Archive for the ‘Clippings’ Category

Almost missed it…

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

…but yes, today is the day.

What day is it? The 40th anniversary of Ten Cent Beer Night.

Also coming up this year: the 35th anniversary of Disco Demolition Night.

I’ve previously made note of the strange career of Rusty Torres, who was on the field for three forfeited games. What I did not know, until I stumbled across it in Wikipedia, is that Nestor Chylak was also involved in both Ten Cent Beer Night (as crew chief of the umpires that night) and Disco Demolition Night (as “assistant league supervisor of umpires”; he was in the umpires’ dressing room at Comiskey Park that night, and ordered the forfeit).

Here’s a couple of links to coverage from the paper of record: Link one. Link two. Please leave a comment if those don’t work for you.

And here’s your obligatory 40th anniversary interview from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, complete with a reprint of the original coverage from 1974.

Noted for the historical record.

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

Indicted California Democratic State Senator Leland “Uncle” Yee finished third out of a field of eight candidates for the post of California secretary of state, collecting “more than a quarter-million votes“.

As the vote count stood Wednesday morning, Yee finished ahead of ethics watchdog Dan Schnur, a former chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, who framed his campaign around cleaning up Sacramento. Yee also finished ahead of Derek Cressman, a Democrat and former director of the good-government group Common Cause.

Obit watch.

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

I missed this while I was on the road: Robert W. Sallee died last week.

Mr. Sallee was the last survivor of the 1949 Mann Gulch fire, which killed 12 out of 15 smoke jumpers (and one non-smoke jumper). Mr. Sallee and another man, Walter Rumsey, managed to run uphill and escape the fire: R. Wagner Dodge, the leader of the group, escaped by lighting a backfire and lying in the embers.

I know I’ve said this before, but Young Men and Fire, Norman Maclean’s book about the Mann Gulch fire, is well worth reading.

Flames, hyena, etc. (#13 in a series).

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014

Patrick D. Cannon, the former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, has pled guilty to one count of “honest services wire fraud”. (Previously.)

The court filing, known as a bill of information, said that for more than four years, as a City Council member and as mayor, Mr. Cannon solicited and accepted bribes from the owner of an adult club whose business was threatened by the planned extension of Charlotte’s light rail system. In turn, Mr. Cannon spoke with officials involved in zoning, planning and transportation.

Strippers. Always with the strippers.

And this has the potential to be epic for more than one reason:

A New York City Department of Investigation inquiry has implicated Charles J. Hynes, the former Brooklyn district attorney, in the improper use of money seized from drug dealers and other criminal defendants to pay a political consultant more than $200,000 for his work on Mr. Hynes’s unsuccessful re-election campaign last year.

There’s the whole “prosecutor going to jail and being disbarred” thing. There’s the whole circus surrounding any NYC political figure being charged with a crime. And then there’s the whole “misuse of asset forfeiture funds” aspect, about which Radley Balko and others have written so eloquently.

…Mr. Hynes potentially violated the City Charter and conflict of interest board rules; violations of the City Charter can be charged as misdemeanors. Mr. Hynes’s conduct may have also violated the state penal code section on official misconduct. And payments from the office to the consultant, Mortimer Matz, may have violated the larceny provisions in the penal code. Under the code, any larceny of more than $1,000 is a felony.

If it weren’t for bad luck…

Sunday, June 1st, 2014

I’ve briefly touched on, but never discussed in detail, Philadelphia’s two troubled daily newspapers (the Daily News and the Inquirer). In brief, they’ve gone through bankruptcy, ownership changes, ownership conflicts, and more ownership changes.

Early last week, the papers were bought by a group of investors led by Lewis Katz.

Last night, Lewis Katz and six other people were killed in a private jet crash.

This is sad and awful and I don’t intend to mock anyone’s death. I note it here because it seems like the Philly papers are just one hard luck story after another. Mr. Katz’s son is apparently going to take his place on the board that manages the papers; if you read the linked article about the purchase, though, it doesn’t seem clear that the late Mr. Katz or his partners had a turn-around plan for the papers, or that they even expected to win the bidding war for them. With Mr. Katz gone, I suspect that’s going to complicate things even more.

(Hattip: Jimbo.)

Travel day.

Wednesday, May 28th, 2014

Light blogging ahead. And just when it seems things are picking up, too.

The good news is, I’m going to get my yearly Smith and Wesson fix. I’ll report in as time permits.

In the meantime, the most recent “100 Episodes” column on the A/V Club site is devoted to “Mannix”, a series that is just at the fringes of my memory, and that I’d love to see again. (I’ve been watching for the DVDs to show up used, but haven’t had any luck yet.)

Mannix was too smooth, too ’70s to qualify as neo-noir, but more than anything else on television it did echo the flavor of its era’s most unsentimental crime novelists, authors like Ross Macdonald, John D. MacDonald, Richard Stark.

Beyond the shout out to three of my favorite crime novelists, this is a swell survey of what made “Mannix” interesting; I commend it to your attention.

I don’t like bullies.

Tuesday, May 27th, 2014

I have never met Caleb Giddings. We’ve never had any contact. He almost certainly couldn’t pick me out of a police lineup. I know he’s a somewhat polarizing figure in the gun blogging community; there are people who follow him avidly, and people who he rubs the wrong way.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, other than I don’t like bullies and “…they all believed in justice, and when the line was drawn, there was but one side for them all.

About a year ago, Caleb reviewed a product called “Instant Accuracy” being sold by a man named Patrick Kilchermann. In his review, clearly marked as an editorial, Caleb expressed the opinion that “Instant Accuracy” is a scam: Kilchermann is charging $97 for what basically amounts to a 15-minute dry fire training program, repeated 4 to 5 times a week for four weeks. As Caleb pointed out, you don’t need to spend $97 for dry fire practice; there are good books on the subject available for a third to a quarter of that price. (You can find specific recommendations in that thread at his site.)

Quoth Caleb:

He went around the internet, copied techniques that professionals, writers, and trainers have posted for free in the public realm, and then is claiming he invented this form of secret dry-fire kung fu that you have to pay him 100 bucks for. To me, that’s a scam. It’s not Ignatius Piazza level of scam, but it’s damn close.

Naturally, Mr. Kilchermann took exception to this, and spent some time in the comments defending himself and “Instant Accuracy”. However, he declined to answer some simple basic questions, like “What are your qualifications?”, and “What three police departments are currently using your program?”. Indeed, Mr. Kilchermann seems to have been silent for the better part of the past year.

Until May 20th, when he contacted Caleb and asked him to either take down the review, or remove the comments about “Instant Accuracy” being a scam. When Caleb refused, Mr. Kilchermann threatened him with a lawsuit.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me (based on what I’ve read of the law) that Caleb’s statements were clearly labeled as opinion, and that statements of opinion are not actionable in a court of law. I don’t believe Mr. Kilchermann consulted a lawyer before issuing his bumptious legal threat. And if Mr. Kilchermann managed to find a lawyer who is stupid enough to take the case, or if he chooses to proceed pro se? I’m pretty sure Caleb will have no trouble finding pro bono legal representation – he may not even need to ask for a Popehat Signal.

I’m not sure what state Caleb is in, but many jurisdictions have strong anti-SLAPP laws. If Mr. Kilchermann chooses to proceed with legal action, I feel confident in saying that he will end up paying Caleb’s legal fees.

Mr. Kilchermann is apparently concerned about his Google ranking for “Instant Accuracy”. In my opinion, bumptious threats of legal action are an even bigger sign of a scam. Let’s let Mr. Kilchermann’s words and actions be seen by as many people as possible.

Sir, welcome to the Streisand effect.

(Hattip on this one to pdb.)

Annals of law (#9 in a series)

Tuesday, May 27th, 2014

By way of Overlawyered, I found this ABA Journal article. I note it here because I believe this is, literally, the kind of situation you only see maybe once in a lifetime.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld was representing a company, LBDS Holding Company, in a lawsuit against another company, ISOL Technology. Details of the suit can be found here, but I’m not sure they’re important. The key point is that Akin Gump won a $25 million judgement for LBDS Holding against ISOL.

ISOL and their legal team filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11, claiming that “LBDS and its principals manufactured and falsified evidence used in this litigation, testified falsely, and committed a fraud upon this Court.”

Sounds like the kind of routine motion you’d expect the losing party to make, right? Well, Akin Gump had to respond to the motion, of course, so they did their due diligence and spoke with their client.

…when firm partner Sanford Warren discussed the sanctions motion with a client representative on May 15 the rep admitted “that the allegations in the [sanctions] motion were ‘essentially correct,’ ” the Akin Gump motion says. A “Cerner” contract relied upon by the plaintiff at trial “was not authentic,” the motion says, because an actual contract “had been altered and had certain schedules attached to it which were forgeries.”
Additionally, a client representative “said that those on the [conference] call [with Warren] had set up a fictitious domain name and sent emails from that domain name to create the impression that certain emails, introduced into evidence at the trial of this case, were sent by Cerner Corporation, when in fact they were not,” the Akin Gump motion continues.

So let me recap, just to make things clear: the plaintiff knowingly and willfully falsified evidence in their civil suit. That’s not just “case thrown out of court” bad, that’s not just “defendant awarded sanctions” bad; that’s “people are going to prison over this” BAD.

Akin Gump seems to have been unaware of the fraud until the plaintiff’s representatives confessed. At that point, they filed their own motion concurring with the motion by the defendants, providing their own account of what the plaintiff’s reps had said, and withdrawing from further representation. That motion is attached to the ABA Journal article, and makes excellent reading if you (like me) are a connoisseur of legal motions.

I can’t recall ever hearing of another case where the plaintiff committed this kind of serious fraud. (Maybe the Chevron case or the Nicaraguan banana pesticide case, but both of those had elements outside of the United States that influenced events; the LBDS/ISOL case, in contrast, was entirely domestic.) It boggles my mind that they thought they could get away with it. But the scary thing is, they almost did. I do wonder when ISOL found out about the fraud; is it possible that they knew all along, and were just holding back the information? Something like a hidden ace, just in case the verdict didn’t go their way?

Be careful what you promise.

Saturday, May 24th, 2014

I’ve been wanting to write about this for a couple of weeks now, but have had trouble finding a way into it.

Earlier this century, some researchers working with Boston College came up with what became “The Belfast Project”. The idea was simple; do an oral history of the conflict in Northern Ireland by interviewing people on both sides of the conflict.

This was probably a worthwhile idea. But could you convince these people to talk? Sure, if you promised them that what they said would remain confidential until they died.

In the end, “The Belfast Project” interviewed 46 people; 26 former IRA members, and 20 former members of the UVF. Since they were promised confidentiality, many of them spoke freely. Perhaps a bit too freely.

Because BC apparently didn’t think through all of the legal implications. The United States has a “mutual legal assistance treaty” with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Law enforcement in UKOGBAI became aware of the existence of “The Belfast Project” and decided to subpoena some of the interviews. The US government, under the terms of the treaty, had to cooperate with the request. There was a long legal battle, which BC lost; they surrendered 11 interviews with former IRA members.

As a result of this, Gerry Adams, the former head of Sinn Féin, was arrested as part of the investigation into a 1972 murder. The last I heard, Adams was questioned and released, and so far has not been actually charged with the murder.

Of course, people are upset. Confidentiality was breached! And BC has promised to return the interviews to the participants.

That may be “too little, too late”. Because now the government of Northern Ireland is asking for everything: all the interviews in “The Belfast Project”.

I’m not a lawyer, but I wonder what BC’s chances are at this point. If they return the tapes and burn the transcripts now, after a subpoena has been filed, will they be destroying evidence? Could BC wind up facing obstruction of justice charges?

And it seems that there are a fair number of people, on and off the BC campus, who think BC did a crap job with the project:

“The question that is unanswered is, why was the process not followed with this project?” said Susan Michalczyk, assistant director of BC’s Arts and Sciences honors program and president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “There should have been direct faculty oversight. Academic freedom can only be maintained when people adhere to the policies that preserve ethical practices.”

And:

Many faculty remain stunned that a project with so many potential ethical and legal pitfalls could be run with so little supervision. Given the risks involved, the project might never have moved forward if other scholars had been given a chance to weigh in, many said.

Some more random notes.

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

Ding, dong, the LICH is dead! Almost. Maybe. Previously.

You know what China needs?

Assailants driving two sport utility vehicles and tossing explosive devices plowed through a crowded vegetable market on Thursday in this city, the capital of the Xinjiang region in far western China, killing 31 people and wounding 94.

Previous violence in the region involved crude and haphazardly planned attacks on soldiers or police stations, with assailants wielding knives and, in some cases, gasoline bombs.

Random notes: May 23, 2014.

Friday, May 23rd, 2014

A couple of things that I’ve run across:

1. The Sunday Statesman had a longish article about problem police officers moving from department to department. I don’t think this is all that unusual – I’ve seen Balko and others write about this problem in other states – but the Texas angle is interesting.

In Texas, a police officer’s license can be revoked for only three reasons. One is for “barratry,” or using his position for financial gain; officials said it is rarely invoked. The second is for a felony criminal conviction. About 35 peace officers annually get their licenses pulled for qualifying crimes.
The third is for egregious misconduct. Unlike some other professions licensed by the state, however, Texas defines this for police in an extremely narrow and specific way — two dishonorable discharges.

The reason a police officer left a department, and the status of his “discharge”, is noted on a form called an F-5, which is filed with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. Part of the problem is that, if an officer’s discharge is noted as “dishonorable”, that officer can appeal their discharge status.

In 2008, Ken Walker, chief of the West University Place Police Department near Houston, fired officer Rosemarie Valdes “after she repeatedly told false and grossly exaggerated version of an on-duty incident,” court documents show. When she appealed her dishonorable discharge, Walker recalled, the small department virtually had to close up shop for a day while it sent two attorneys, the city’s human resources director, a police captain and the chief and a firefighter to Austin for the appeals hearing.

So in a lot of cases, departments agree to make the discharge “honorable”, in return for the fired officer agreeing not to take another job in any nearby department. In other cases, even if an officer is “dishonorably” discharged, smaller departments may not check the F-5, or they’re so hard up to get a qualified officer that they’re willing to ignore it.

(As a side note: isn’t it interesting that police departments have adopted military style language for this: “discharged” instead of “fired”? “honorable” and “dishonorable”?)

One other noteworthy bit of information: remember WCD favorite, former APD officer Leonardo Quintana? Were you wondering what happened to him?

Wonder no more: “In March, the former Austin officer was hired as a deputy by the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department, in the Rio Grande Valley. Quintana didn’t return phone calls seeking comment. Acting Sheriff Eddie Guerra, who took office six weeks ago, said he wasn’t familiar with Quintana’s past.

(I didn’t write about this previously because it was behind the paper’s paywall. Also, it’s been a heck of a week. Hattip to Grits for Breakfast for the non-paywall link.)

2. When I first saw “Stop Leaning In. Put Down Your IPhone. And HELP ME.” come across the Hacker News Twitter feed, I initially thought it was another “women in tech” rant. I don’t know why I clicked through to it, but I’m glad I did; it turned out to be something completely different.

Suddenly a thin figure bumped into me, which I wasn’t unused to in this city, but instead of the normal mumbling apology and eye contact, she didn’t move away. She stayed close and stared at me directly.
“Give me your phone, your purse, your bag, everything

I’d like to see this get more attention in the gunblogging community, as I think this is an excellent example of things we talk about a lot.

“SOMEBODY HELP ME!”
People stare and watch.
“Anybody, please, somebody, help me!”
30 eyes follow us.

You are responsible for your own safety. Yes, it would be nice if we could count on other people to help us. Yes, it would be nice if the police were always right there, instead of minutes away. But the world doesn’t work that way, and all of our wishes won’t make it so. The world, and the drug addicts in it, don’t care that you have to give a presentation to 200 people that night, or that you have children. You have to take responsibility for your safety. What are you doing about that?

Coffee in hand I mulled in front of the train station waiting for an Uber because I’d recently torn the ligaments in my foot. Headphones in my ear as I watched the little dot on the screen’s progress, scrutinizing his every move as if he were the worst Pac Man player I’d ever seen.

Situational awareness. Enough said.

Well, maybe not “enough said”. I know that situational awareness is something I sometimes have a problem with. I’ve been trying consciously since I got my CHL to work on improving that, and I feel like I’ve made some progress. But I’d love to find additional resources in that area: Hsoi has written some good stuff on the subject.

I realize it’s your business if you choose to tune out the world. But if you do choose to do so, don’t be surprised if you’re viewed as a ripe target for someone willing to take advantage of you… and your first post-situation thought is “they caught me by surprise… I wasn’t aware of them until they were on top of me”. Be pro-active, don’t let it happen to you, stay aware of your situation. And teach your kids the same.

She caught up to me and latched on.
“ I’m going to stab you and kill you”
By now she was livid. And suddenly we were brawling, she swinging at me with a knife in one hand, and punched with the other. I blocked all I could. panic filling every moment.

How’s that strict gun control working for you, San Francisco?

Okay, that may be a little facile. This post is the only one (so far) at Kirsten’s Amazing; there’s no way of knowing if she’s the type of person who could (or would) use a gun in self-defense, and there might be some practical problems with carrying one in her environment. (Example: what do you do with it at work, if you’re taking public transit instead of a personal vehicle?). But I think Kirsten is damn lucky to have come through this as well off as she did; she could very well have been seriously injured or killed.
Some martial arts classes might have helped Kirsten out in this case (since it sounds like her attacker was a small woman, rather than a 250 pound ex-football player) but it takes time to become good at martial arts. (It takes some time to become good with a gun, too, though.) (Edited to add: and torn ligaments in one’s foot might, perhaps, cramp your martial arts style.) Maybe she would have benefited from carrying pepper spray, though we know that doesn’t always work either. Guns may not always be the answer, but I like Kirsten’s odds a lot better with a S&W Bodyguard or even a little Beretta .25 in her hand.

I threw my hot coffee in her face and made a run back for the train station.

Caleb Giddings, call your office, please. (More seriously, that’s good thinking, Kirsten. Your main weapon isn’t a gun or pepper spray or your martial arts training; it is your brain. Use whatever is at hand if you need to defend yourself.)

I’ve seen two different schools of thought in the community. School number one is what I’d call the “sheepdog” school: “I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.” School number two is perhaps best described this way: “My gun is to protect me and the people I care about. I’m not going to become involved in some stranger’s bullshit.”

Would I have jumped in to help Kirsten? I find it hard to say. First of all, I wasn’t there; I’m not sure how obvious it was that Kirsten was in trouble and who the aggressor was. What if I was mistaken about what was going on? What if this had turned out to be a fight between Kirsten and, say, an undercover cop who was trying to arrest her for using Uber instead of a licensed taxicab? Surprise! Now I’m facing charges of “assaulting a police officer”!

If it had been clear that she was being attacked by that woman, would I have jumped in? Would you have jumped in? Does it change things that we’re talking about San Francisco (where we both almost certainly would be unarmed) instead of Austin?

Someone (I wish I could remember who) said recently that you should look at self-defense this way; if you have to use your gun, every bullet has a $50,000 bill attached. Are you willing to bear that cost for someone you don’t know? Honestly, I don’t know if I am.

We live in a world where you can be shunned by society for engaging in justified self-defense. Are you willing to become this week’s featured demon on CNN because you jumped in to help a stranger? Even if it was justified? Imagine the family on the nightly news: “He was always sharp, always goofy, loved to dance, he was a respectable boy.” Why did you have to go and shoot Mister “Loved to Dance”, just because he pointed a gun at you? And as bad as those links are, you can bet it’d be even worse if you shot a petite woman with a knife. “He’s a big guy, he could have taken the knife away from her.” “He didn’t have to kill her, he could have just shot her in the leg.” You know the drill.

And are you willing to bear the costs, even if it was justified? This story from the comments is illustrative: time away from work (and I don’t know about you, but I don’t get paid if I’m not working), the risk of infection from junkie blood, being attacked by the bad guy’s lawyers…

…and that’s if things go well. What if the junkie bitch turns around and stabs you instead? Even if you have health insurance, you may end up out-of-pocket a significant amount of money. That is, if you survive being stabbed.

These questions are hard to answer, and I’m not sure of my own answers. But not being sure doesn’t make them any less worth asking.

Over at Battleswarm…

Saturday, May 17th, 2014

…Lawrence has significant followups on a couple of things that I’ve covered previously, but the latest developments somehow got past me: