Wordpress Themes

somewhat-hypothesis.com

more or less :: explanations for certain observations

Archive for March, 2008

On Jury Nullification

clipped from bennettandbennett.com
Well, in America, God bless her, we also have something known as a democracy, and along with it the right to vote. We have elected legislatures whose precise purpose is to enact the will of the people. If you disagree with the WoD, the solution is to vote for a candidate who will cease that war and legalize narcotics. The solution is not to lie under oath and deliberately pervert the justice system.
  blog it
I wish I had the time to go into detail on this prosecutor’s ill-conceived letter however I will try to keep it short:

The unnamed prosecutor’s appeal to democracy is a dangerous one at best. The reality is that an unrestrained democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority. While it may serve those in the majority or those with the wherewithal to engage democracy as the means of changing law, it is both a slow and lengthy process where the lone voice of the individual is muted and dissent becomes the slave to popular opinion.

The prosecutor also manages to skip an important part of the jury nullification movement - that judges and prosecutors have long sought to kill the power of nullification. The inherent danger in such a system is that it negates the power of the courts who have the duty to not only carry out the law but to judge the law itself.

The prosecutor must be willing to admit that judges themselves are granted certain powers and have the ability to nullify charges levied. In a system employing jurors in the decision making process, those jurors must retain certain judicial rights to maintain the power of the jury in the courtroom. Nullification is the very essence of any legal system employing jurors. Instructing or forcing oaths otherwise is the first miscarriage of justice.
Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • clipped from www.reuters.com
    Spy-in-the-sky drone sets sights on Miami

    He acknowledged strong interest from law enforcement agencies in getting UAVs up and running, however, and said the smaller aircraft particularly were likely to have a “huge economic impact” over the next 10 years.

    Getting clearance for police and other civilian agencies to fly can’t come soon enough for Billy Robinson, chief executive of Cyber Defense Systems Inc, a small start-up company in St. Petersburg, Florida. His company makes an 8-pound (3.6 kg) kite-sized UAV that was flown for a time by police in Palm Bay, Florida, and in other towns, before the FAA stepped in.

    “We’ve had interest from dozens of law enforcement agencies,” said Robinson. “They (the FAA) are preventing a bunch of small companies such as ours from becoming profitable,” he said.

    Some privacy advocates, however, say rules and ordinances need to be drafted to protect civil liberties during surveillance operations.

      blog it
    What ever happened to good, old-fashioned police work? I’m kinda left with the feeling that we are being treated like insurgents on our own turf. While the use of “tactical” teams has increased exponentially over the past few decades, the extent and seriousness of crime has not.

    Yet the police in many jurisdictions scare the living jeebus out of its citizenry and continue to press for more of everything: firepower, armor, military-surplus vehicles. The problem with drones is simply that they would be largely ineffective when you weigh in the costs of operating and using such technology. Yet in order to justify the expense of obtaining such equipment, police departments will need to use these things in ways they weren’t purchased for.
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • On a personal note…

    Well, I’ve pushed the ball rolling again. Always late to the party, and after a lot of soul searching without the aid of alcoholic beverages, I will be taking the LSAT test in June.

    I’ve been scratching my head for the past 6 months or so trying to come up with some idea of what I wanted to do after (finally) getting my degree (at a non-trad age). My love of economics and thoughts of a PhD from GMU have given way to the reality that my chances of attaining such a degree from my current academic position would require returning to school for several semesters of math (and nothing but math) to meet the minimum requirements for the program. This is not to say that I could not try my hand. Yet the reality is often far different than unrealized idealism. Even to enter a Master’s program, I’m not quite convinced of my math abilities.

    I took some time to reflect over many of the great things I have learned from around the web, and most particularly Cafe Hayek - a site I have read daily for a couple of years now. I believe Don or Russ once noted that lovers of liberty and economics need not believe that a PhD in econ was the best way to push libertarian ideals forward. From memory, the professor had said something to the effect of the world needing libertarians throughout academia and the working world in general including lawyers and business people.

    I could turn my passion for business into an MBA and push the envelope as an organizational leader. But I’m stymied on this choice as well. There are very few organizations open to the type of mindset that I’m drawn to and very few businesses with a penchant for risk of breaking the mold.  What I need is PayPal day one, not PayPal year 5. The basic life-cycle of a business is start, grow, plateau. The reality here is that I have an entrepreneurial style that would be best served navigating the more troubling waters in the beginning - only to jump overboard or take more risks than most would deem wise. If anything I have learned in the past couple of years, I’m no longer afraid of failure.

    To a degree, while the stock market drives many decisions on increasing growth and profits, the life of a business turns to become more risk-averse and succumbs to the greater failing of total-quality-management. I can hear TQM apostles grinding their teeth already. TQM’s greatest failing is that it seeks to refine processes to the point that the room for new ideas slowly erodes to the point where you may be firing on all cylinders but you forget to look on how you add more cylinders or you eliminate possibilities simply for the fact that they do not fit the mold you’ve created.

    I did turn an eye on myself. To be honest, I’m not happy doing what I’m doing any longer. I do love technology and I do like my employer and credit them for pushing me to better myself. But now that I finished school, I look at my forward momentum and the long-term possibilities within my organization and see many limitations I am not comfortable with. At first I started to look outside of my current company only to come to the realization that the vibrant technology job market is not where I want to be. Currently, I can look forward to a few more years of stepping up one or two places and eventually assume a management position where I will be for a few more years and hopefully progress from there. But there will always be a bit of internal conflict over such a decision if I choose to continue on my current path. Middle management is not the place I envision myself in; I tend to look at rules in the subjective sense rather than the objective and I’m not afraid to break the rules if I deem it necessary.  This isn’t to say I’ll do something illegal - on the contrary, I  speak of the bureaucratic quagmire that is corporate culture. If you tell me I can’t do it or I have to do it one way, I’ll probably do it a different way if it serves me better to do so.

    Ever since I fell into political, social and economic awareness a few years ago, I’ve found my interests drawn less on technology. I was far more interested to know that my employer opened up a lobbying effort in Washington. I found that I was far more impassioned and vocal about Net Neutrality (and my distaste for it) from a social and economic standpoint. I often find that I have no voice in the larger society that I’ve contracted with; no platform on which to marry my work to my intellectual passions. And that is where I turned a skeptical eye at the law.

    I say “skeptical” as I am painfully aware of the mundane reality of the legal profession. I’m skeptical of idealism in general in any area where a perceived soap box is given. I have no political ambitions, but I do have a vested interest in promoting the ideals of libertarianism to the greatest extent of my physical and mental ability. I do believe that the legal realm is a key profession in the shaping of the society in which we live. There is a greater probability that I will become just another lawyer; I, for once, will be making strides towards a profession that I choose rather than one that I have grown into out of necessity.

    So after all this time, I’ve returned to seeking the profession I wanted to join when I was in 4th or 5th grade and running around with a Harvard sweatshirt on. I finally listen to what my mom and dad told me I should do 15 years ago. I can finally put all those afternoons of watching Perry Mason (b&w episodes) to use.

    So I sit for the LSAT in June at UNO. I’ve already started studying various books and taking test questions until my eyeballs are crooked. I have a lot of worked yet to do. I am aiming for the top 5-25 schools meaning I’m going to have to come out with a whopper of a score. My GPA is still being matriculated by LSAC but I have a feeling it will be a bit lower when my first years in school are added in. This makes the LSAT even more important.

    The only other positive attribute I will have is that I will be a “non trad” and on the upper end of the age curve. If all goes according to plan - I will be leaving law school as I’m nearing my mid-thirties. If anything, I feel this is more of a benefit. While it does shorten my career, I have a lot of experience many of my younger counterparts will not have.

    But to get there… I guess I should get to studying.

    Sphere: Related Content

  • 2 Comments
  • Filed under: Law
  • clipped from www.breitbart.com

    Justice Dept Approves XM-Sirius Deal
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department approved Sirius Satellite Radio’s $5 billion buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio on Monday, saying the deal was unlikely to hurt competition or consumers.
    The Justice Department, in a lengthy news release explaining its decision, said the two companies compete not just with each other but also with other forms of radio and entertainment.
    “The likely evolution of technology in the future, including the expected introduction in the next several years of mobile broadband Internet devices, made it even more unlikely that the transaction would harm consumers in the longer term,” the Justice Department said. “Accordingly, the division has closed its investigation of the proposed merger.”

      blog it

    In a free land, you do not need the permission of the government in order to conduct private business.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Omaha News = Boring

    clipped from www.wowt.com

    NCAA Tournament Brings Out The Scalpers
    Their boldness was contagious. “I’m with the media,” said Justin. “We are doing an undercover story on scalping. Why are you scalping right here?”
    “Because you called me.”
    “I know, but you realize you’re breaking the law?”
    “No I didn’t.”
    Now he does, but this fish wasn’t happy. “What I do know is that you told me to come down here.”
    “Yeah, it’s not illegal for me to ask, but it is illegal for you to offer, but anyway thanks for coming down.”

      blog it

    I hate Omaha. I hate our local news. It’s about the most worthless things I can think of next to having nipples on a man. Here’s a classic example of our media having nothing better to do than sit around trying to “bust” so-called “scalpers”.

    The irony is that the tickets are sold out. If you want to buy them, the scalper has them and you are going to pay the price for them. I really don’t give a shit if they are paying more than face value. If your dumb ass can’t get in line like everyone else, there is no reason you should expect someone to do it for you without paying for it.

    But hey, it’s Omaha, worthless news for a bunch of complacent bitchy people with nothing better to do than chase down someone who was smarter than you or just a bit luckier at getting some tickets.

    I hate this fucking city.

    Sphere: Related Content

  • 1 Comment
  • Filed under: Media, Omaha
  • clipped from bits.blogs.nytimes.com

    Apple Will Listen to Universal’s Music Subscription Pitch

    A music industry exec I know tells me there is truth to the report in the Financial Times that Apple is considering tying an all-you-can-eat music subscription to some of its iPhones and iPods. The executive, who requested anonymity because the matter is still a subject of negotiations with his company, said meetings between Apple executives and those at music labels are scheduled for next week.

      blog it
    On the upside, if your iPod flakes out you won’t lose all of your music like I did. On the downside, you’re back to the licensing schtick.
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • Starbucks: Redouble Efforts

    clipped from www.marketwatch.com
    Starbucks broadens plan to energize business
    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Starbucks is rolling out new espresso and coffee machines and a new customer loyalty card program as part of its broader game plan to lure more customers into its stores amid a slowdown in its U.S. business.
      blog it
    Not to be outdone, it looks like Starbucks is aiming to put two Starbucks on every corner as competition heats up.
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • Dear Yahoo: Distribute Linux

    clipped from www.news.com
    Yahoo finally has its Yogi Berra moment


    Give Yahoo management this much: they’re making Microsoft work for this one.


    Earlier today Yahoo pumped out a supremely confident three-year growth forecast in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is the company’s latest maneuver in its bid to remain independent–or, failing that, fetch a much higher buyout price from Microsoft. But after paging through the document, I’m still convinced Steve Ballmer’s cohorts hold the better cards.

      blog it
    As the title of my post might not catch you full-smack in the head, I’ll illustrate:

    Steve Balmer has been nothing short of irrational in his propaganda campaign against Linux. The volley of threats has been short as of late but at each press junket, it grows bigger.

    So, my dear friends at Yahoo: Please create a Linux distribution and send it into the wild blue yonder. Not that I’d use your nifty little distro, but it will muddle Microsoft in a legal quagmire that will off-set some of the more significant threats. By acquiring an organization that is a Linux distributor, Microsoft will then become a distributor of the Linux operating system - this implies the GPL will do its miraculous snowball effect and render the more significant threats (that Linux somehow infringes on Microsoft patents), useless without an army of lawyers who can defend it.

    This isn’t a perfect legal argument and I am sure that it is easily overcome by some tangent in legalese, but Yahoo - your focus is making sure the hedgerows are indeed tall enough to make the predator query his next action. Should you distribute Linux and Microsoft acquires you, the patent claims Microsoft may have had on Linux could easily be construed as a forfeiture of those claims - or at least admittance that the legal threat of those patents are no longer relevant.

    Think of it like this: The GPL makes sure shit rolls downhill. When a competitor buys the hill, they have to take the shit with it and the shit that rolls off into the wild.

    It’s a long shot and I am no lawyer (yet). But it’s still an interesting idea to kick around…
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • clipped from agoraphilia.blogspot.com


    Do Teens Commit Suicide More Often?

    According to stereotype, yes. But not according to the data.
    I’ve finally returned to my old suicide project, which had been moldering in a (virtual) drawer for quite a long time. With the help of a new co-author, I’ve been analyzing the results of a bunch of regressions. I was surprised to note that the variable for teenagers (percent of population from 10 to 19) consistently yielded negative coefficients, meaning higher teen population is associated with lower suicide rates. So I went back to the original data source (imagine that!) and found that the stereotype is dead wrong: suicide rates are notably lower for teenagers than adults.
      blog it
    I guess if we want to reach the hysteria levels that media loves to spin, we should be asking teens to kill themselves in even higher numbers just to justify the numbers. As Glen Whitman points out, the metrics don’t appear to be supporting the teen suicide rage.

    (ht: theAgitator)
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 0 Comments
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • clipped from www.climateaudit.org
    noamer55.gif

    Obviously one feature that sticks out like a sore thumb: the gridded growth histories in the U.S. Great Plains are negatively correlated to temperature. It looks to me like the core of this negative correlation is pretty near Crawford, Texas.

      blog it
    A remarkable post coming from Climate Audit noting that the source of an inverse correlation between tree ring growth and temperatures. Did you catch where the source of that negative correlation is coming from? Crawford, TX. The same place President GeeDub has his ranch. Coincidence? (queue spooky conspiracy music).

    Note that “Crawford” has eight letters in its name. Notice that the coolest spot on the map is marked at -.30 degrees. 8 X 3 = 24 which is two more than 22. If you take 30 - 8 you get? 22. It doesn’t get interesting until you realize that the postal abbreviation for Texas is TX, two characters 22 + 2 = 24. Twenty four converted to a letter on our alphabet is? X. And X always marks the spot. Still not convinced?

    Both George and Laura Bush have two middle names. 2+2 = 4. 30-8 = 22. Note that 22, written as 2+2, equal 4. The proof of Bush’s conspiracy is that if you take the president’s father’s full name and count all of the characters, including spaces, you get 26. 22 + 4 = 26. Now with all of this evidence, you surely must agree that George Bush is part of the conspiracy.

    [editor's note: the above is purely hypothetical. the folks at climate audit are not hucksters and are quite serious in their analysis of global warming without making the issue a political one. the analysis is my own.]
    Sphere: Related Content

  • 1 Comment
  • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • Links


    Archives


    Meta