. However, even I do like the idea that it was all thrown out. I am especially disappointed that Lea and Harrison Ford’s character (epic senior moment) did not get to live happily ever after stomping out the empire.
Really, the new movies basically threw out the glorious victory of the first 3 movies. The Jedi even returned, only to go away. It is a story-telling hell pit where dreams go to die.
(The only movie that I really liked in the Disney universe was Rebel 1, which basically fell within the canon of the original three. The rest I at best tolerated)
* However, even I do NOT like the idea that it was all thrown out
AM, these were not reviews. It was a survey, yes or no, are you interested in seeing the movie. responders could make a few comments about why. When the ‘want to see’ dropped to 27%… there were no reviews of the movie as yet. “review bombing’ is another big lie to erase negative opinion on teasers or the badly behaving actress. You can’t do an actual general audience review until the prerelease embargo ends.
Captain Marvel became a black woman in the 80s, the blond was done and rebooted at least 4 times since her 2012 restart because no one was buying her SJ comic. So CM being a woman happened before Brie L was even born. (the comics will try anything… Thor was female for a while) The Marvel character has been female for many years, this is not groundbreaking. The larger pushback has been because the actress has been talking down and harrassing the white male reviewers/audience, THE majority demographic for comic art. If Morton Downy ranted against black women, the media would not have protected him, but she is. This swell started against the bratty PR appearances and agenda, and scandal swallowing up Rotten Tomatoes because they publically helped protect a movie that shows many signs of being Ishtar bad. Almost all the favorable comments from preview showings were about the normal cat, not the star.
The angry youtubers watch the previews, the news, the interviews, and the movie when it comes out. Most of them get loud at times, But they explain their reasons in depth with passion, the way trolls can’t. Isn’t that what you want in reviews? Siskel and Ebert got loud, but they were both informative and entertaining.
The same ‘anti-women trolls’ are raving about supporting Alita battle Angel, and still raving about how Wonder Woman was the first good DCEU movie, and they have female leaders in this group, and in the audience like me. The numbers vloggers are tracking many similarities to Solo, which did not break even in theaters. Today 1/3 total box averages from China, which has no interest in SJW. They prefer less woke movies like apolitical Aquaman over Black Panther. They shout, but they are not frothing at the mouth ‘man-babies’ like TLJ Johnson likes to call them. The culture war there is getting HOT, but unlike politics, the population’s voting takes effect much faster… at the box office and department store. Solo was the first return fire. The customer cannot be forced to watch a lecture, there’s plenty of other candidates for our money.
Never understood the rebooting a character as female/black/whatever. I admit it worked with SpiderVerse, but that was due to other reasons and it didn’t undermine the original mythos. But since this seems to be more the Ms. Marvel version of the character, I wouldn’t exactly say it is a reboot.
My hesitation is primarily due to the fact that, in the trailer, I just didn’t think the actress was all that good. still, I was able to sit through Black Panther I can probably sit through this one, if only to understand how it plays into Endgame. The fact that the movie is set so close to that movie makes me think they are banking on most people seeing it for that reason alone.
It wasn’t getting negative reviews (other media outlets described it as such for some reason that rhymes with “rake shoes.”)
Rotten Tomatoes has a “want to see it” feature for upcoming movies, allowing fans to vote yes or no. Captain Marvel was only about 20% “yes,” so RT took down the whole feature.
What’s more, in the past many movies had been mobbed by “no” votes in the “want to see it” feature, without provoking such a reaction.
http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/27/cohen-slated-to-link-trump-to-wikileaks
Why is this wrong?
How is it more wrong than the leak of that access Hollywood tape?
NYT Editorial Board Stumbles Into Some Inconvenient Truth.
(bolds/caps mine throughout)
“Is the Green New Deal aimed at addressing the climate crisis? Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left?
“At least some candidates — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota among them — seem to think so….Read literally, the resolution wants NOT ONLY TO ACHIEVE A CARBON-NEUTRAL ENERGY SYSTEM BUT ALSO TO TRANSFORM THE ECONOMY ITSELF.”
Requests seeking comment from the CA Bullet Train & Amtrak Coast Starlight Choo-Choo have not been returned.
Over at Althouse, I saw her post a tweet from Scott Adams with the CNN headline: Watch Trump Try to pull off the ultimate distraction (because I do not have twitter, I could not find a source link). How is that not the epitome of fake news? Anyone who could rub two brain cells together would have to know that meeting with Korea would have been well in advanced. Perhaps, Jack, you should offer them your services.
Random observation about the website. Has there been some update to wordpress that it no longer remembers user’s data?
Every time I enter a new comment here in the past couple of days I have to write my name and email, when in the past those fields were pre-populated.
Happens to me too but I think it results from cookie management on our side. Simply by opening up up EA on the web would not identify who is on the other side unless a cookie is present on our side.
It’s weird and super annoying. Is there a way around it?
I have been more Lucky lately with having my comments posted. Here is what I have been doing differently: In my browser (I typically use Google Chrome), first, I log in at WordPress. Then, I open another Chrome “channel” on a separate tab. At that tab, I go to my bookmarked EA web address. What I see is a totally different look and experience than I used to see and have, when I used to go directly to EA and attempted to post a comment BEFORE logging in.
Now that I’ve blabbered, I’ll probably start experiencing problems with this latest approach. But, there it is – hoping it will help you, Other Bill!
I haven’t said this before, but you, OB, are my role model for writing on this blog. You, more often than any other commenter here, have prompted me to think, after reading one of your comments, “He’s saying EXACTLY what I was thinking! WHY can’t I write as plainly and clearly as HE does?”
And now, to click on the “SEND” in the upper righthand corner of this box…
Gee wiz. Thanks Lucky. What a nice, unexpected compliment from one of the ranking EZ denizens. I’m just a pea shooter compared to the big guns around these parts. My high school philosophy teacher called me an intellectual slob. (I figured one out of two ain’t bad.) He also wrote me off as an iconoclast. Jack calls me a cynic. They’re probably both right but what are you going to do?
But I am big on clear writing. I’ve put together a work book for high school AP English students called “Good Writing is Good Editing.” A local teacher is doing a beta test with her seniors. We’ll see how it goes.
I really enjoy what Jack provides us all. An island of sanity in a very turbulent, insane media/political world. Commenting here beats the hell out of yelling at the television (which I don’t watch any more).
I’ll try your work around on the signing in thing but I doubt I have the computer facility to follow your instructions. Maybe I’ll get my grandson to do it for me.
Cheers, buddy. And thanks again.
OB, more cheers and thanks back atcha, blogfriend! Please keep commenting. You also enable me to be constructively silent. More times than not, you’ve beaten me to making whatever point I was considering making. No way could I make the same point better.
I have to quibble with your HS philosophy teacher. He called you an oxymoron – at least, in one way of interpreting “intellectual slob.” Intellectuals, by definition, do not have slobbish minds. They might not write or speak well. Some intellects exhibit a nomadism of thought – a fluidity of convictions, even – that can confuse and frustrate others. But that isn’t sloppiness – that’s open-mindedness!
I’ll always remember something Patrick Buchanan said, on the air, on CNN, one night decades ago: “A mind is open for the purpose of reaching closure on something.” I have followed Jack and his blog enough years now, to appreciate how he is a model of that truth. I think that you and I, on many matters, have reached our points of closure. On some matters, we might even be closed, “done,” where Jack is still open. I doubt that I will ever stop saying that EA is the best blog of them all.
Good luck with your future sign-ins!
No luck with sign in work around but that’s okay. An extra four clicks per comment won’t kill me.
I agree that good intellectual curiosity and demeanor are not necessarily neat and tidy. We do have to arrive at something by roaming around, blundering, making jokes, etc. Yes, Jack has the intellectual energy and open-ness nearly to the point of wonder of a much younger person. I’m not completely closed on much of anything but I am definitely of a mind with Charles Barkely who titled his book “I May be Wrong, but I Doubt it.” I think sometimes people mistake our certitude for arrogance or intractability. I’m open to being convinced I’m wrong but I think my conclusions are based on pretty good evidence and experience and personal observation. I.e., I’m OLD. And life’s too short to make any more blunders.
Cheers.
Mine’s been acting hinky, too. It long ago lost my avatar (notice my comments don’t even show the little random generic design…I’m becoming more and more anonymous!). Recently, even though I may have just posted a comment, and it shows my name and reads “You are commenting using your Facebook account.”, it will send me to an error page unless I click the “change” link and then re-click the facebook icon before I post.
Using Chrome on Windows 10.
Ethics observation from one of my other favorite corners of the Internet. I recognize this may be sub-sub-sub-culturally relevant only, but bear with me.
Full story here (warning, long post): https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/
In summary, Scott, the author of that post and owner of the SSC blog has had to deal with a number of attacks for being a neo-nazi, alt-right sympathizer, and generally “bad person”. The closest thing to an argument about that is that a related sub-reddit to his blog allows free discussion and accepts comments that do not follow the leftist cant. This led to people to doxx Scott (some of us know who he’s for real from a long history going back to livejournal), call his employer to ask for his firing, and generally harass his known IRL friends and acquaintances.
Obviously this is bad, but the interesting questions that have come up are about:
– What exactly is a “culture war” and what ethical principle apply to it?
– When one side is overwhelmingly using the bad faith tactics, when is it fair to generalize and start with a skeptical viewpoint about anything coming from their side?
– What is the right response to these bad actors? I don’t think we can expect police intervention/investigation of a few dozen phone calls to a company falsely accusing an employee, but the obvious option of going vigilante on these guys is just a recipe for escalation.
– How can we prevent this from happening? I’m not a public figure, but if you’ve known me here or on other media you can probably find my real name in a few minutes of googling with some pieces of data I have willfully offered. I don’t make it easy by a bit of obfuscation, but I don’t have hardened opsec on the Internet. If some random person wants to make my life miserable they can do it without hassle.
More disclosure: Scott has been pointed to from my comments here and has graciously stop by to leave his thoughts. Also, before the exodus of the left, some of the commenters here were also active over at SSC. And finally, he also is (was?) an active and well-regarded participant of Less Wrong.
I also read SSC, and after reading that post, I was ticked that I didn’t check out the “Culture Wars” thread sooner. As for my thoughts on your questions:
– What exactly is a “culture war” and what ethical principle apply to it?
Off the top of my head, I’d say a “culture war” is where two cultures of competing values vie for supremacy. I would say that basic debate principles apply: Avoid logical fallacies, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, be prepared to back up what you say, be generally polite and respectful. Oh, and don’t shoot anyone who hasn’t shot first.
– When one side is overwhelmingly using the bad faith tactics, when is it fair to generalize and start with a skeptical viewpoint about anything coming from their side?
I’d say if you philosophically agree with the side of that the bad actors, it is your responsibility to denounce them. You gotta clarify up front that you are NOT WITH THEM if you expect those on the other side of the divide to listen to anything you say. If you DISAGREE with the side that has the bad actors, look for the civilized ones that aren’t with them, and only engage with those people.
– What is the right response to these bad actors?
Trolling online: Don’t engage, just flag and move on
Name-calling in public: Ignore them, if they persist, complain to whoever runs the establishment you’re in.
Physical Assault: Film the encounter if possible, report it to the police. Avoid fighting back unless you are in real physical danger.
– How can we prevent this from happening?
For doxxing, are there any laws against revealing another person’s address or other personal info without their consent (assuming you know who did it)? The only thing I can think of at the moment is keep yourself as anonymous as possible, or just never wade into anything remotely controversial.
Reported Book Banning on Amazon (from an article on the American Renaissance website)
I’ll just leave this video here showing Nolan Arenado chocking up about his 8yr 260M deal.
Yes – I make typo’s sometimes.
It would appear that the First Lady of Virginia had the nerve to teach about slaves on an Executive Mansion tour…
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/virginia-first-lady-fire-handing-cotton-black-students-tour-residences-slave-quarters-095905599.html
Jeez! Give me time to get the Warm-Up out, will ya???
Oops, sorry. 🙂 Didn’t mean to steal your thunder.
Great job, everyone, on the Open Forum, and I’ve only skimmed it. Thank you!