...political reporting of the presidential race is nearly devoid of substance.
(by way of digby, and Krugman)
Monday, October 29, 2007
Just following up…
Admittedly this is a little late – but I vaguely recall hearing something on the radio about former GOP Chairman for Brown County, WI Donald Fleischman having all charges dropped in his most recent hearing.
All charges dropped, okay – but try to reconcile this:
Here's hoping they're serious about following up.
All charges dropped, okay – but try to reconcile this:
Brown County Republican Party chairman faces sex charges-with this:
Green Bay police went to Fleischman's Goodell Street home Nov. 19, 2006, looking for two runaways from Ethan House, a juvenile facility on nearby Emilie Street, according to the criminal complaint filed Sept. 7.
Fleischman opened the door and allowed officers inside where they found a 16-year-old boy hiding on the floor of a walk-in closet wearing only underwear and a T-shirt, the complaint said.
Officers found a black, purple and blue-swirled glass pipe in the living room, which tested positive for marijuana residue, the complaint said.
Police returned to Fleischman's home on Dec. 8, 2006, and found the boy there again. He had been a runaway from Ethan House for eight days.
The teen, now 17, told authorities Fleischman took him to a hotel in Appleton during that time and then to a cabin near Florence for several days before returning to Fleischman's Allouez home. The boy said Fleischman provided him with beer and marijuana, the complaint said.
The boy told police that when he would go to bed, Fleischman would fondle him and that on one occasion he awoke to find Fleischman at the foot of his bed masturbating.
Detectives obtained the boy's drug tests from the days around the time he spent with Fleischman, and three samples from late November and early December tested positive for marijuana.
Fleischman has resigned his post with the Brown County Republicans, said Kirsten Kukowski, communications director for the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
Child-enticement charges dropped against former county GOP chairTrue, the prosecutor says that some form of these charges should be re-issued later, but it sure smells bad.
Prosecutors dropped child-enticement charges this morning against the former chairman of the Republican Party of Brown County after the alleged victim failed to appear at a preliminary hearing.
Here's hoping they're serious about following up.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Telco immunity and why it's a crock
Quite possibly the most coherent post I've read on the authorization of NSA wiretapping:
From The Next Hurrah, via GG:
The dodge on retroactive immunity.
Essentially the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is saying that the Telcos get immunity if they were given assurances that what they were doing was legal - so long as they were given certification by the US Attorney General or "certain other officers" that no warrant was necessary.
The SSCI then says that the Telcos were given these certifications by the USAG with the exception of a period of under sixty days, which was certified by the Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales.
The problem is, Counsel to the President is not one of the offices identified by US Code as being allowed to certify that a warrant is not needed.
Oops.
One wonders if the Telcos were told that the reason that Counsel to the President was authorizing these and not the USAG, was because the USAG thought what was going on was not legal.
That'd sure put a fire under the administration to give the Telcos a get-out-of-litigation free card, since the administration is the one who asked them to do something without legal cover.
Good faith shouldn't save the Telcos. They have legal departments that are supposed to C their collective A on even minor issues. You'd have to believe they suited up for reviewing their client's participation in a nationwide wiretapping program.
"Because the President asked me to," just doesn't cut it.
From The Next Hurrah, via GG:
The dodge on retroactive immunity.
Essentially the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is saying that the Telcos get immunity if they were given assurances that what they were doing was legal - so long as they were given certification by the US Attorney General or "certain other officers" that no warrant was necessary.
The SSCI then says that the Telcos were given these certifications by the USAG with the exception of a period of under sixty days, which was certified by the Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales.
The problem is, Counsel to the President is not one of the offices identified by US Code as being allowed to certify that a warrant is not needed.
Oops.
One wonders if the Telcos were told that the reason that Counsel to the President was authorizing these and not the USAG, was because the USAG thought what was going on was not legal.
That'd sure put a fire under the administration to give the Telcos a get-out-of-litigation free card, since the administration is the one who asked them to do something without legal cover.
Good faith shouldn't save the Telcos. They have legal departments that are supposed to C their collective A on even minor issues. You'd have to believe they suited up for reviewing their client's participation in a nationwide wiretapping program.
"Because the President asked me to," just doesn't cut it.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
I know why the caged bird blows its brains out...
It is not a good day to be a whistleblower in the Bush administration.
Via TPM:
This could have career ending ramifications for some of these people. I mean, we all know how magnanimous the current administration has been with regard to leakers.
Via TPM:
A while back the [House Judiciary Committee] set up a web tipline for tipster with information on politicization and wrongdoing at the Bush DOJ.It's actually even worse than that, read the story on TPM.
Today the committee sent an email to all the tipsters alerting them to extremely tight safeguards in place to keep their identities and stories confidential.
Unfortunately they put the 150+ email address in the "to:" field in the email, not "bcc:". So everyone's email got sent to anyone else. And probably because of pranksters one of the addresses those emails got sent to was to non other than the vice president's office.
This could have career ending ramifications for some of these people. I mean, we all know how magnanimous the current administration has been with regard to leakers.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Culture from the cheap seats
Anyone afraid of what he thinks television does to the world is probably just afraid of the world.Lately, I’ve been reading Clive James’ Cultural Amnesia. It’s what I’ve been reading while I wait for baby E to cry it out and go to sleep. The fact that I can maintain any connection with its subject while my daughter is howling less than five feet away tells you something about what kind of a book it is.
-Clive James
Unfortunately, that’s about as much as I can tell you about what the book is about. Clive admits as much in the introduction; the book is neither easy to follow, nor well-organized. Given his choice of subject matter – quotations from cultural icons that have interested him over the course of his life – it’s pretty clear that the book’s hopscotch format was unavoidable. You cannot organize content that is truly chaotic. At least, you can’t without altering the content.
His book has established beyond any doubt that I will never be cultured or well read. It has also made me doubt my use of words. Reading his turns of phrase, it is easy to believe that you are discovering a new and better way to use English. Clive James dishes out the barbs (e.g. his comment that a particular French philosopher drew followers away from Sartre, “when people realized there was an alternative to getting absolutely everything wrong.”) and heaps praise on clever turns of phrase (the woman accusing her lover that their relationship was “only sex,” and he replies “What’s so only?”) - wherever he happens to find them.
It’s easy to get caught up in his admiration for this and that, but the inescapable result of reading his book is to be shown an entire universe of things that I haven’t heard even a whisper about. This is no real surprise, of course there are countless things I don’t know. The jolt is seeing them paraded in front of you in page after page. One page had a series of cultural and political references that I didn’t have the first idea what they were or even when they were. They could have been WWII era, or they could have happened last week. Hadn’t the foggiest, and since Clive can read nine languages he will make references using them that only serve to send you back into the page to sift out some meaning in the context.
With other writers, this would be pretentious – but this is Clive James and he’s just being who he is.
I don’t have a lot of use for the café bound philosopher/writer, and I while I enjoyed what little philosophy I did study- there’s no way I would ever persevere to be a truly “deep” thinker. Many of the people James discusses in this book were, and had all the vices and weaknesses common to their species. They did not have happy lives, were riddled with insecurities, and several even committed suicide. People like Anna Akhmatova, Egon Friedell, and Paul Celan.
Were I to meet any of these people, there would be instant and mutual distain. Somehow James manages to present these people in their element. He proudly shows you their moment of greatness – no matter how brief – or damns them for their failings, no matter their reputation.
Somehow, in James’ hands, these people are always interesting.
…
Oh – and anyone who thinks that James is just another snob should read more of his writings.
Like this one:
Windows Is Shutting Down
Windows is shutting down, and grammar are
On their last leg. So what am we to do?
A letter of complaint go just so far,
Proving the only one in step are you.
Better, perhaps, to simply let it goes.
A sentence have to be screwed pretty bad
Before they gets to where you doesnt knows
The meaning what it must of meant to had.
The meteor have hit. Extinction spread,
But evolution do not stop for that.
A mutant languages rise from the dead
And all them rules is suddenly old hat.
Too bad for we, us what has had so long
The best seat from the only game in town.
But there it am, and whom can say its wrong?
Those are the break. Windows is shutting down.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Well-oiled machine
It’s morning. Again.
It’s my own damn fault. I went to bed at stupid o’clock.
I have dim recollection of an alarm going off.
Snooze.
Just a few more-
Bolt awake. It’s 7:08. We’re supposed to leave the house in twenty-two minutes. We haven’t made that time in weeks.
The damn alarm clock will play NPR until 7, and then shut off entirely. If I hadn’t been conditioned to panic around this time, I could have slept until eight. Baby E’s in bed and cranky. E acknowledges my shout of “It’s after seven!” with a familiarity that indicates she’s not surprised either.
She needs to shower – that’s twenty or thirty minutes.
Bare essentials, now.
The Boy’s asleep- needs to be dressed and fed.
Likewise Baby E.
Bedrooms need to be cleaned, we have a showing.
Breakfast? The boy’s got a banana – that’ll get him out the door, E and I will skip – again.
I get the Boy’s clothes in a heap; by some miracle we have clean socks and skivvies on the same floor as the rest of his wardrobe. Normally, I give him choices about his clothes, but today isn’t that day.
Somehow, I have baby E in my lap. I don’t remember how that happened. I sit there trying to get him dressed with words alone.
“Put them on.”
“Put them on.”
“Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on.”
Shirt, pants, socks, now all we need is shoes. We cleaned last night, so I can find them. The Boy, sensing I’m in a rush, starts forgetting how to put on his shoes – telling me they are too tight.
E’s out of the shower and has the Girl. I don’t remember this happening, but it must have, because I get the boy in my lap and help him with his shoes.
E’s got the baby’s bottle, and I go clean up the bedroom. E remembers we never managed to get the GFI installed. I helpfully notice the condensation on the windows will leave mildew on the frames by noon. Two things we can do nothing about – and people will be evaluating our home in less than six hours.
E’s taking care of the baby. Me? I can’t find slacks. Rather, I can find slacks that have food stains on them, but the only clean pair is missing a button.
How freaking hard is it to sew on a goddamned button?
So I look for thread, needle and button. Each of them left the building years ago, but I look anyway. Eventually I settle on a safety pin, belt, and long sweater.
This is not a new idea – I did this last week, too.
Coats. The Boy doesn’t want his, but tells us all it's cold outside. E’s kitting out the baby and I’m making useless attempts at hiding the fact that I went to bed five hours ago with wet hair.
My keys have vanished. E recalls seeing the kids playing with them last night. Taking that as a sign I shouldn’t bother trying, I ask for her keys and we start out. Lock the front door, unlock the minivan-
Dammit! The Honda keys are identical, and I can’t track E’s keychain landmarks.
Unlock the civic, lock the minivan. The Boy has found a leafy stem he’d like to take with us. I’m putting something in the trunk, I don’t remember what and the Boy wants to take his time pulling all the leaves off one by one.
I opt for bad dad mode and take the stem away from him to put on his coat. He’s upset; I give him the bits back and get him strapped in.
Then I go pick up the newspaper from the driveway. It goes into the front with me, and I tuck it between the seat and the console. Right next to yesterday’s paper.
At this point, the kids are strapped in; E and I are in the front seat. It is now time for our evaluation.
Starting the car turns on the dashboard clock.
If today was a good day, it would read 7:30. It is not a good day.
A bad day is 7:45 or 7:50. E will be slightly late, I’ll be noticeably late.
A really bad day is 8:00am or later. The classic, really bad day is 8:06am. On a Wednesday NPR compounds this by subjecting you to Frank DeFord’s weekly quest for something to talk about.
Today's grade is 8:16am - a personal worst.
E will be very late, and I am trying to remember if I have a 9am meeting – because if I do, I’ll be late for it.
Defog the windows, fight the glare, drive blind until you get to the main road.
The Boy wants his music and the iPod’s stuck in my pocket. E uses hers, but we’ll have to switch at her work, because she’ll want to take hers in. Why did I put it in my pocket? Why did I take it in the house? I do this every day!
Drop E off at work, stand on it. The Boy seems to sense that this morning is not one for chatting. I keep queuing up Billy Bragg for him and he’s content.
Day care. The Boy’s doing his thing where he wants to wait until the song ends before getting out of the car. Fine. Get the Girl first, leave the keys in the car. Hold the Girl in one arm, unbuckle the boy with the other.
Out. Of. The car.
The boy consents to hold my hand while we move through the always-busy driveway. I have his backpack, because we forgot it yesterday. Baby E’s hood keeps falling down. Then we’re inside.
Downstairs is the usual bedlam. I take the boy’s jacket one-armed, and he starts kicking off his shoes. Baby E’s teacher shows up and takes the Girl, we chat about mornings and lack of sleep and the Boy’s ready.
He’s done his slippers and put away his shoes and is all set. Normally, this is not so fast. I want to hug him. I do. He gives me five and runs into class.
Back to the car. The idea of leaving my keys in the ignition has been bothering me since I left the car. I imagine the civic locking itself (as it sometimes does) and being stuck.
It didn’t, I’m not, and I back out into the always busy street. I turn on my melancholy music to fall apart to on the way into work (always a great way to start the day) and I’m in the parking lot.
I want, NEED coffee, but I still don’t know if I have a nine am meeting, and showing up late with a beverage isn’t good politics. It’s 9:08 as I’m hitting the front door.
At my desk, no one even looks up – they’ve come to expect my late arrivals, which is actually worse than a rebuke. I’m expected to be late, you see?
Closing the day out requires little in the way of imagination:
Leftovers are gone – we’ll need to cook something or order. I’ll want to order, E will want to cook. I don’t know what we have, but one way or another we’ll have eaten something by 6:30 or 7. Meantime, baby E will get some food and a bottle (with no help from me) and the Boy will want to watch his shows for the millionth time.
For the millionth time, I will let him.
Then the bed time routine will start. E will take the Girl and get started. I’ll get the boy started and sometime around 9:30 or 10:00 they will both be in their beds, and at least one of them will be asleep.
I will think of all the things that are supposed to be done today. The things that were supposed to already have been done. I’ll go the basement, make a stab at the laundry, maybe pay a bill online.
E’s upstairs watching TV.
At this point, it will be bedtime. Five hours of sleep does no one any good.
But I’m at the computer, I know I won’t be able to sleep anyway – so I fire up Company of Heroes and start pummeling the computerized Germans until they are all dead.
At which point, it will be after midnight. Thinking myself clever, I’ll hit the shower so I won’t have to in the morning.
I won’t be able to find work clothes, maybe they are upstairs. Skip it, I’ll say. It’s after 1am.
I go to bed.
-and the alarm goes off.
Snooze.
It’s morning. Again.
And again, it’s my own damn fault.
It’s my own damn fault. I went to bed at stupid o’clock.
I have dim recollection of an alarm going off.
Snooze.
Just a few more-
Bolt awake. It’s 7:08. We’re supposed to leave the house in twenty-two minutes. We haven’t made that time in weeks.
The damn alarm clock will play NPR until 7, and then shut off entirely. If I hadn’t been conditioned to panic around this time, I could have slept until eight. Baby E’s in bed and cranky. E acknowledges my shout of “It’s after seven!” with a familiarity that indicates she’s not surprised either.
She needs to shower – that’s twenty or thirty minutes.
Bare essentials, now.
The Boy’s asleep- needs to be dressed and fed.
Likewise Baby E.
Bedrooms need to be cleaned, we have a showing.
Breakfast? The boy’s got a banana – that’ll get him out the door, E and I will skip – again.
I get the Boy’s clothes in a heap; by some miracle we have clean socks and skivvies on the same floor as the rest of his wardrobe. Normally, I give him choices about his clothes, but today isn’t that day.
Somehow, I have baby E in my lap. I don’t remember how that happened. I sit there trying to get him dressed with words alone.
“Put them on.”
“Put them on.”
“Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on. Put them on.”
Shirt, pants, socks, now all we need is shoes. We cleaned last night, so I can find them. The Boy, sensing I’m in a rush, starts forgetting how to put on his shoes – telling me they are too tight.
E’s out of the shower and has the Girl. I don’t remember this happening, but it must have, because I get the boy in my lap and help him with his shoes.
E’s got the baby’s bottle, and I go clean up the bedroom. E remembers we never managed to get the GFI installed. I helpfully notice the condensation on the windows will leave mildew on the frames by noon. Two things we can do nothing about – and people will be evaluating our home in less than six hours.
E’s taking care of the baby. Me? I can’t find slacks. Rather, I can find slacks that have food stains on them, but the only clean pair is missing a button.
How freaking hard is it to sew on a goddamned button?
So I look for thread, needle and button. Each of them left the building years ago, but I look anyway. Eventually I settle on a safety pin, belt, and long sweater.
This is not a new idea – I did this last week, too.
Coats. The Boy doesn’t want his, but tells us all it's cold outside. E’s kitting out the baby and I’m making useless attempts at hiding the fact that I went to bed five hours ago with wet hair.
My keys have vanished. E recalls seeing the kids playing with them last night. Taking that as a sign I shouldn’t bother trying, I ask for her keys and we start out. Lock the front door, unlock the minivan-
Dammit! The Honda keys are identical, and I can’t track E’s keychain landmarks.
Unlock the civic, lock the minivan. The Boy has found a leafy stem he’d like to take with us. I’m putting something in the trunk, I don’t remember what and the Boy wants to take his time pulling all the leaves off one by one.
I opt for bad dad mode and take the stem away from him to put on his coat. He’s upset; I give him the bits back and get him strapped in.
Then I go pick up the newspaper from the driveway. It goes into the front with me, and I tuck it between the seat and the console. Right next to yesterday’s paper.
At this point, the kids are strapped in; E and I are in the front seat. It is now time for our evaluation.
Starting the car turns on the dashboard clock.
If today was a good day, it would read 7:30. It is not a good day.
A bad day is 7:45 or 7:50. E will be slightly late, I’ll be noticeably late.
A really bad day is 8:00am or later. The classic, really bad day is 8:06am. On a Wednesday NPR compounds this by subjecting you to Frank DeFord’s weekly quest for something to talk about.
Today's grade is 8:16am - a personal worst.
E will be very late, and I am trying to remember if I have a 9am meeting – because if I do, I’ll be late for it.
Defog the windows, fight the glare, drive blind until you get to the main road.
The Boy wants his music and the iPod’s stuck in my pocket. E uses hers, but we’ll have to switch at her work, because she’ll want to take hers in. Why did I put it in my pocket? Why did I take it in the house? I do this every day!
Drop E off at work, stand on it. The Boy seems to sense that this morning is not one for chatting. I keep queuing up Billy Bragg for him and he’s content.
Day care. The Boy’s doing his thing where he wants to wait until the song ends before getting out of the car. Fine. Get the Girl first, leave the keys in the car. Hold the Girl in one arm, unbuckle the boy with the other.
Out. Of. The car.
The boy consents to hold my hand while we move through the always-busy driveway. I have his backpack, because we forgot it yesterday. Baby E’s hood keeps falling down. Then we’re inside.
Downstairs is the usual bedlam. I take the boy’s jacket one-armed, and he starts kicking off his shoes. Baby E’s teacher shows up and takes the Girl, we chat about mornings and lack of sleep and the Boy’s ready.
He’s done his slippers and put away his shoes and is all set. Normally, this is not so fast. I want to hug him. I do. He gives me five and runs into class.
Back to the car. The idea of leaving my keys in the ignition has been bothering me since I left the car. I imagine the civic locking itself (as it sometimes does) and being stuck.
It didn’t, I’m not, and I back out into the always busy street. I turn on my melancholy music to fall apart to on the way into work (always a great way to start the day) and I’m in the parking lot.
I want, NEED coffee, but I still don’t know if I have a nine am meeting, and showing up late with a beverage isn’t good politics. It’s 9:08 as I’m hitting the front door.
At my desk, no one even looks up – they’ve come to expect my late arrivals, which is actually worse than a rebuke. I’m expected to be late, you see?
Closing the day out requires little in the way of imagination:
Leftovers are gone – we’ll need to cook something or order. I’ll want to order, E will want to cook. I don’t know what we have, but one way or another we’ll have eaten something by 6:30 or 7. Meantime, baby E will get some food and a bottle (with no help from me) and the Boy will want to watch his shows for the millionth time.
For the millionth time, I will let him.
Then the bed time routine will start. E will take the Girl and get started. I’ll get the boy started and sometime around 9:30 or 10:00 they will both be in their beds, and at least one of them will be asleep.
I will think of all the things that are supposed to be done today. The things that were supposed to already have been done. I’ll go the basement, make a stab at the laundry, maybe pay a bill online.
E’s upstairs watching TV.
At this point, it will be bedtime. Five hours of sleep does no one any good.
But I’m at the computer, I know I won’t be able to sleep anyway – so I fire up Company of Heroes and start pummeling the computerized Germans until they are all dead.
At which point, it will be after midnight. Thinking myself clever, I’ll hit the shower so I won’t have to in the morning.
I won’t be able to find work clothes, maybe they are upstairs. Skip it, I’ll say. It’s after 1am.
I go to bed.
-and the alarm goes off.
Snooze.
It’s morning. Again.
And again, it’s my own damn fault.
Flirting with legal precedent
I used to be the editor of a newsletter about recent court decisions. I’m still a subscriber, and every once in awhile I’ll poke through the opinions and see what’s going on.
I just happened across the sorry story of one Atty. Michael Inglimo, a man who is living proof that people can get through law school without learning the first thing about integrity.
Atty. Inglimo was cited for a number of improprieties – among them:
Atty. Inglimo is – well, let’s just let the court’s opinion do the talking:
Atty. Inglimo was getting busy with his client’s girlfriend while she was getting busy with Inglimo’s client. Inglimo is saying “Sure, I was in a three way with him, but I wasn’t having relations with my client, that would be wrong!"
Incredibly, the referee agreed.
The OLR, clearly not impressed with this, was asking the Supremes to enlarge the definition to include this kind of conduct.
The Justices, no doubt holding their opinion at arm’s length, ruled for Inglimo:
At least in Wisconsin.
Footnote: Inglimo’s losing his license for 18 months. So if you know anyone in northern Wisconsin whose looking for legal representation in 2009, don’t give them this turkey’s number.
I just happened across the sorry story of one Atty. Michael Inglimo, a man who is living proof that people can get through law school without learning the first thing about integrity.
Atty. Inglimo was cited for a number of improprieties – among them:
- Repeated possession and use of marijuana (Atty. Inglimo attempted to argue that the mere possession of marijuana did not violate the Supreme Court rule that he had behaved dishonestly, had been untrustworthy, or unfit as a lawyer)
- Providing marijuana to a minor
- Use of cocaine (Inglimo argued that he wasn’t sure if the white powder he was videotaped snorting off a mirror using a straw was cocaine. It “may have been flour or salt.”)
- Mishandling client funds, failing to keep accurate records of those funds, and providing false certifications of his accounting and conduct.
Atty. Inglimo is – well, let’s just let the court’s opinion do the talking:
Counts 1 and 2 relate to Attorney Inglimo's representation of L.K in a criminal case between April 2000 and January 2001. During this representation in October 2000, Attorney Inglimo had sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend in L.K.'s presence and with L.K. also engaging in sexual relations with his girlfriend during the sexual encounter…Got that? Since sexual relations with clients are verboten, Inglimo’s defense is to parse his bedroom behavior.
Count 1 of the OLR's complaint alleged that by having sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend in L.K.'s presence and with L.K. participating in the encounter, Attorney Inglimo had violated SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).[1]
Although the referee found that there had been a three-way sexual encounter involving L.K., his girlfriend and Attorney Inglimo, he concluded that there was no violation of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) because there was no evidence that Attorney Inglimo and his client, L.K., had " sexual relations" as that term is defined in the rule.
Specifically, there was no evidence that Attorney Inglimo and L.K. engaged in sexual intercourse or intentionally touched each other's intimate parts.
Atty. Inglimo was getting busy with his client’s girlfriend while she was getting busy with Inglimo’s client. Inglimo is saying “Sure, I was in a three way with him, but I wasn’t having relations with my client, that would be wrong!"
Incredibly, the referee agreed.
The OLR, clearly not impressed with this, was asking the Supremes to enlarge the definition to include this kind of conduct.
The Justices, no doubt holding their opinion at arm’s length, ruled for Inglimo:
60 Without commenting on the applicability of other Rules of Professional Conduct, we agree with the referee's conclusion that the evidence in the present case did not show that Attorney Inglimo had engaged in " sexual relations" with client L.K in violation of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).So there you have it. Established law on lawyers having three ways with their clients. Steer clear of your client, and you're okay.
There was no testimony as to precisely what occurred during Attorney Inglimo's encounter with L.K. and his girlfriend. There was no testimony that Attorney Inglimo ever intentionally touched L.K.'s intimate parts or caused L.K. to touch his intimate parts. Moreover, there was no testimony that Attorney Inglimo engaged in any form of sexual intercourse with L.K.
Thus, because it does not appear that the definitional elements of " sexual relations" have been satisfied, the simple term " with" in the prohibitional phrase in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) cannot transform this situation into a violation of the rule.
At least in Wisconsin.
Footnote: Inglimo’s losing his license for 18 months. So if you know anyone in northern Wisconsin whose looking for legal representation in 2009, don’t give them this turkey’s number.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Don't believe the hype
So much for positive thinking - at least in regards to cancer:
….
Speaking of things that don’t make you healthy-
I grouse a lot about how lousy the health news in this country is reported, and while I think we suffer from an abundance of expectation – I think we’ve been led down the primrose path by the usual cast of characters. Marketers have learned we'll buy anything if we’re constantly told it will solve our problems, even if it doesn’t. Witness kids' cough & cold remedies (dangerous), cough medicine (useless), & anti-bacterial soap (useless and dangerous).
I’m not sure what model would get quality information into the hands of consumers, but you’d think we’d find a way to keep the dangerous crap from hitting the shelves. How do any of these products get away with claiming things that have never been verified? I mean, does the American consumer really have to pay for the privilege of being a pharmaceutical guinea pig?
Attitude Doesn't Affect Cancer SurvivalBeing positive can lead to a more enjoyable experience with the days you have left, but it's not going to put you in remission. But there is the upside-as Dr. Jimmie Holland points out:
WebMD
Having a positive attitude may help cancer patients deal with their disease, but it doesn't directly affect survival, according to one of the largest and most rigorously designed investigations ever to examine the issue.
The study included more than 1,000 people treated for head and neck cancer; the emotional state of patients was found to have no influence on survival.
"It is so sad that cancer patients are made to believe that if they aren't doing well it is somehow their own fault because they aren't positive enough."At least now, we can stop blaming patients for their poor health.
….
Speaking of things that don’t make you healthy-
I grouse a lot about how lousy the health news in this country is reported, and while I think we suffer from an abundance of expectation – I think we’ve been led down the primrose path by the usual cast of characters. Marketers have learned we'll buy anything if we’re constantly told it will solve our problems, even if it doesn’t. Witness kids' cough & cold remedies (dangerous), cough medicine (useless), & anti-bacterial soap (useless and dangerous).
I’m not sure what model would get quality information into the hands of consumers, but you’d think we’d find a way to keep the dangerous crap from hitting the shelves. How do any of these products get away with claiming things that have never been verified? I mean, does the American consumer really have to pay for the privilege of being a pharmaceutical guinea pig?
The other kind of Spam
Awhile ago, a buddy of mine pointed out a relatively easy way to cut back on junk mail: use the prepaid return envelopes to send them a notice saying "Remove me from your mailing list." Since they're paying for the mail you don't want, as well as the postage of your request - they'll listen.
This is good - however, items without return envelopes get missed.
The corporate guardians of mailing lists everywhere have decided to help.
Actually, they want you to help save them money - but you get to save yourself some hassle as well.
Catalog Choice contacts the vendor and you get one less catalog.
Corp types like it because their lists get cleaner (and cheaper).
Consumers like it because they get less crap in their mail.
Tree-huggers like it because less trees die - or at least less die needlessly.
Win, win, win.
This is good - however, items without return envelopes get missed.
The corporate guardians of mailing lists everywhere have decided to help.
Actually, they want you to help save them money - but you get to save yourself some hassle as well.
Catalog Choice is a free service that allows you to decide what gets in your mailbox. Use it to reduce your mailbox clutter, while helping save natural resources.Basically, you sign up - search for any catalog you current get and don't want - and tell them to stop sending it to you.
Catalog Choice contacts the vendor and you get one less catalog.
Corp types like it because their lists get cleaner (and cheaper).
Consumers like it because they get less crap in their mail.
Tree-huggers like it because less trees die - or at least less die needlessly.
Win, win, win.
That's it exactly
NYT finally hits one out of the park on NSA wiretapping:
Worth a read.
With Democrats Like These ...If I quoted the good parts of this editorial, I'd quote the whole thing.
As the debate proceeds, Americans will be told that the delicate compromises were about how the government may spy on phone calls and electronic messages in the age of instant communications. Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.
No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.
Worth a read.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Home run
Just one more, I promise…
Howard Kurtz, interviewed by Jon Stewart, related by Ken Silverstein by way of digby:
Howard Kurtz, interviewed by Jon Stewart, related by Ken Silverstein by way of digby:
Kurtz related that Lara Logan’s bosses at CBS had once asked her “to do the lighter side of Baghdad–let’s do a story about female soldiers who are keeping cyberpets online.”Lara Logan. Rock solid.
I guess if Kurtz had received that request, he would have jumped from his desk and begun preparing a long segment on G.I. Jane and “Barky” the Cyberdog.
Logan, because she has self-respect, refused. Indeed, as Kurtz related, she emailed back, “I would rather stick needles in my eyes than spend one second of my time on that story.” Kurtz seemed appalled by this, but Stewart clearly sided with Logan. His reply to Kurtz: “Good for her.”
Hand in the cookie jar
From Sivacracy:
How corrupt is the Texas legislature?
Oh my, this is just too good.
Set aside their defense of necessity, and any allegation that proxy votes might not reflect the rightful legislator's wishes.
They televise the votes and when this happens they switch the camera angle so nobody can see them doing it.
Talk about getting nailed.
How corrupt is the Texas legislature?
Oh my, this is just too good.
Set aside their defense of necessity, and any allegation that proxy votes might not reflect the rightful legislator's wishes.
They televise the votes and when this happens they switch the camera angle so nobody can see them doing it.
Talk about getting nailed.
A question of cause and effect....
Glenn Greenwald's has an excellent post about NSA wiretapping and what we don't know.
Exhibit A in all of this are the documents that fell out of the legal defense of Quest former CEO, Joseph Nacchio.
One of them is citing a court case in New York (Exhibit F in the pdf) that contains the following alarming text (emphasis added):
Partisans will say the Bush administration hit the ground running - but it's entirely plausible that they were hopping on the bus. Greenwald's observations about the hand-in-glove relationship between the Feds and the Telcos suggests this.
Who's running who? or was this just a happy coincidence for the neocons?
A benign way to view this was that the intelligence agencies were simply modernizing their infrastructure to deal with the internet age - and that might be some comfort if there was some meaningful oversight taking place.
It's abundantly clear that oversight is not and has not been taking place. And now Congress wants to immunize the Telcos retroactively. How about we find out what they did first? Or at least do a reconciliation angle where they get immunity from litigation and prosecution in exchange for a full and complete accounting of what was and is taking place? Plus oversight.
It's a sucky deal, but at least it would set the stage for doing this crap right from now on.
Exhibit A in all of this are the documents that fell out of the legal defense of Quest former CEO, Joseph Nacchio.
One of them is citing a court case in New York (Exhibit F in the pdf) that contains the following alarming text (emphasis added):
Defendant ATT's Construction of a Call Monitoring Center for the Exclusive Use of the NSA.So - eleven days after the Bush administration takes office - the telcos are building the infrastructure to listen in to everything and everyone.
81. Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven (7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA.
82. The center was put into development by ATT following a proposal by the NSA for the construction and development of a network operations center identical to ATT’s own network operations center located in Bedminster, New Jersey for the exclusive use of the NSA.
83. The NSA proposal was accepted by the ATT sales division and referred to ATT Solutions, an ATT project development division situated in Floraham Park, New Jersey.
84. The NSA proposal sought construction of a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the exclusive use of the NSA with the capacity to monitor all calls and internet traffic placed on the ATT long distance network, as well as ATT’s wide area, fiber optic, T-1, T-3, T-5 and high speed data networks.
85. Such a data center would also enable the NSA to tap into any call placed on the ATT network and to monitor the contents of all digital information transmitted over the ATT network.
86. The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATT’s long distance networks.
Partisans will say the Bush administration hit the ground running - but it's entirely plausible that they were hopping on the bus. Greenwald's observations about the hand-in-glove relationship between the Feds and the Telcos suggests this.
Who's running who? or was this just a happy coincidence for the neocons?
A benign way to view this was that the intelligence agencies were simply modernizing their infrastructure to deal with the internet age - and that might be some comfort if there was some meaningful oversight taking place.
It's abundantly clear that oversight is not and has not been taking place. And now Congress wants to immunize the Telcos retroactively. How about we find out what they did first? Or at least do a reconciliation angle where they get immunity from litigation and prosecution in exchange for a full and complete accounting of what was and is taking place? Plus oversight.
It's a sucky deal, but at least it would set the stage for doing this crap right from now on.
A genuine Thanksgiving
This past weekend was the annual Thanksgiving Thing, courtesy of Ms. No-H. As pretty much everyone who reads this stuff was there (save for a certain New Yorker who was missed), and No-H already recapped it, I’ll skip the summary.
Since the addition of kids to any social setting nullifies adult conversation I’d like to say a number of things to the attendees that I would have said were I not trying to stop the boy from running out into the night without a shirt on.
To wit-
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to invest in our mutual friendship.
Back in the day, we used to call this event “the Fake Thanksgiving,” because it wasn’t the real holiday. I used to describe it to people kind of sheepishly, “yeah, my college buddies all get together and pig out.” We were all pretty young when this got started, and more than a few times it felt like we were playing grown up.
But every time I tell this story to people – I get the same reaction. They’re impressed. Most of them wish their group of friends did something like this, a few have told me they’d try starting one. This event keeps us in touch with distant friends and gives us a reason to shake off the routine.
Thank you to everyone who comes from out of town. It’s asking a lot of people with kids to road trip. U&S, A&C, and C&R piled kids and babies and their requisite gear into the car and came down to see everbody. C&R did over nine hours of car time to have two meals with this group. (I hope we were worth it. Makes me wish I had a house with enough couches for everyone, so we could indulge in those other Thanksgiving traditions: passing out, gabbing, and watching our team lose.)
U&S and A&C had new babies to show off and I just couldn’t be happier for them. There was no adequate way or opportunity to say it then, but congratulations (can I get a ‘Hell Yeah?!’). It’s just so good to see you as parents.
I’ve commented before on how something C (of A&C) told me – about how important people are. Such an obvious thing, but it’s pretty easy to miss. Knowing my own tendencies, this is something I would miss. Without an invite, most times I’ll just sit at home.
And that brings me to the reason I’m posting.
Thank you Ms. No-H.
Thanks for sending those invites.
Thanks for booking the room,
for setting the date,
for setting up,
for tearing down,
for putting up with this gaggle of humanity, and
for refusing to let us go our separate ways.
For fifteen years.
Thanks for everything.
Since the addition of kids to any social setting nullifies adult conversation I’d like to say a number of things to the attendees that I would have said were I not trying to stop the boy from running out into the night without a shirt on.
To wit-
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to invest in our mutual friendship.
Back in the day, we used to call this event “the Fake Thanksgiving,” because it wasn’t the real holiday. I used to describe it to people kind of sheepishly, “yeah, my college buddies all get together and pig out.” We were all pretty young when this got started, and more than a few times it felt like we were playing grown up.
But every time I tell this story to people – I get the same reaction. They’re impressed. Most of them wish their group of friends did something like this, a few have told me they’d try starting one. This event keeps us in touch with distant friends and gives us a reason to shake off the routine.
Thank you to everyone who comes from out of town. It’s asking a lot of people with kids to road trip. U&S, A&C, and C&R piled kids and babies and their requisite gear into the car and came down to see everbody. C&R did over nine hours of car time to have two meals with this group. (I hope we were worth it. Makes me wish I had a house with enough couches for everyone, so we could indulge in those other Thanksgiving traditions: passing out, gabbing, and watching our team lose.)
U&S and A&C had new babies to show off and I just couldn’t be happier for them. There was no adequate way or opportunity to say it then, but congratulations (can I get a ‘Hell Yeah?!’). It’s just so good to see you as parents.
I’ve commented before on how something C (of A&C) told me – about how important people are. Such an obvious thing, but it’s pretty easy to miss. Knowing my own tendencies, this is something I would miss. Without an invite, most times I’ll just sit at home.
And that brings me to the reason I’m posting.
Thank you Ms. No-H.
Thanks for sending those invites.
Thanks for booking the room,
for setting the date,
for setting up,
for tearing down,
for putting up with this gaggle of humanity, and
for refusing to let us go our separate ways.
For fifteen years.
Thanks for everything.
Friday, October 12, 2007
That's kind of curious...
This morning I heard a radio program discussing what appeared to be charges against a current GOP chair in Wisconsin's Brown County - one Donald J Fleischman, born on 5/7/1970.
The charges were the sort that usually puts an end to careers:
I know this because there are internet forum posts (like this one - scroll down to goofticket's comment) detailing this information above hyperlinks to the WCCA record. Near as I can tell, this information was available as of 6:50pm last night - because there are other posts from that time that are also providing the direct link.
But if I go to WCCA's website as of now, and search Brown County records for Donald J. Fleischman, case #2007CF000897, I get this:
Let's set aside discussions about Fleischman's guilt or presumed innocence - or whatever privacy policies WCCA affords to defendants in pending cases.
The question I have is - why was this information there yesterday, and gone as of today?
Was it posted by mistake? Was a complaint filed?
What gives?
Updated: Odder still, a link into the case detail still functions. (I'd tried cutting and pasting the URL from the post and accidentally left in the space). So, going in via the front door, the site tells you you can't see this information (even though you could yesterday), but the detailed link allows this information to be retrived, even now.
Are these other posters just partisan data miners working the system? or is the WCCA just doing a poor job of hiding data it shouldn't be showing?
Edited 2008: I mistook a splash screen for restricted access screen, so my mistake.
However, the case continues:
October 29, 2007 - Just following up...
and
May 14, 2008 - Follow through
The charges were the sort that usually puts an end to careers:
Child Enticement-Give/Sell DrugsThis information on a pending case (Brown County Case Number 2007CF000897) was obtained from the WCCA website, a government website posting court cases for all to see.
Intent. Contribute/Delinquency Child
Child Enticement-Expose Sex Organ
Exposing Genitals to Child
Intent. Contribute/Delinquency Child
I know this because there are internet forum posts (like this one - scroll down to goofticket's comment) detailing this information above hyperlinks to the WCCA record. Near as I can tell, this information was available as of 6:50pm last night - because there are other posts from that time that are also providing the direct link.
But if I go to WCCA's website as of now, and search Brown County records for Donald J. Fleischman, case #2007CF000897, I get this:
State of Wisconsin vs. Donald J Fleischman
Brown County Case Number 2007CF000897
Brown County Case Number 2007CF000897
This case has not been concluded. Unless a judgment of conviction is entered, the defendant is presumed innocent of all charges.Which is kind of odd, considering that this information was clearly available as of last night - and that (as far as I know) this information stemmed from a criminal complaint filed in December of 2006.
Notice to employers: It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job. For more information, see Wisconsin Statute 111.335 and the Department of Workforce Development's Arrest and Conviction Records under the Law publication.
Let's set aside discussions about Fleischman's guilt or presumed innocence - or whatever privacy policies WCCA affords to defendants in pending cases.
The question I have is - why was this information there yesterday, and gone as of today?
Was it posted by mistake? Was a complaint filed?
What gives?
Updated: Odder still, a link into the case detail still functions. (I'd tried cutting and pasting the URL from the post and accidentally left in the space). So, going in via the front door, the site tells you you can't see this information (even though you could yesterday), but the detailed link allows this information to be retrived, even now.
Are these other posters just partisan data miners working the system? or is the WCCA just doing a poor job of hiding data it shouldn't be showing?
Edited 2008: I mistook a splash screen for restricted access screen, so my mistake.
However, the case continues:
October 29, 2007 - Just following up...
and
May 14, 2008 - Follow through
US cars are getting better – unless they aren’t
NPR recently ran a story about how US car manufacturers are struggling to compete with
Driving this point home is their central quote:
They add this nugget:
Boiling this down, it would appear that Mr. Langfitt has spoken to J.D. Powers about GM’s Buick line of cars, and has spoken to an employee of GM.
But I gotta ask, how does all of this square with what Consumer Reports has been saying for years (and is still saying as of this very minute?)
This is their chart of how many problems each manufacturer reports per 100 cars over time:
CR’s reliability chart of all makes and models (not shown) makes it clear that Buick lags far behind Lexus in reliability (Lexus being ranked number 5, while Buick is ranked 18th) and the best model Buick makes (the Rendezvous) is only as good as the average model being produced by Lexus.
I don’t think I’m out of line in wondering what gives? Surely any reporter has access to Consumer Reports – if there’s a distinction between these two sets of data, I’d sure love to hear it. How are they tied with Lexus with J.D. Powers, but so far behind according to Consumer Reports?
I’ll admit to a bias against domestic cars, but that bias is backed up every time I pop into a bookstore to look at the buying guide. Every year, domestic cars are listed as having more problems than Asian models over time. For the past ten years, the best used car came from Toyota (or from Toyota’s Lexus line).
Here’s CR’s current take on the best and worst new cars – see any trends?
I mean, urgh! Did the NPR guy just get fed a PR story from GM? Was he really this lazy? Is there a bigger story on how J.D. Powers knows more than Consumer Reports?
I guess we’ll never know.
U.S. Auto Industry Battles Rivals, ImageThis story gives you the impression that American cars are as good as the competition, but people are buying imports out of habit.
by Frank Langfitt
Morning Edition, October 10, 2007 • While Detroit automakers have been busy trying to slash costs, they face another big challenge in changing their image for producing poor-quality cars. Some surveys indicate American vehicles actually are improving, even if many consumers haven't noticed.
Driving this point home is their central quote:
Dave Sargent, J.D. Power's vice president of auto research, said Gray and others like her are making a mistake.Okay – this is their premise: US cars, good. US consumers, unaware. Fair enough.
"Many consumers still have a view of the Detroit automakers that the products are not as reliable as the imports, but what our studies show is that that is simply not true," he said.
They add this nugget:
Detroit has been closing the quality gap in recent years, Sargent said. In a study this summer of three-year-old vehicles, J.D. Power said Buick tied Lexus as the most dependable brand. In another J.D. Power study on quality, Ford won in five categories — more than any other company.And then wind out with a discussion of how US automakers like Buick had been coasting on old designs, but are now making cars that look better.
Boiling this down, it would appear that Mr. Langfitt has spoken to J.D. Powers about GM’s Buick line of cars, and has spoken to an employee of GM.
But I gotta ask, how does all of this square with what Consumer Reports has been saying for years (and is still saying as of this very minute?)
This is their chart of how many problems each manufacturer reports per 100 cars over time:
CR’s reliability chart of all makes and models (not shown) makes it clear that Buick lags far behind Lexus in reliability (Lexus being ranked number 5, while Buick is ranked 18th) and the best model Buick makes (the Rendezvous) is only as good as the average model being produced by Lexus.I don’t think I’m out of line in wondering what gives? Surely any reporter has access to Consumer Reports – if there’s a distinction between these two sets of data, I’d sure love to hear it. How are they tied with Lexus with J.D. Powers, but so far behind according to Consumer Reports?
I’ll admit to a bias against domestic cars, but that bias is backed up every time I pop into a bookstore to look at the buying guide. Every year, domestic cars are listed as having more problems than Asian models over time. For the past ten years, the best used car came from Toyota (or from Toyota’s Lexus line).
Here’s CR’s current take on the best and worst new cars – see any trends?
I mean, urgh! Did the NPR guy just get fed a PR story from GM? Was he really this lazy? Is there a bigger story on how J.D. Powers knows more than Consumer Reports?I guess we’ll never know.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The iterative progression of truth
June 25, 2007 - WFSA News
Minister died of asphyxiation
June 25, 2007 - WFSA News
Church Members Distraught over Pastor's Death
(Somewhere after this date, the church issues a request for people to "refrain from speculation.")
October 3, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police close investigation into Aldridge's death
October 4, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police: No foul play in Aldridge's death
October 5, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Records sealed in pastor's death
October 6, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Aldridge autopsy released
October 8, 2007 - The Smoking Gun
Dead Reverend's Rubber Fetish
Minister died of asphyxiation
A local pastor was found dead Sunday in his east Montgomery home. Gary Aldridge, minister at Thorington Road Baptist Church had been previously reported missing. WSFA 12 News had the only crew on the scene.
...
Officers wouldn't comment on the nature of the death or if there were any signs of forced entry. However, there are unconfirmed reports that the body was bound when it was discovered.
June 25, 2007 - WFSA News
Church Members Distraught over Pastor's Death
Church members were at the scene throughout the day, scrambling for answers to this mysterious death.
"We hadn't heard anything, so we pulled up to see what was going on, and that's when they told us what had happened," Lindsey said.
Nobody could figure out how the 15 year veteran of Thorington Road Baptist Church wound up dead.
(Somewhere after this date, the church issues a request for people to "refrain from speculation.")
October 3, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police close investigation into Aldridge's death
Police have closed their investigation into the death of the Rev. Gary Aldridge.
October 4, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police: No foul play in Aldridge's death
Forensic results indicate Aldridge was alone at the time of his death, the release states.
[The medical examiner's] report stated Aldridge died of asphyxiation and there were no injuries to his body.
October 5, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Records sealed in pastor's death
The Montgomery Advertiser has since requested information regarding the case numerous times but with no success.
"We've completed our investigation," [the medical examiner] said, "but Mrs. (Jan) Aldridge has approached the courts to keep the case sealed from the public."
October 6, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Aldridge autopsy released
A Montgomery minister found in his home this summer died with his hands and feet bound behind his back and dressed in two rubberized suits, an offical autopsy showed.
October 8, 2007 - The Smoking Gun
Dead Reverend's Rubber Fetish
Cause of death: Asphyxia-and that's where we'll stop.
Manner of death: Accident
Evidence of injury: There are numerous straps and cords restraining the decedant. There is a leather belt about the midriff. There is a series of ligatures extending from the hands to the feet. The hands are bound behind the back. The feet are tied to the hands. There are nylon ligatures holding these in place with leather straps about the wrists and ankles. There are plastic cords also tied about the hands and feet with a single plastic cord extending up to the head and surrounding the lower neck. There is a dildo in the --
Imperfect reflections
The Radio Lab Podcast on Memory and Forgetting has done some damage to my view of what is going on my head.
The main points of this article I’ll just summarize:
1) There is no “master memory” that you draw on when you recall something.
2) Memories are re-imprinted in your brain every time you recall them.
3) Memories become less accurate the more you access them.
4) Memories can be implanted, dulled, or even erased with certain techniques and medications.
Item 4 (which has been proven via experimentation) is pretty creepy – since it pretty much tells you that brainwashing is feasible. Maybe to a lesser extent than the you’d see in The Manchurian Candidate or The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but to a disturbing degree nonetheless.
Here’s how they know this. Scientists would play a tone to a rat and then give them an electrical shock. They’d do this repeatedly until the rat would cringe just from hearing the tone. Conditioned response. Pavlov. This surprises no one.
What was surprising was what happened when they used a particular drug on a different rat while they got the same treatment. A medicated rat that heard the tone and was subsequently zapped never associated the two events. The rat would hear the tone, but would not cringe. The drug prevented the association.
They then took this further and took a rat that had made the connection between the tone and the shock and gave them the drug before playing the tone and zapping them. Over time, the rats would lose the connection between the tone and the shock. The drug would erase the prior memory of tone = shock, and the rat would no longer react to the tone.
Yeah.
They’ve tried this drug on people with traumatic memories to help diminish their intensity – it worked.
So, your memories are up for grabs. But that’s not the only weird bit for me.
The premise of item 1 just bugs me. There is no accurate memory that you draw on to experience past events. Every time you relive a memory you are re-creating it. This allows you to modify it every time you access it – introducing errors each time.
They make the point that a memory you never access is the most reliable one you will ever have.
But it makes no sense to say we recreate the memory each time because there must be some information in our brains that maintains the connection between the actual event and our recollection of it.
For example:
Yesterday I meet a man with an orange shirt.
Today I remember the experience as meeting a man with an orange suit.
Years from now, I remember meeting a man with an orange hat.
All of this can follow from a process where I create a new memory and muddle the details over time.
But how can these recollections be in any way similar if there isn't some stored data that supplies the source material for the new memory I'm creating?
I mean, how else can I correctly maintain the memory of meeting a man and not a woman?
If I am truly creating a new memory each time - what's to stop me from remembering meeting a woman who hits me in the face with a rubber chicken?
Surely some kind of master record must be supplying the framework of what I am remembering - even if I can't access it directly. Even if I distort this data over time, mustn't I retain some kind of starting point?
It may just be a garbling of what they were presenting. It occurred to me while writing this that the memory you experience is drawn from the prior iteration of it, but overwrites it as it does so. Like putting another coat of paint on a painting. It may be similar, but it will always be different – and you can’t ever go back.
Which would explain how the good old days get better and better, but still just messes with your head.
If you have the time, check out the podcast. It'll bend your head.
The main points of this article I’ll just summarize:
1) There is no “master memory” that you draw on when you recall something.
2) Memories are re-imprinted in your brain every time you recall them.
3) Memories become less accurate the more you access them.
4) Memories can be implanted, dulled, or even erased with certain techniques and medications.
Item 4 (which has been proven via experimentation) is pretty creepy – since it pretty much tells you that brainwashing is feasible. Maybe to a lesser extent than the you’d see in The Manchurian Candidate or The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but to a disturbing degree nonetheless.
Here’s how they know this. Scientists would play a tone to a rat and then give them an electrical shock. They’d do this repeatedly until the rat would cringe just from hearing the tone. Conditioned response. Pavlov. This surprises no one.
What was surprising was what happened when they used a particular drug on a different rat while they got the same treatment. A medicated rat that heard the tone and was subsequently zapped never associated the two events. The rat would hear the tone, but would not cringe. The drug prevented the association.
They then took this further and took a rat that had made the connection between the tone and the shock and gave them the drug before playing the tone and zapping them. Over time, the rats would lose the connection between the tone and the shock. The drug would erase the prior memory of tone = shock, and the rat would no longer react to the tone.
Yeah.
They’ve tried this drug on people with traumatic memories to help diminish their intensity – it worked.
So, your memories are up for grabs. But that’s not the only weird bit for me.
The premise of item 1 just bugs me. There is no accurate memory that you draw on to experience past events. Every time you relive a memory you are re-creating it. This allows you to modify it every time you access it – introducing errors each time.
They make the point that a memory you never access is the most reliable one you will ever have.
But it makes no sense to say we recreate the memory each time because there must be some information in our brains that maintains the connection between the actual event and our recollection of it.
For example:
Yesterday I meet a man with an orange shirt.
Today I remember the experience as meeting a man with an orange suit.
Years from now, I remember meeting a man with an orange hat.
All of this can follow from a process where I create a new memory and muddle the details over time.
But how can these recollections be in any way similar if there isn't some stored data that supplies the source material for the new memory I'm creating?
I mean, how else can I correctly maintain the memory of meeting a man and not a woman?
If I am truly creating a new memory each time - what's to stop me from remembering meeting a woman who hits me in the face with a rubber chicken?
Surely some kind of master record must be supplying the framework of what I am remembering - even if I can't access it directly. Even if I distort this data over time, mustn't I retain some kind of starting point?
It may just be a garbling of what they were presenting. It occurred to me while writing this that the memory you experience is drawn from the prior iteration of it, but overwrites it as it does so. Like putting another coat of paint on a painting. It may be similar, but it will always be different – and you can’t ever go back.
Which would explain how the good old days get better and better, but still just messes with your head.
If you have the time, check out the podcast. It'll bend your head.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Passed along without comment...
...because I'd be hard pressed to add anything coherent:
From TPM:
From TPM:
The 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard recently ended a 22-month tour of duty in Iraq, the longest deployment of any ground-combat unit in the Armed Forces. Many of its members returned home, looking forward to using education benefits under the GI bill.
For example, John Hobot, a platoon leader, said, "I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home."
It's not working that way. The Guard troops have been told that in order to be eligible for the education benefits they expect, they had to serve 730 days in Iraq. They served 729.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Modern American Hero
In that same NYT article (Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations) Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, stands out as an example of integrity under fire:
And there's this:
In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr. Bradbury’s approach. He helped block the appointment of a liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving combined interrogation techniques.Nice.
Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.
Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront Mr. Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.
And there's this:
Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring. Speaking at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade campus on Law Day — a noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A. program — Mr. Comey spoke of the “agonizing collisions” of the law and the desire to protect Americans.Damn shame we didn't have a guy like this in the top job - but then, this administration would have canned him.
“We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die,’” Mr. Comey said. But he argued that government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.
“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”
It's not what they say, it's what they do
How many times does Congress need to learn this lesson?
From the NYT:
It's like with NSA surveillance. I cannot say with any certainty that what was and is taking place is unconstitutional, illegal or abusive - but I can say with absolute certainty that the knowledge of what is being done can not and must not be exclusive to the executive branch.
People outside of this administration and its minions must have access to review these programs - or we will create more and more legal black holes where no one has to justify their decisions - and where mistakes and abuses are swept under the rug.
From the NYT:
Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe InterrogationsIt's not like anyone should be surprised, but for crying out loud - somebody needs to hold these monsters' feet to the fire until they fess up to what they are doing.
By SCOTT SHANE, DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 4, 2007
A 2005 Justice Department opinion provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, officials said.
...
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
It's like with NSA surveillance. I cannot say with any certainty that what was and is taking place is unconstitutional, illegal or abusive - but I can say with absolute certainty that the knowledge of what is being done can not and must not be exclusive to the executive branch.
People outside of this administration and its minions must have access to review these programs - or we will create more and more legal black holes where no one has to justify their decisions - and where mistakes and abuses are swept under the rug.
Monday, October 01, 2007
"If people do not know, they cannot care..."
Via ReadWriteWeb.com:
Assuming they are - You gotta feel for this person, whoever they are. Tech will almost certainly identify them in ways they will not expect. If they stop posting, there will never be any way to know what happened.
Makes you wonder if someone's inventing a cheap, anonymous way to access the internet that can be exported to countries in crisis.
This morning the UK Times Online runs a story about bloggers now hunted by the Burmese government after the bulk of the action in the street has quieted. Computers in the country are all government licensed, ISPs are closely monitored and internet access has become increasingly intermittent as the protests proceeded.I am curious to know how they know these posts are genuine.
Despite the extensive repression, protests in Burma continue and a handful of bloggers remain active in reporting events to the world online. The US-based Committee to Protect Bloggers is tracking the situation closely and reports that a blogger posting under the name Niknayman appears to be the only one still posting from inside the country.
Assuming they are - You gotta feel for this person, whoever they are. Tech will almost certainly identify them in ways they will not expect. If they stop posting, there will never be any way to know what happened.
Makes you wonder if someone's inventing a cheap, anonymous way to access the internet that can be exported to countries in crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)