John’s blog

Suing the wrong person…

nobody@vox.com(John) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:23:38 -0400

Here’s a couple of news items demonstrating that being an officer of the court is not the same as having good judgment:

Circuit Judge David Viviano has allowed Scott T. Zielinski to sue the owner and employees of Nick's Party Stop. Scott had robbed the store but the employees then shot at him, chased him down and beat him.

Personally, I think the employees deserve a bonus – but I’ll bet they get fired for violating company policy [1].

Keith Bardwell has resigned after refusing to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple [2]. Even though all bans against interracial marriage were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1967 [3], this soi disant justice of the peace decided not to allow it in “his” parish [4]. He initially defended his decision, claiming that he was afraid for the children of any such union [5]; he only decided to step down after pressure was brought to bear by the governor and other ranking politicians. His final word on the subject? “I found out I can't be a justice of the peace and have a conscience”

Er, no, bud – you found out that you couldn’t be a justice of the peace and make up new laws to suit your personal prejudices.

John

[1] Most companies forbid employees from taking any action other than pushing the panic button during a robbery. Why? Because if the employees or bystanders get hurt while trying to foil the robbery, the store can be liable (as this suit demonstrates).

[2] My favorite quote from this character? “I needed to step down because they was going to take me to court, and I was going to lose." Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

[3] Yet another clear example of an activist court making law that the people didn’t want and won’t stand for! Oh, wait – maybe they will…

[4] Louisiana was originally divvied up by Catholic missionaries and settled by French Acadians who had been kicked out of France for refusing to swear allegiance to the King of France and then kicked out of Canada for refusing to swear allegiance to the King of England; as a result, it is one of the two states without counties (Alaska has boroughs).

[5] Or perhaps “afraid of” might be more accurate…

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A rose is a rose is a slur

nobody@vox.com(John) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:55:22 -0400

You have probably heard of the oratorical "oops!" created by Merwin and Ulmer last weekend. If you haven't, here is the long and short of it - in an op-ed piece ode to the fiscal restraint of the GOP, the two party leaders wrote the following:

"like Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves."

As of this writing, Merwin and Ulmer have apologized for their phrasing, but not for the sentiment.

The verity of the statement can be challenged on several levels [1], however that is not what has raised the greatest ire over this piece. Instead, it was the use of the word "Jews" which critics charge is playing to stereotypes [2].

But was it a stereotype? There is a simple test that will answer that question. Simply replace the offending word with "person" [3]. If the sense remains, then the only reason to use the offending word was in order to play to a stereotype. In the Merwin and Ulmer case, the phrase would have worked just as well [4] as

"like people who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves."

Since the sentiment remains, there was no reason to use the word "Jews". Thus, this was a stereotype and should have been avoided [5].

I'll admit a certain amount of sympathy for these two. Growing up, my relatives relished stereotypes (and some of them still do). As a result, my speech patterns are sometimes less than optimal [6]. However, I try to take an extra effort to ensure that what I say isn't obscured by how I say it. In writing, this is relatively easy (simply use the test above). And I heartily recommend the practice to Mssrs. Merwin and Ulmer - and to anyone else who wishes to avoid being thought a bigot.

John

[1] Is it true that one becomes rich by watching the pennies and not the dollars? Is it true that Jim DeMint has watched the pennies? Has he watched them consistently (e.g., by refusing earmarks linked to his party, his state, or his district)? Is it true that earmarks are a serious problem?

[2] Like the statement itself, the verity of the stereotype is not relevant.

[3] Or some other, equally neutral word.

[4] And perhaps better!

[5] Why? Is it because stereotypes are offensive? No, because some can be complimentary (e.g., "rocket science"). Is it because stereotypes are untrue? No, because some are true some of the time. Is it because stereotypes replace thinking with easy categorization? Yes! By relying on stereotypes, you replace people with abstract that may have no basis in reality. And a person (much less a good politician) should know better!

[6] E.g., indiscriminate use of the word "boy" in casual conversation. To many, it is a non-demeaning word; however, certain groups still feel the sting of its lash, a century and more after it should have been retired.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Baby - you're a star!

nobody@vox.com(John) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:29:00 -0400

Tina Turner - Baby, I'm A Star

Just a reminder - this is the International Year of Astronomy, celebrating the 400th anniversary of Galileo's work. And this Saturday is Astronomy Day. If you happen to be in Houston, go to George Observatory, Brazos Bend State Park between 3:30 PM and 10:30 PM for lots of fun. Otherwise, look to your local university or science museum. And, in the words of one of my favorite people, keep looking up!

Jack Horkheimer Star Gazer Minute 10/19/2009 thru 10/25/2009

John

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Irony - the gift that keeps giving...

nobody@vox.com(John) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:23:25 -0400

For those who prefer their irony neat:

Heinreich Boere is an admitted hit man for the Nazis. He joined the Waffen SS at age 18 and was charged with killing members of the Dutch resistance. He would shoot people dead with no trial, no warning, and no compunctions. And now he is fighting extradition to a trial for his war crimes:
"Boere's attorneys had appealed that decision to the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, arguing that their client suffers a serious heart condition and that to put him on trial would violate his human rights by putting him in a possibly life-threatening situation."
Italics added; irony left intact.

And for those who prefer it over ice:

The Vatican has opened an exhibit in honor of the 400th anniversary of Galileo's publication of Siderius Nuncius, his treatise that relates his discovery of the Galilean moons of Jupiter [1]. During the opening, a reporter asked the Vatican's top Culture Official, Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, about the Church's 17th century condemnation of Galileo. Here's what he had to say:
"I continue to believe that it's necessary to look more to the future."

John

[1] Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The art of justice

nobody@vox.com(John) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:07:46 -0400

The recent developments in the Roman Polanski case have shed some interesting light on justice and law in different places around the world [1]. The first, and in many ways the most interesting, is the difference in France's handling of Polanski and that of the USA and Switzerland. Despite having a well-known address in France, Polanski was essentially at liberty in that country because of a peculiarity in their laws that allows them to refuse to extradite their own citizens [2]; instead, the country that wants the citizen must allow the citizen to be tried in France, by a French jury, under French law [3]. Because of Polanski's status as a filmmaker, it was unlikely that he would be convicted in France for rape [4]. So California waited until Polanski went to a country that did allow extradition to the USA, and then pounced. Thus we have the difference in US laws (everyone is nominally equal even if some do manage to be more equal than others [5]) and those in France (if you are important enough, you are explicitly unequal).

The next most interesting point about the case is the reaction of the victim, Samantha Gailey (now Gaimer). She has said several times that the press has made her life a living hell, and that the prosecution and the prosecutors have only made things worse. Her feeling is that he has suffered enough [6]. And she has a valid point - is it justice to subject her to the trauma of a trial if she doesn't want one? That was one of the reasons that the prosecutors agreed to the original plea bargain. She has even recently filed suit to have the case dismissed. In many places, her desire would allow the charges to be dropped. (Of course, in other places, she would have been whipped for allowing herself to be raped.) However, the judge has the ultimate right in US courts to decide if the bargain is just - or at least, just legal.

And then there is the reaction of various folks to the charge. Some, such as Whoopi Goldberg, claim that it wasn't "rape, rape"; i.e., that it is a lesser offence because drugs were used instead of violence. Others claim that his work since then excuses the rape. And still others claim that it wasn't rape at all. Frankly, I don't understand that last position. Even if we allow that a 13 year old may be capable of deciding whether or not to have sex, there's still the evidence of the drugs and Polanski's refusal to take no for an answer.

Finally, there is the question of the charges themselves. Polanski was originally charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, and lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14; all but the last charge were dismissed under the plea bargain. Of those, the sodomy and perversion charges are no longer on the books. So, if the prosecution were to start all over, he could only be charged with rape by use of drugs, furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, and lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14. That's enough rope to hang him with (especially in prison), but it is interesting how the framework of justice has changed over the years.

John

[1] In case you have been living under a rock [a], the particulars are as follows. In 1977, Polanski and 13 year old Samantha Gailey went to Jack Nicholson's house as part of a photo shoot that Polanski claimed was for Vogue magazine. During the shoot, Polanski plied Gailey with champagne mixed with Quaaludes. He then had sex with Gailey, despite her pleas to stop. Gailey told her mother, who informed the police. Polanski was arrested and charged with statutory rape. In a plea deal, he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for five of the six counts against him being dismissed. He underwent psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison, and was expected to return for sentencing. However, he heard that the judge had decided to throw out the plea deal and to place him into prison; Polanski then fled the country. In 2008, a filmmaker caught one of the DAs associated with the case bragging about lying to the judge in order to get Polanski into prison. Polanski then filed suit to get the the conviction set aside; instead, he was arrested on a fugitive warrant while on a visit to Switzerland.

[2] Polanski holds citizenship in France and Poland. Prior to his guilty plea, he had residency in the USA and Great Britain.

[3] Which, in many cases, means that the case is no case. Many things that are unlawful in the US (e.g., bribery, enjoyment of Jerry Lewis films) are legal or at least socially acceptable in France.

[4] Don't believe me? Consider the statements of the French Minister for Culture: "There are concerns over the absolutely incredible media lynching to which Roman Polanski was subjected 30 years ago...The manner in which the (legal) proceedings took place also raises a certain number of questions, to say the least"

[5] Geek points for the reference!

[6] Part of that suffering was in the form of a cash settlement to her family; as of this writing, some $600,000US remains unpaid.

[a] And if you have been, is there enough room for me to move in? I'll cook!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Long time gone

nobody@vox.com(John) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:37:31 -0400

Sorry that there haven't been any updates to the blog lately; things have been absorbing my attention. Most of my energy over the past few weeks has been focused on Ken's estate. Though it hasn't been difficult, it hasn't been exactly easy, either. You see, Texas requires that all wills go through probate and tat you fill out forms to do so. But the probate courts won't tell you where those forms are (or even what they are). As a result, you have to go use an attorney [1]. This hasn't been all bad. The one we selected [2] is reasonably straightforward and easy to work with. But still...

Nevertheless, this has been quite the learning experience. What has it taught me?

1) Death is quick. Probate takes an eternity.
Before you can go to probate court, you have to have a death certificate, which takers two weeks to arrive in Texas. Then you have to have an appointment. Then, after you get the Letters Testemantary (the court authorization to act as the executor of the will), it takes at least four months to settle the final accounts. All told, a minimum of six months from death to final settlement.
2) Nobody will talk to you until they can.
Actually, I don't blame the various parties for this; they are just trying to keep people from using a death to phish for information. Nevertheless, it is somewhat disheartening to have to call six companies to let them know that you know that they know that they cannot talk to you until the Letters Testementary arrive.
3) Creditors range from scummy to honorable.
No surprise here, but the creditors would like their money back, thank you very much. Most of them send letters that started with condolences and then asked how the account would be settled. And most of them did include a note that neither the executor nor the relatives were legally obligated to pay the debts. However, American Express did want to know if we would like to take over the account (and accepted "No thank you" with no problem), whereas Discover Card sent the account to a collection agency as soon as they heard that Ken was dead. And Wells Fargo wants us to go for a short sale (minimum time, six months!) rather than allow a voluntary relinquishment.
4) What you think of as an estate probably isn't.
This is what surprised me the most. A lot of what I had thought of as being part of the estate, wasn't. The debts are part of the estate; since he was the only signer on the loans, the debts are all his. And the real property (house, car, furnishings, anything you can put into a box) is part of the estate. However, the life insurance policies are not - those are a contract between Ken and the insurance company to pay money to his beneficiaries (his folks) directly, and never come into the estate. Similarly, the 401(k) is not part of the estate; it all goes directly to his folks as well. More surprisingly, because Ken had a checking account where his mother had signing privileges and survivorship, it isn't part of the estate - she gets that money free and clear.
So what's left? About $200,000 in debt (mostly the house) and about $150,000 in assets (again, mostly the house). So my job is now simply accounting for the assets and liabilities as of the date of Ken's death on yet another form, then sending a copy of that form to each creditor. From there, it is up to the creditors. The best case is that they all decide to simply walk away, which means that my job is done, except for transferring title of the truck and the land in Mississippi to his folks. The worst case is that they decide that the truck and the land must be sold and those proceeds divided among the creditors (80% to Wells Fargo, the rest to the others). In my best case, nobody gets any money. In my worst case, everyone gets about a penny on the dollar of the debts. So the best case does seem most likely, but we'll have to wait and see.

I don't know if any of that will help you with your planning, but I hope that it does. And I hope that you never need it!

John

[1] Not de jure, but de facto. Just another "let's keep teh lawyers employed" law from our friendly legislature which is mostly made up of (you guessed it) lawyers.

[2] How did we pick her? I tried legal aid, but their phone line is a training ground for one of the inner circles of Hell. Then I tried another lawyer, who asked for a retainer before he would discuss how much it would cost to go through probate. And then we found Melinda Hartnett, who discussed everything on the phone (including reminding me that lawyers weren't strictly necessary but could make thing go much faster) before giving me a price. As lawyers go, she is honest and open.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

QotD: Touch-Screen Pros & Cons

nobody@vox.com(John) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:27:58 -0400

How could touch–screen technology enhance the way you currently use your PC? How could it make things worse?
Sponsored by WePC.com. Help us make your Dream PC a reality.

Touch screen. Naughty web videos. 'Nuff said?

John

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

ACORN or just A NUT?

nobody@vox.com(John) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:12:26 -0400

In case you haven't heard, there is a new scandal brewing at ACORN. Two young activists [1] dressed up as a stereotypical pimp and prostitute and went into several ACORN offices around the country and asked for advice on bringing young women into the country to act as prostitutes, getting a small business loan for their brothel, and how to avoid paying taxes to the IRS.

Really

Now, looking at the image above, I gotta say that my first reaction [2] would be to ask “Where’s Mr. Funt?” [3]. However, it appears that the ACORN people actually gave these two the advice that they sought [4]. And, if we take the activists at their word, this happened not once, but several times in different ACORN offices across the country.

The most charitable reading is that the ACORN folks had the same reaction that I did and decided to prank the pranksters. However, if that is the case, it was criminally stupid (at best), as it exposes ACORN to RICO charges. The worst possible reading is that ACORN really does have that many people working for it that want to help our worst elements become our worst, rich elements.

In either case, it seems as if it is time and then some for a thorough clean up at ACORN’s central office. If they don’t stop these nuts from running the place, then who knows what other shady practices will grow?

John

[1] This isn’t a dirty word, really. It just means “people that care. A lot.”

[2] After I stopped laughing

[3] Geek points for the reference!

[4] E.g., “Don’t make big deposits into a single account. Get accounts in two different banks and make small deposits” (paraphrased).

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

QotD: Favorite Beatles Song

nobody@vox.com(John) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:32:29 -0400

What's your favorite Beatles song? Bonus points if you share it with us.

Probably the sound they make as they bore into trees. I was lucky enough to meet David Dunn once. He is a really nice guy who loves to share his science with others.

John

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Civility

nobody@vox.com(John) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:11:00 -0400

Last night, President Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congress [1]. In that speech, he called for action on the health care bills currently languishing in Congress. However, his speech will be remembered not for anything that he said, but for something that Representative Joe Wilson said - “You lie!”.

We will leave the verity of Rep. Wilson’s outburst to the side for now [2].What is important is the matter of “Was his behavior appropriate?” That the out party rarely accords the President a warm welcome during his speeches is hardly new. The Democrats yawned during Governor Bush’s talks when he was in the Oval Office, and the Republicans did so for Governor Clinton during his term [3]. And the rudeness hardly stops there. Several GOP members held up competing health care bills during this most recent speech [4], while others perused their PDAs and tweeted away.

Nor is this the worst breach of etiquette in the hallowed halls of Congress. Take, for example, the beating of Senator Sumner by Representative Brooks, who took umbrage at some of the more colorful language used in an anti-slavery speech. And then there was the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel [5]. And other incidents abound, from the petty bickerings of Lincoln and Polk to the inanity of Senator Proxmire’s infamous Golden Fleece Awards [6].

However, what this outburst does show is that civil discourse is approaching a nadir, both as a country and as individuals.(At least that’s what I hope it shows; if the true perigee is much lower, we may burn up from the friction.) News has degenerated into a Winchellesque mix of name-calling and self-promotion, with insinuated slanders [7]. Considered opinion has been replaced by “talking points” [8]. Reality has been superseded by rhetoric [9]. And we, as individuals and as a country, are the poorer for it.

So please let me renew my call for civility in discourse. We can disagree (indeed, without disagreement, there is no progress). But we should use facts, not sophistry, to back up our claims. And we should be mature enough to agree that though some topics can be decided by facts (e.g., evolution, climate change), others cannot (e.g., morality).

John

[1] Interestingly, NBC, CBS, and ABC carried the speech live, while FOX went on with its regular programming. A deliberate slight? Or just “business as usual”? (Or perhaps both?) In any case, it adds an interesting nuance to the topic at hand.

[2] Though germane to the larger question of the bills at hand, it is largely irrelevant to this topic.

[3] It is likely that there are reports of Whigs being rude to General Washington when he was the Commander in Chief. I’m just to lazy to dig them out.

[4] Actually, I found that maneuver to be fairly clever. They were engaging in passive resistance and showing that they actually were trying to make progress on the matter (after twelve years of delaying tactics).

[5] Senso stricto, not actually held in the halls of Congress, but close enough for my point.

[6] The vast majority of which were based on a willful ignorance of the actual science being performed. (E.g., the use of toilet paper to examine fluid flow. Sounds silly, no? Until you read the research and discover that they were using this strips of tissue paper to map laminar flow around a submarine hull {this was in the days before sophisticated 3D modeling}. The final result of the research was a submarine hull that was faster and quieter – quite an important result from a national security perspective.) His conduct was outrageous enough hat a defamation case was brought against him and taken all the way to the US Supreme Court.

[7] Yes, yes; if they are only insinuated, they aren’t truly slander – at least in the USA.

[8] Witness the false controversy over Obama’s speech to school children. Very few of those (on either side) who had comments had actually read the thing in advance. And even fewer of them bothered to check to see if their guy had done the same thing!

[9] “Death panels”, anyone?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend