Sunday, January 10, 2016

Cosby's Ministry of Truth Moment

From Time (via Legal Insurrection):

  • Spelman College. In July, the historically black women’s college discontinued its endowed professorship with Cosby, who donated $20 million in 1988. The school had suspended the program in 2014 before terminating it completely.

  • CAA. The comedian’s talent agency, which had represented him since 2012, dropped him in late 2014.

  • New York University. In September, university officials removed“William H. Cosby” from the title of its Future Filmmakers Workshop.

  • NBC. In late 2014, the network halted development on a new Bill Cosby sitcom. A top NBC executive said it was “safe to say” Cosby would not be returning to the network.

  • TV Land. The cable network removed Cosby Show reruns from its lineup indefinitely in late 2014.

  • Drexel University. The Philadelphia school revoked Cosby’s honorary degree in November.

  • The University of Pittsburgh. “Based on a unanimous recommendation from the University Committee for honorary degree recipients, the University of Pittsburgh has rescinded the honorary doctor of humane letters degree awarded to Bill Cosby in 2002 at the commencement ceremony on Pitt’s Johnstown campus,” the schoolannounced in November.

  • Jerry Seinfeld and David Letterman. In July, both of the comediansasked for their endorsements to be removed from a 2014 Cosby biography titled Cosby: His Life and Times.

  • Drew University. The New Jersey university voted in October to revoke Cosby’s honorary degree.

  • Brown University. The Ivy League institution rescinded Cosby’s honorary degree in September. “It has become clear,” wrote Brown President Christina Paxson, “by his own admission in legal depositions that became public this summer, that Mr. Cosby has engaged in conduct with women that is contrary to the values of Brown.”

  • Disney’s Hollywood Studios. In July, Disney announced that it planned to remove a Bill Cosby statue from its Hollywood Studios theme park.

  • Fordham University. In September, the New York City university’s Board of Trustees unanimously voted to rescind Cosby’s honorary degree. It was the first time Fordham ever revoked the honor.

  • Tufts University. The Massachusetts school announced in October that it was rescinding Cosby’s honorary doctorate of arts.

  • Goucher College. Cosby had received an honorary degree in 2001 when he was the school’s commencement speaker. In October, it was rescinded.

Now, some of these are certainly defensible business decisions. Obviously, the Cosby brand no longer supports new NBC sitcoms and CAA representation. But at the other extreme, I see the same spirit of Stalinism that had Soviet-era librarians pasting in rewritten history and retouched photographs into their encyclopedias, and that continues today in the ongoing effort to expunge Civil War memorials. It is no doubt true that the image America had of Bill Cosby personally will not turn out to be supported by the reality. But the 80s-era "Cosby Show" is either worth watching or it is not; nothing about the "real" Bill Cosby has any bearing on that question.

Similarly, I understand why Letterman and Seinfeld don't want their names associated with a biography suddenly in need of substantial revision. But . . . did Spelman return the $20M? And which of Drexel, Pitt, Drew, Brown, Fordham, Tufts or Goucher had his chastity in mind when they conferred their "honorary" degrees on the erstwhile "Dr." Cosby?* Rather, I think they had other reasons in mind.** Brown's progressive sanctimony is particularly galling.

Then there is Disney. The world is full of men who didn't use drugs to ease women into compliance but who yet don't have statues in their honor. Disney created one for Cosby as a tribute to his craft, not his virtue, and we should all yet observe the distinction. Sadly, too many people fail to.

* Actually, what is the point of an "honorary degree"? Apparently, only "we like you . . . but we'll take it back if we ever stop liking you, or if those who supplant us in our position don't like you."

** I was never a consistent fan of the "Cosby Show". I didn't object to it, but I didn't have a television back then, and it didn't cross a threshold where I would have found one just to watch it. But from what I gather, the success of the show rested at least in part on its presentation of a black family that could meet white upper-middle-class standards of behavior, by education, stability, warmth and manners . . . and at a time that was closer to the Civil Rights movement than it is to 20156. It wasn't representative in any of those respects, but that was kind of the point: the show was aspirational, Cosby's, and America's, vision of possibility. It is telling that there is nothing in entertainment comparable to it today, but it is also arguable that Cosby's current troubles are in way just a reminder of how that vision failed to materialize. At this writing, I am withholding final judgment on the allegations against him, but I will acknowledge that it doesn't help our evaluation of his work when the avatar of black family stability turns out to be just another sex-crazed African. Which is to say, I might be wrong about the inappropriateness of retroactively denying him honor for it.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Pound Foolish

From the inbox:

Team Big Base:

This New Year’s weekend is an excellent opportunity for us to continue our energy conservation efforts and save money through our “UnPlug It” campaign. Before you leave work for the long weekend, please unplug items that do not receive daily updates from our computer network or that are otherwise required to remain on for security/safety. Items to unplug include, but are not limited to, computer monitors, coffee pots, printers, scanners, radios, desk lamps, task lighting, shredders, fax machines, microwaves, computer speakers, projectors, decorations, clocks, and any other devices that use an AC/DC inverter plug. Please identify select individuals in each of your respective units/sections to serve as compliance personnel in verifying maximum energy effectiveness by ensuring all unused items are unplugged. Please take note: DO NOT turn off laptops or desktop computer CPUs.

Thanks for all you do to make Big Base an outstanding place to live and work. Working together, we can save upwards of $5,000 per “UnPlug It” event, just through the simple actions described above. Please direct any energy related questions to our energy office at BigBaseEnergyOffice@us.af.mil.

Have a safe and joyful New Year’s!

v/r

JOHN D. PENNYCHASER, Colonel, USAF
Commander
Big Base, Flyover State


Now, Big Base has a working population of 26K people, approximately half of whom are civilians. To the best of my research, their average wage in excess of $20 per hour.

Let's assume for the moment that the average time necessary for an individual to read the above email, take inventory of the electrical devices, and unplug them would be six minutes. Some, no doubt, send emails from Col Pennychaser straight to their spam folder, and hence spend no time at all. Many in higher paygrades busy themselves "selecting compliance personnel", and spend far more than six minutes. And some cranky minority spend their own and their coworkers time ranting about how worthless the effort is when the biggest power sucks, CPUs, are excluded from consideration.

But let's assume a six minute average.

It follows that the payroll cost of the email alone runs to $52,000 for the base, in return for which investment the base is estimated to save $5000 in utility costs.

Sounds like business as usual.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

"Territorial Conquest"

From Military.com

A former Air Force Academy chaplain calls the end zone praying by members of the school's football team "another 'territorial conquest' of the Christian right."

"This stands in a long line of conservative Christian usurpation of government space via supposed voluntary demonstrations of Christian piety," MeLinda Morton, a former captain, said in an email.

I blogged about Capt Morton four years ago.

Gaming the Law of Self Defense

Apropos of nothing, I see that my recent traffic from Russia is double that from the U.S.  I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Anyway, there was a police shooting in Chicago:


The deceased, 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, is described as high on PCP, non-compliant, and armed with a knife with which he had attempted to slash the tires of police cars that had responded to reports of Laquan attempting to break into nearby trucks.

The case raises an important question: how should the police be required to engage an armed, non-compliant subject when probable cause exists but when the subject is not directly threatening them? My preference would be: wait for the taser. But then I would equivocate: it may depend on other circumstances. Does waiting put someone else in danger? But "it may depend" may be bad instructions to police in need of clear guidance.

But . . . this?

Let me begin my criticism by acknowledging that Andrew Branca has taught me most of what I pretend to know about self defense law, to wit: deadly force is authorized against a person who has put you in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. Plus you must be innocent in the confrontation, plus (in the handful of duty-to-retreat states, you must not have a safe avenue of escape.

I expect every police officer in the country has been taught a defensive doctrine called the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Dennis Tueller, who among other things was a firearms instructor for his department.

Dennis trained uniformed police officers who were armed with pistols and who regularly encountered violent suspects armed with impact weapons, particularly knives.

. . . .

Dennis knew a pretty good time for an officer to clear his weapon from his holster and strike a target with two center-mass rounds was about 1.5 seconds. Once that time is known, the question of interest becomes how great a distance an attacker armed with an impact weapon can cross in that same 1.5 seconds. Whatever that distance, the aggressor became an imminent threat for self-defense purposes once he crossed that threshold.

After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

That suggested that an aggressor armed with an impact weapon becomes an imminent deadly threat even when he was as far away as 21 feet–a distance that astonished even many experienced law enforcement officers.

I have multiple problems with where this is headed.

First, those 1.5 seconds = 21 feet numbers assume a holstered weapon, yet we see from the video that the police have their weapons already drawn and beaded on the subject. That reduces an officer's minimum response time from 1.5 second to a few tenths of a second at most, and damned near instantaneous in this case, as we shall see.

Second, I don't like rules, or rather an application of the rules, that can be gamed this easily. The officer is approaching the subject, gun drawn, he himself crossing the 21-foot threshold as the subject angles away from him. What, exactly, are the officer's intentions? I'm prepared to take seriously arguments that deadly force is authorized under the conditions I stated above, but if that is off the table, then I want to know what the officer plans to accomplish by getting that close. The subject is obviously not dropping the knife in response to the officer's instructions. Meanwhile, the officer obviously can't engage the subject with non-deadly force with his hands full with his own pistol. I'm open to alternative interpretations here, but I can think of only two choices: the officer doesn't actually have a plan, in which case he's a badly-trained fool; or he's trying to contrive a situation where deadly force is authorized, which ought to violate the innocence condition that Mr. Branca teaches.

But sure enough, gaming the rules is exactly what Mr. Branca allows:

(1) McDonald was brandishing a knife in his right hand as he walked down the middle of the street while facing numerous police officers. It must be assumed that he was being non-compliant with lawful orders to drop the knife, get on the ground, and the usual law enforcement protocols for such circumstances. Note that the police have a legal duty to enforce public safety, and cannot simply allow a knife-wielding PCP addict to wander up and down the public streets. Only one person was making a free choice that evening, and that was McDonald. He chose, as they say, poorly.

So stipulated.

(2) McDonald does not walk directly away from the officers, but rather angles no more than necessary to keep a distance of 10-12 feet (typical width of a car lane) between the officers and himself. This is well within the 21 foot distance that these officers would have been taught as part of their Tueller Drill training. At a distance of 10-12 feet the knife armed McDonald could be on the officers stabbing them with his knife in well under a second. Officer Van Dyke would be well aware of both this fact and the grievous injuries that a knife can cause.

Could be, yes. But a "reasonable threat" requires, or ought to require, some demonstrated intent to cause harm. Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown clearly demonstrated such intent, indeed, by actually causing harm. John Crawford and Tamir Rice just as clearly demonstrated no threat at all. And Laquan McDonald?

(3) The moment before the first shot appears to be fired McDonald is walking down the dashed-white line of the road, thus parallel to the officers, and he suddenly blades his upper body towards the officers. This movement would be consistent with an intent to charge at the officers with his knife. It is quite possibly this threatening movement, knife still in McDonald’s hand, that induced Van Dyke to begin firing.

I'm not sure how seriously to take this. It could be that Mr. Branca is floating the arguments that Van Dyke's lawyer could be expected to try, given the evidence at hand. But if I were on the jury, and "blades his upper body" were all he had to demonstrate an "imminent threat"? Van Dyke would be cooked.

But the gaming doesn't stop there:

(4) Officers are taught to continue firing at a deadly threat until the threat has been neutralized. Even after McDonald fell to the ground he was still in control of his movements and he still possessed the knife, thus he was still an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm to any officer who got close enough.

I feel just a little dirty having to spell this out, but a person who falls to the ground in a hail of bullets is definitionally not in control of his own movements. And somebody lying face down in a pool of his own blood doesn't meet my definition of an imminent threat of anything to anyone standing over him. "Close enough" in this instance would seem to require someone to be lying under the prostrate Laquan.

But Mr. Branca is a good lawyer and I will readily concede this: the argument he makes, when and only when it is applied to police officers, succeeds often enough to not discount it's possible success. I've seen too many videos of police officers pumping bullets into prone and probably dying subjects on the grounds that, "Hey, they're still moving! They're an imminent threat!" And for this reason I'm actually not that eager to convict Van Dyke of first degree murder for doing what he wsa trained to do. It's the training that needs to change, and prosecuting police officers in politically and racially motivated trials is too blunt an instrument for effecting the change I want. But at the end of the day, the law requires reasonableness, and in this case neither Officer Van Dyke nor Mr. Branca isn't showing much.
















Sunday, December 13, 2015

Diversity Shakedown

Form the “Campaign Quarterly” of the Georgia Tech Office of Development:


Intel is investing $5 million in Georgia Tech over the next five years to build a pipeline of underrepresented engineers and computer scientists.

Five million dollars!

(It never gets old.)

The Intel Diversity Scholars Program will recruit and retain underrepresented minority students to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors and prepare them for

. . . working at Intel?

graduate school.

Oh.

The effort is anticipated to benefit roughly 1,000 high school and undergraduate students over five years through scholarships, mentoring, and professional development workshops. 

I would like to know, when the money is spent, how much of it went to scholarships and how much of it went to create make-work at Georgia Tech for people who also aren’t doing engineering for Intel.

Earlier this year, Intel announced a new goal: to achieve full representation of underrepresented minorities and women by the year 2020 in its U.S. workforce,

Is there a way to track the size of Intel’s “U.S. workforce over the next fifteen years?  Especially compared to its, you know, non-U.S. workforce?  And is Intel on the record how it counts H1B workers?

along with a $300 million Diversity in Technology Initiative to help build a workforce pipeline.

Intel has a market cap north of $160 billion.  With a “b”.

Rosalind Hudnell:  not an engineer.
“Filling the tech industry pipeline with diverse students is critical to increasing the number of diverse engineers and computer scientists in the field,” said Rosalind Hudnell, vice president of human resources and chief diversity officer at Intel. “The goal of this program is to inspire and support more women and underrepresented minorities to earn technical degrees so we can hire them down the road – we want to foster those future tech innovators.”

Saturday, December 05, 2015

On the Death of Christendom

From Michel Houellebecq’s Submission:

[Rediger] called it tragic that their irrational hostility to Islam should blind them to the obvious:  on every question that really mattered, the nativists and the Muslims were in perfect agreement.  When it came to rejecting atheism and humanism, or the necessary submission of women, or the return of patriarchy, they were fighting exactly the same fight.  And today this fight, to establish a new organic phase of civilization, could no longer be waged in the name of Christianity.  Islam, its sister faith, was newer, simpler, and more true . . . which is why Islam had taken up the torch.  Thanks to the simpering seductions and the lewd enticements of the progressives, the Church had lost its ability to oppose moral decadence, to renounce homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and women in the workplace.  The facts were plain:  Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more that fifth-century Rome could have done.  This wave of new immigrants, with their traditional culture – of natural hierarchies, the submission of women, and respect for elders – offered a historic opportunity for the moral and familial rearmament of Europe.  These immigrants held out the hope of a new golden age for the old continent.  Some were Christian; but there was no denying that the vast majority were Muslim.

He, Rediger, was the first to admit the greatness of medieval Christendom, whose artistic achievements would live forever in human memory; but little by little it had given way, it had ben forced to compromise with rationalism, it had renounced its temporal powers, and so had sealed its own doom – and why?  In the end, it was a mystery; God had ordained it so.

Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Is This Movie Pro-Castro?

On the recommendation of Ace-of-Spades (IIRC), I saw the movie Before Night Falls about the gay Cuban dissident Reinaldo Arenas and based on his autobiography of the same name. Arenas was imprisoned by the Castro regime for a couple of years in the '70s, fled to America during the Mariel boatlift in 1980, and, dying of AIDS, committed suicide in New York in 1990.

Arenas was a poet and novelist. Although Arenas was ostensibly imprisoned for publishing outside of Cuba without a permit, the movie portrays, apparently accurately, the source of his antagonism towards the regime as being its policies discouraging homosexuality. Arenas doesn't seem to have had much of a problem with dictatorship as such, only to his own persecution by it.

But in the movie, the Cuban campaign against homosexuals wasn't especially brutal as persecutions go. For instance, Arenas' first arrest was in response to an accusation of molestation. This was false, but nonetheless properly a crime. Homosexuals were subject to roundups, but not massacres; on the contrary, the homosexuals being arrested didn't even look especially intimidated. Cuban prisons were cramped, ugly places, as Third-world prisons tend to be, but neither Arenas nor any other prisoner is shown being tortured.

What was portrayed graphically was the homosexual activity. In this respect, the atmosphere of the movie reminded me of nothing so much as Midnight Cowboy, whose gross sexual content initially earned an MPAA "X" rating. From what I recall of its retrospectives, Midnight Cowboy set out to portray the grizzly brutality and misery of that kind of life, and succeeded brilliantly; the filmmakers acknowleged that the film could never made under today's orthodoxies.

But, what was the intention behind Before Night Falls? I don't know. I don't think I'm alone among straight men in being viscerally put-off by depictions of male homosexual activity, but its entirely possible that the filmmakers counted on straight audiences being conditioned (or intimidated) into bearing this with approval. But it's also possible that the movie set out, in the guise of a pro-gay polemic, to subtly imply that, yeah, this kind of behavior needed some discouragement. For the record, I'm against Castro's particular methods of discouragement . .. unless the alternative is what we actually have now: dissidents from homosexuality suffering our own persecution.