boonville blog, by jeff egnaczyk - you are listening to me talk

State of the Death Penalty

Death penalty supporters, you have a problem. Last year the ACLU put on a full-court press against the death penalty in response to the Troy Davis case. I think what that organization did last year is deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. The battle was lost, but in the process it exposed something ugly about some death penalty supporters. Maybe the two examples I'm going to talk about don't represent you all, but what I saw was prominent.

The Troy Davis case should have been an easy decision for the state of Georgia. There was far too much doubt to execute that man. Go back and read the story. Under those circumstances an execution was unconscionable. Georgia went ahead and killed him anyway. You can say he was found guilty in a court of law, and you'd be right. Technically everyone did what they were supposed to do. Death is a boundary that you cannot come back from though. And for the state to prescribe that as punishment for someone is a grave act. And yet the system could not find a way to stop a very questionable execution. Is the death penalty process so rigid that it cannot stop - or at the very least pause - such an act?

The other telling moment was at a Republican Presidential debate. Rick Perry was asked about authorizing 234 executions during his tenure as Governor of Texas. It's a disgusting number in any nation, let alone a free democracy. And we know now that it is almost certain that Rick Perry authorized the death of an innocent man in Cameron Todd Willingham. Perry, like most death penalty supporters, ignored the many problems afflicting the death penalty process and defended his record by saying "The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place". I've come to expect that level of glibness from death penalty supporters about the use of the state to kill people. What gets me the most about this incident is the reaction of the crowd:

When NBC’s Brian Williams asked Perry the question about the death penalty and pointed to the 234 executions – even before Perry answered – the Republican debate crowd erupted in applause for the governor’s actions. Perry pointed to the applause as indicating a vast majority of Americans supports capital punishment.

I get that you support the death penalty. But can't you at least acknowledge how awful it is that it has to be done? We're not talking about killing Osama bin Laden here. This is the death of 234 residents of America. How is the simple mention of 234 executions worthy of applause?

And so we see the death penalty position plagued by stubbornness and glee. Those are two sad mentalities when it comes to the death penalty.

The ACLU takes a lot of positions around the world. Many people in America outright hate them because they have the audacity to criticize the policies of America and its allies. They are doing the same thing domestically with their criticism of the death penalty. Inside the borders of America I think it is probably their most important cause. I hope they continue the quality of work they did last year. It'll be a long fight, but I hope this year they chip away at it.

Comments, (0)

Taxing the Rich (Less)

Mitt Romney is taking a lot of heat for the low income tax rate he pays on his large income. I tend to think a progressive tax system is a good idea, so I agree it's not optimal. Let's be honest though, Mitt Romney is just doing what every person in America does. We all try to minimize our tax burden. We do it with charitable donations, interest on student loans or mortgages, and other tax credits for whatever else is deemed worthy. Romney's a wealthy man, so he can afford to pay people to save him money. Because the system is complicated, professionals are better at saving money than the average person. That our tax laws allow this is a flaw in the system, not Mitt Romney. I believe the saying is "don't hate the player, hate the game".

Comments, (0)

Personal Lives

Can we take a moment before I start this post to acknowledge the irony of Republicans being angry that a presidential candidate’s personal life was brought up in a campaign? Anyway...

I've always been against making an issue out of the personal life of public figures such as politicians, athletes, or entertainers. For entertainers it’s a little tricky because they often market themselves and the life they live. Athletes more often than not do not do this though. As for politicians, I think these types of stories are probably one of the reasons that we get such disreputable people in politics. Why would any good person want to get into politics so that their personal life - with all of its inevitable blemishes - can be made public knowledge to all? Seriously, I’m a pretty boring and stable guy, but I yelled at a guy in a bar that one time. I got in a fight in college (OK, I got my ass kicked) once. Sometimes I am a shit shitty husband. Why would I ever subject myself to the scrutiny of equally boring yet fallible people?

I used to have an exception to this rule. It was for people whose personal actions were at odds with what they advocated for in public life. Watching conservatives advocate for “traditional” marriage and then seeing them turn out to be seeing prostitutes or looking for homosexual sex in public bathrooms or having affairs is actually sort of cliche now. I have little sympathy for that hypocrisy coming to light and I don’t mind seeing it ruin a career. Conversely, besides making it harder to work with his image-conscious colleagues, I don’t think Anthony Weiner did anything worth quitting over, as long as everything was consensual.

And just to make clear that I’m not carving out this exception solely for my ideological leanings, let’s talk about environmentalists (in the broad sense of the term). While it’s usually a distraction from an important issue, I always cringe when I see one flying in a private jet.

It’s a fine line. I am of the opinion that the system you build is more important than your personal actions. If Larry Craig helped outlaw homosexual marriage in the United States he would have done more for that “good” (which isn’t good at all) than the “bad” his trolling for sex in a bathroom would have done. Ultimately I think we should note hypocrisy as long as it doesn’t distract us from the issue.

I reconsidered this rule on hypocrisy the other day though. Should problems in someone's personal life be fair game? For example, I believe the military doesn't allow adultery. The logic is that infidelity speaks to someone's morals and ethics, and the military can't afford to have people who don't have the highest of either. With the military it's tough to argue against that point. In any other industry - public service included - I still think you can be a productive employee and have a mess of a personal life. However, in the case of an elected official a private scandal causes embarrassment. It also leads to less people voting for you because, while I'm an open and understanding guy, a lot of people vote on personal issues. So anyone up for election would want to do whatever it takes to stop personal issues from coming to light. Couldn't that make them susceptible to blackmail? In an executive position a blackmailer would wield tremendous influence and power. I still think it falls short of justification for our society’s focus on the private lives of public officials. But when you think about it, it’s like a positive feedback loop. The more people care about the private lives of politicians the more it will be covered and the more it will be important to keep a clean background. The more it is covered the more people will care about it.

Comments, (1)

A Collection of My Favorite Quotes

Let's say I posted a collection of quotes from the works of Kurt Vonnegut. Would that be copyright infringement? I don't think there's an absolutely correct answer to that question. In this case I think my post would be covered by fair use because the post is non-commercial and has attribution, while the quotes are short compared to the overall works. The owner of the copyright might disagree. I don't think I'd be getting a DMCA take down notice anyway, nor do I think said notice would hold up under scrutiny. It's up for debate though.

Now what if I picked quotes that demonstrated a certain style of writing? For example, Vonnegut liked to use recurring catch phrases like "hi ho" and "so it goes" to finish off his points. If I picked out a couple dozen of those quotes from four of his books I could show you how he uses them and maybe try to make a point about why he uses them. That's literary criticism.

Now here's a 3 minute video of clips from AMC's Breaking Bad, probably the best show on television these days. The video is a compilation of all the times the show shoots from the perspective of an inanimate object. Now it's not the best criticism. The maker of the video doesn't add anything other than a soundtrack. But he's clearly bringing to demonstrating a technique that the show uses. And just because it's not an essay doesn't mean it's not valid criticism. It's just in a different form.

Breaking Bad Remix // POV Compilation from kogonada on Vimeo.

Yes, the video is using copyrighted work, but I don't see how it's not fair use. And I'm not saying any video of copyrighted work on Vimeo or Youtube is fair use. In this case though internet video sites are providing a new way of critiquing and analyzing art.

Comments, (0)

The Liberal Media

Yesterday's anti-SOPA/PIPA protests across the web are a good example of why I have a hard time believing the media is all that liberal. I've been following SOPA/PIPA through organizations like EFF, Free Press, and Demand Progress. I rarely check major news sites anymore so I could be wrong, but I don't think this issue was covered much at all in those circles. And why would it be? The parent companies of these organizations all support SOPA/PIPA. The law makes it easier to shut down websites with a claim of copyright infringement and these companies think that's in their interest. The Wikipedia blackout forced the news divisions of these companies to acknowledge that the proposed laws existed. There's no way they could ignore it. And now as a result a lot more people know about the issue and took some kind of action (even if signing an online petition isn't as effective as calling your representative). Maybe the protests won't educate enough people. Maybe people will only take notice for a day. More likely the opposition won't be able to sustain itself against the constant barrage of lobbying and money the entertainment industry can wield. But yesterday's protests - similar to last summer's Occupy protests - forced people to talk about an issue that wasn't getting much play.

The corporate ownership of the "mainstream media" has always undercut claims of liberal bias to a certain extent. I've said before that I think media bias claims say more about the claimant than the defendant, but I don't think that means there is no "liberal" bias. Journalists are people and people have their biases. Trying to eliminate that is not realistic. And really it's the gross inaccuracies in reporting brought on by incompetence that we should worry about the most. But corporate owners have their biases too and they ultimately decide whose voice they broadcast or print. So when people cite polls that say the majority of journalists vote Democratic they fail to ask what the majority of ownership votes. Even citing those polls as evidence of liberal bias is flawed because it strictly equates liberalism with the Democratic Party. While the party takes many liberal positions it's also become a more centrist, pro-corporate party. So sometimes I think claims of liberal bias get conflated with claims of Democratic Party bias. And even the word "liberal" is a little malleable. So instead of rambling on about the precise classification of liberalism, leftism, and the Democratic Party I'll just conclude by saying the brand of liberalism that is critical towards corporations is almost certainly neutered in the mainstream media.

Comments, (0)

The End of Grammar

Among other things, the use of "your" when people mean "you're" on social media sites - mostly Facebook - is out of control. I think we are at the point in our society where the meaning of "your" is going to up and change. Grammar is not immutable and to say otherwise is both arrogant and ignorant. Changes in language are inevitable. So while I do think that correctly using "you're" when you mean "you are" is the best way to communicate* it looks like only about 50% of people on Facebook agree with me. And if enough people start using language in a certain way it eventually becomes standard.

Here's what I think is going to be the tipping point. One of the remaining Republican presidential candidates is going to tweet something like "@BarackObama your killing jobs in this country!" My money is on Rick Perry. Romney is too polished. Gingrich likens himself as some kind of intellectual so he’s probably careful about these things. Herman Cain was a good candidate for this but now he's out. I suspect Bachmann was less of a screw up than you'd think but that’s irrelevant because she's out as well. Palin was the odds on favorite had she entered the race. I'm guessing Huntsman’s handle is something like @qrx783 which is why nobody knows who he is. I bet you didn’t know that he’s out too (or maybe you didn’t know he was in). Any grammatical errors Ron Paul makes will be drowned out by the ridiculous substance of his statements. So that leaves Governor Perry. In the mold of the last Texas governor who ran for President, he’s proud of not knowing what he’s talking about.

In response to the error liberal bloggers are going to make fun of him. They'll make too big of an issue of it of course. Instead of ignoring it Perry will fight back. In a moment of unity the GOP challengers will rally around him. Conservative pundits will double down. Fox News and every city's embarrassing #2 newspaper (e.g. NY Post, Boston Herald) will write incendiary headlines. The lapdogs to “unbiased reporting” they are, CNN and The Washington Post will write serious articles about it. And then it’ll be a talking point. Grammar is elitist. Just like science. You think you’re better than us? Typical liberals. I can’t wait.



* And the point of language is simply to help people communicate. Grammar exists to further that goal. If failing to adhere to a certain rule of grammar doesn’t make it harder to communicate then the rule (or stylistic choice) is not that important. I'm thinking of semicolons. I am stickler only for grammar that when lacking makes it hard to communicate. People who fail to use “your” correctly are being lazy and make it harder to communicate.

** 10 points to the person who finds the most grammatical errors in the last 10 posts on this blog! Hint: I have no idea how to use commas. Instead of meticulously grammar checking this post I’ll just let you have fun with the irony of grammatical errors in a post extolling good grammar.

Comments, (2)

Where Does the MBTA Go From Here?

The MBTA is proposing two scenarios under which it would raise fares in order to close its budget gap. There was a time when I would have gotten riled up and fought this. Now the funding problems just tire me. I feel myself turning into a detached observer. "Why can't they just fix it?", I mumble as I read the headline in the paper over the shoulder of a fellow commuter.

I still take public transit to work. The D-line and an MWRTA bus have taken over for the commuter rail, but I'm still fighting the good fight. Thinking we would move to the suburbs Carol and I bought a car in 2010. We didn't move and in the meantime I've driven a little bit more in the past year and a half. When I do drive it only convinces me more of this country's need for effective public transit - both for commuting and longer high speed travel. The productivity lost while Americans wait in traffic is astounding. It's easily in the billions of dollars a year. Think what Americans could do with an hour on a train with a wi-fi connection. Or think about that as an hour of doing nothing instead of an agitating car ride. I think the isolation and stress of a drive weighs on our health as well.

There are certainly drawbacks to such a system. It would certainly cost a lot. Don't let me fool you, it's still aggravating riding the T. More of us would be giving up the control of our daily commute to a government agency or a private corporation. We'd lose some flexibility in our daily lives and we'd lose that sense of freedom that having a car gives. With the drawbacks and the entrenched automobile culture and infrastructure it would be hard to convince enough people to make the change. As our big cities continue to grow though I still think that American society in the future is going to need something like this though.

But back to the immediate problem. One MBTA proposal tries to spread the fare increases around while the other attempts to eliminate low use routes. This is a simplification of what's happening (even the lower fare increase plan raises prices 35%) but it does indicate two different philosophies. In the former scenario the MBTA tries to serve a large area for general transportation needs, not just the work commute. In the former the MBTA focuses on high traffic routes and peak times. I'm extrapolating. Furthermore, some of the changes being proposed - like eliminating night and weekend service on the commuter rail, weekend service on several T lines, and daily ferry service - start pushing the MBTA toward the latter even more. Maybe the MBTA retreats a little bit, strengthens its core, then expands slowly. It could be a smaller, more effective service. Maybe it could cede some of the outer bus routes to other transit authorities like the MWRTA. The problem I see with that is cutting service on the fringes essentially cedes that area to automobiles, especially if no other transit authority is ready to step in. If and when the train or bus does makes its return the area will be more of a driving culture. It's tough to break people from that. Keep in mind this is all speculation from someone who doesn't study anything beyond how long it takes him to get from Longwood to Woodland on the D line.

Most people are going to complain the loudest about the fare hikes. No doubt the fare hikes are going to hurt. An extra $21 a month for a Link Pass will only suck for me. The poor, on the other hand, will feel a lot of pressure. New York City's fares aren't comparable because of the different in size and efficacy of the two systems, but it is somewhat valid to bring Boston more in line with what is going on in other cities. But I think what's interesting is what this could mean for the reach of the MBTA.

Comments, (0)

Glik's Exoneration, Cops' Admission

I've been following the Simon Glik case for a while now. Glik was arrested for recording a 2008 arrest in Boston Common. The charges were dropped soon after but Glik filed a lawsuit against the Boston Police Department. Over the summer a federal appeals court ruled the arrest violated the First Amendment. Now the Boston Police Department is admitting its officers were wrong to make the arrest.

The court ruling makes it clear that recording a cop - or anyone - in public does not constitute wiretapping under Massachusetts law. More generally it says that even if the state did consider Glik's act unlawful that would violate the First Amendment. This is a huge win for police accountability, especially with the proliferation of videos on the internet documenting abuse of power by law enforcement.

The admission by the BPD puts it on record that the department knows this is wrong. Massachusetts police now have a clear court ruling and the admission by the biggest department in the state that this is improper police conduct. If (I'll hold off cynically saying "when") it happens again the offending police will have no excuses.

Comments, (0)

Humiliating People Because You Can

You've probably seen this dreck posted on Facebook:

Here...let me tick some people off...Did you get drug tested today? Thank you Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional? It's OK to drug test people who work for their money but not those who don't?... Re-post this if you'd like to see this done in all 50 states. I just did!! I totally agree it should be mandatory!

Let's ignore the larger issue with our nation's out of control War on Drugs, and focus on whether this violates the Fourth Amendment. For your reference:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let's be clear, a good enough argument will poke a hole in the Bill of Rights. Based on court precedents this is clearly legal. If sobriety checkpoints - where drivers are pulled over at random for no reason other than that they are in a car on a public road - are legal then the Fourth Amendment can certainly be set aside in order to receive a government benefit. If they haven't already (I'm not going to look it up) the courts will certainly allow a reduction in Fourth Amendment rights to receive that benefit. I don't agree with it, but from a constitutional law perspective we lost that fight long ago.

But a random drug test is almost the definition of an unreasonable search. The state literally has no evidence that you have committed a crime. In the case of welfare recipients being poor is not evidence of drug use. People seem to think that just because you interact with the government in some way you lose all your rights. Getting benefits is one example. Restrictions on speech in school is a common one as well. In my attempts to argue some sense into my Facebook friends, someone used the example of a required drug test for commercial driver's licenses in New York State. My town of Brookline, Massachusetts has disappointingly required fingerprinting for some "job-related licenses". That last one hurts because it's right in my back yard.

Interaction with the government is a pretty low bar for limiting the Bill of Rights. Remember, the government isn't its own thing. When complain about "the government" you're talking about a bunch of people elected by you and your fellow citizens to represent your will. Unelected officials are appointed to carry out that will. Everyone in this country receives some type of government service. That shouldn't make them subject to an invasive drug test.

On the surface people say that the drug testing is a way to cut costs. If people are so concerned about the government giving their money away they should be against randomly testing people for drugs instead of doing it only when they have evidence of drug use. That's a waste of more money. Probable cause not only helps protect suspects but it saves law enforcement from arresting and processing everyone they have some minor suspicion of. If we look at one of the states mentioned, Florida, the only reason they are starting drug testing is because the governor, Rick Scott, has a stake in the company, Solantic, that is going to be doing a lot of that drug testing. In that case I believe they are requiring welfare recipients to pay for the test. Slightly better from the taxpayer's perspective but inefficient and nonsensical given the goals of the welfare program. Instead of keeping the little money they have poor people will be paying the governor. Yeah, the company is owned by his wife now. I'm sure that won't go to him when he gets done using the government to pad his bank account. And when's he done with welfare recipients he'll move onto testing public employees. It's unabashed corruption, and wasteful to boot. And nobody cares because the issue has little to do with cutting costs. It's about humiliating those who we think we are better than. And in this country there are few greater signs that you're not a decent person than being poor. It's about showing that we're in charge of the people we're better than. We'll give you some money but you have to prostrate yourself in front us.

Interestingly, the four people I've seen post this on Facebook are all from my hometown. People in Central New York like to complain about the government getting into their business. One of those four people posted a pro-gun rights status just a few weeks later. Many, probably most, times, like keeping a strong Second Amendment, I agree with them. It just goes to show you though that people often only look at how government intervention affects their narrow interests. As soon as it's someone else we'll restrict rights.

Comments, (2)

NFL Season Review

The 2011 NFL season ended this past weekend. Buffalo got torched in New England in a perfect microcosm of their season. To say they started off strong would have been an understatement. They scored touchdowns on their first three drives and forced three-and-outs on the Patriots' first two. On the season Buffalo won its first three games putting up 113 points and beating those same New England Patriots in comeback fashion in week three. In both cases things got noticeably worse after that. Buffalo got to 5-2 before losing 7 straight games, some of which had scores like 44-7, 35-8, and 37-10. They crushed the Tim Tebow Show (more on that later) before their afore mentioned 21 point first quarter against the reigning AFC East champs. The Patriots then scored 49 (I'm not kidding) unanswered points to, for the second time in the season, remind Bills fans to never get their hopes up. To be fair Bills fans were smart enough after the first two weeks to know that wins over Kansas City and Oakland didn't mean anything. A number of factors brought Buffalo back to Earth and then buried them beneath it. Injuries hurt - Fred Jackson was the leading rusher in the league before being sent to injured reserve - but things were already turning sour before that. Watching those games as it all slipped away (side note: Comcast pissed us off one too many times so we dumped them for DirecTV and got a free season of Sunday Ticket so I could watch every Bills game) the obvious problem was Ryan Fitzpatrick's play. Right after he signed a hastily offered 6 year $59 million contract his play tanked.

Watching an obviously average quarterback misfire made me yearn for a legitimate top tier quarterback. Here's a ground breaking insight: good quarterbacks help your team. Fitzpatrick's inadequacies were magnified in this year of the quarterback. Aaron Rodgers (my fantasy quarterback this year) supplanted Tom Brady (the quarterback on my championship fantasy team last year) as the player of the year (I promise I will not mention fantasy football again). He put up 4,600 yards and it wasn't even interesting because he threw 45 touchdowns against only 6 interceptions. It doesn't stop there for the NFL. Drew Brees and Tom Brady both beat Dan Marino's yardage record. Matthew Stafford, a quarterback who plays on the Detroit Lions, threw for 41 touchdowns and over 5,000 yards. Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, and Ben Roethlisberger all threw for over 4,000 yards. Cam Newton threw for over 4,000 and 21 touchdowns while running for 14 more as a rookie. And yet maybe the best evidence of just how important the position is was the Indianapolis Colts who lost Peyton Manning for the year before the season and went from a Super Bowl contender to barely picking up two wins.

That's kind of what makes the whole Tim Tebow hysteria so annoying. It's like the sabermetric community finally convinced baseball fans/writers/pundits that pitcher wins weren't a good measurement (see Felix Hernandez's 2010 Cy Young win with only 13 wins) only to have football fans/writers/pundits take up the mantle. The Oakland Raiders couldn't win in week 17 so we'll have to hear about him for one more week, but that should be it. I'll give Tebow some credit: his ability to run helps Denver's strong running game. But a career running what amounts to the option is not long for this world. Tebow can't throw the ball long which gets exposed when teams with decent offenses put pressure on Denver (and let's be clear I'm including Buffalo in that group, so it's a low bar). Tebow was praised after a six game win streak in which he beat not one team that finished the year with a winning percentage over .500. The apex of the hysteria occurred when, after putting up only 7 points, he was bailed out by a series of events against the Bears that included Marion Barber failing to stay in bounds to run out the clock, Marion Barber fumbling on a potential game-winning touchdown run, the Bears secondary not covering the sidelines on the Broncos' final drive, a 59 yard game tying field goal, and a 51 yard overtime winner. And yet the week after that I actually saw a segment on ESPN asking what the better story was, the undefeated world-beateing Packers or Tim Tebow. In one of his wins he threw for 69 yards on 2-8 passing. This week, as his team was backing into the playoffs, Jim Nantz remarked at the 2 minute warning that the Broncos would get the ball back so Tebow could work his "magic". The score was 7-3 after 58 minutes of play. If Tim Tebow's "magic" included the ability to dilate time the Broncos could have played another 58 minutes and still would have been losing by a point. In a year when Cam Newton was having one of the better rookie seasons of all-time, praise for Tebow was particularly sickening. The guy could become a useful quarterback some day (I'll bet on not but I wish him luck) but right now people are giving the guy credit he doesn't deserve for some reason.

Some other notes...Good for the Detroit Lions on making the playoffs. The NFC playoffs look interesting. The Packers are obviously the best team but they have a suspect defense the New Orleans and even Detroit or Atlanta could expose. San Francisco looks strong on defense. The AFC looks like more of a grind-it-out playoff with Baltimore and Pittsburgh. I would love to see either of those teams go up against New England. The Jets missed the playoffs. Have you ever seen a franchise more satisfied with being slightly above or below average all the time? I'm hoping for a Packers-Patriots Super Bowl because I think we could see 100 points put up. I know I said I wouldn't talk about fantasy football, but I drafted pretty poorly this year (Chris Johnson, Dwayne Bowe, Mike Williams, Mike Thomas) outside of Aaron Rodgers and Willis McGahee so I lost the trophy this year.

Comments, (0)