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

Remi Gaillard, Meet These Guys

Some of my favorite videos on the internet are those of Remi Gaillard kicking soccer balls into windows, trashcans, moving vehicles, and any other opening he can find in France from long distances. For example:



From Tommy Dee at The Knicks Blog, here's his basketball equivalent in the suburbs of the United States. Check these kids banging shots from insane distances:



These shots are so nuts that I wasn't sure if I should post about them in case they were faked. We had a basketball hoop secured to the edge of the roof of our garage back home. To the right of the garage was a walkway to the front door of our house (no one ever actually used that door, they just came in through the garage). The walkway wrapped around some shrubbery that obscured the hoop if you stood on the front stoop. We tried, but I don't think we ever made that shot.

Here's another Remi Gaillard for good measure:

Comments, (0)

A Realization About Media Bias

I've come to a realization about media bias. A claim of media bias says more about the biases of the accuser than the accused. What the accuser sees ends up being what the accuser looks for. There's enough misreporting and controversy out there to be spread around the entire political spectrum so that each side perceives bias. That's not to say it doesn't exist. If someone believes something and a media outlet consistently reports it in a manner that doesn't agree with that opinion, it is natural to think of that media outlet as reporting its biases rather than facts. Because how could anyone, with the facts available, ever portray your side in a negative light?

With that in mind, let me point out maybe the most egregious example of the media carrying water for the Republican Party. One of the greatest moral failings of the United States in the past decade was its torture policy:

From the early 1930's until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.

Combine this with the media's coverage of the run up to the Iraq War and you get an indictment against the national media for pro-conservative bias.

With things like economic policy, health care reform, and national defense I expect "working the refs" to work. To a certain extent it's all a big game. I was genuinely surprised about the lack of coverage for my second example. In May a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida was firebombed.

Authorities found remnants of a crude pipe bomb in the explosion, which occurred about 9:30 p.m. Monday at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on St. Johns Bluff Road.

“This was not a harmless prank,” Casey said. “We found shrapnel from the blast a hundred yards away close to [Florida] 9A.”

At the time of the blast about 60 people were inside. The firebomb caused minor damage to the building. There were no injuries.

Casey said the minor damage was primarily due to the strength of the mosque building. If anyone had been closer to the blast, they would have been injured or killed, he said.

Is there something I'm missing with this story? Has there been any coverage of this on a national level? Given the coverage surrounding the pathetic failures of the underpants bomber and the Times Square bomber, the fact that the bombing didn't kill anyone shouldn't stop the media from reporting it. In this case the bomb actually went off. The media is often accused of anti-American, pro-Muslim bias. In that is the case, where is the coverage for this story?

Comments, (0)

Stopping Comment Spam

Matt Yglesias at Think Progress:

In response to the rather severe outbreak of spambots we’ve been suffering recently, my colleagues of a more technical bent want to try out a new and somewhat draconian measure whereby all comments will be automatically tagged as spam unless the commenter has a previously approved comment. That means that yours truly (and intern Ryan McNeely, as soon as I get around to telling him) will need to spend a fair amount of time this week watching the spam filter and approving legitimate comments. That’ll be a bit of a hassle for a few days, but it should mean that swiftly we’ll be back to a scenario where regulars can comment unimpeded and auto-spam is eliminated.

I've found that this is the only way to do it. I tried banning IP addresses, blacklisting websites, and adding a minimum time between posts. It doesn't stop the spam. It's possible that with a lot more work I could reach the Holy Grail of Spam Blockage - near perfect automated spam filtering - but it's probably not worth the effort considering the number of comments I get. My guess is that it's not worth the effort for 99% of blogs, even if they get up to 50 comments per post.

So now I get an email every time I get a new commenter. There's a slight delay the first time you post. Maybe it slows the conversation a little. I read it and approve it and then you can comment without interruption forever. I used to get a ton of comment spam showing up on my blog. After the switch in comment policy I got a ton of spam showing up in my emails. Now I barely get any.

If you care about your comment section, and want it both free of spam and full of good comments you'll have to approve the comments yourself. That's why you get comment thread cesspools on major news sites. They don't actually give a shit about user feedback. Comments exist as a marketing tactic. "Come visit our site because we care what you think!" They don't. There's no way they can find a worthy comment in those pools of piss and crap. If you want a good comment section you have to maintain it.

Comments, (1)

RIP, James Gammon

Nice catch, Hayes. Don't ever fuckin' do it again.

The best manager the Cleveland Indians ever had has passed away (via LGM). Some more:

Well, you may run like Hayes, but you hit like shit.

And:

[Vaughn has just given up a grand slam in his first appearance of the season]
Pepper: Go get him?
Lou: No, let's see how he reacts.
Harry: Well Brown is aparently going to stick with Vaughn here as the Indians trail 8-0. Coleman steps in - a .281 lifetime hitter. Taylor with the sign; Vaughn into the motion with his pitch.
[Vaughn beans Coleman between the shoulderblades]
Harry: Uh oh!
Lou: Interesting.
Harry: 'Bout time, it's 8-0.
Umpire: [To Vaughn] You! You're gone!
Rick: What?!
Umpire: You heard me, you're gone!
Rick: He was right on top of the plate!
Lou: I think you can go get him now.

Comments, (0)

Hitchhiking

Someone recently brought up how no one hitchhikes in America anymore. With the increase in crime since World War II people have become less trusting and therefore less willing to hitchhike. My narrative on crime has always been that crime in America has been dropping steadily since its peak in the early 1990s. So why are people still afraid of hitchhiking? Why do we think our society is more dangerous than it is?



Violent crime is back down to 1975 levels and homicide rates are down where they were in the early 1960s. From the 1960s to the 1990s crime rose steadily in America. My guess is that people who were raised in the 1950s and 1960s were more apt to hitchhike because they were taught that they could trust others by their parents. However, as they became adults the situation changed dramatically. The rise in crime in the 60s, 70s, and 80s decimated that trust people had in strangers. This generation taught its children that the world was a more dangerous place than its parents taught them. Subsequent generations have gone along with this even as the crime rate has dropped.

My conclusion is that the explosion in violent crime from the mid-60s to the early 90s damaged people's trust in society severely. The effect of subsequent reductions in crime has not and will not have an increase in trust that is equivalent to the decrease in trust associated with the increase in crime. This, I think, is pretty standard in psychology. People remember the negative much more than they remember the positive. Nancy Etcoff's TED talk on "the surprising science of happiness delves into this.:

It in part reflects the anatomy of the human emotion system. Which is that we have both a positive and a negative system. And our negative system is extremely sensitive. It is our sentinel. It is there to protect us against danger. So for example, we're born loving the taste of something sweet, and reacting adversely to the taste of something bitter. Yet we are much more sensitive to the bitter than the sweet. We can detect the bitter at one part per two million. We can detect the sweet at one part per 200. We also find the people are more averse to losing than they are happy to gain. People are very loss-averse. I also have up here the marriage formula. This is by a psychologist named John Gottman, in Seattle, who does work with couples, in couples therapy. And he finds that the formula for a happy marriage is five positive remarks, or interactions, for every one negative. (Laughter) And that's how powerful the one negative is. Especially expressions of contempt or disgust, well you really need a lot of positives to upset that.

Comments, (2)

Right of Publicity After Death

The right of publicity:

The right of publicity is generally defined as an individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona, which shall be referred to in this article as the "individual's identity". Protecting the individual from the loss of commercial value resulting from the unauthorized appropriation of an individual's identity for commercial purposes is the principle purpose of this body of law.

There are several issues dealing with the right of publicity and the law varies by state. Does the right of publicity apply to anyone or just public personalities? I think it should apply to anyone rather than just celebrities, just like shield laws should apply to anyone rather than just professional journalists. At what point does the right of publicity take precedence over the First Amendment? The more commercial and less newsworthy the use of someone's persona, the more the courts have given the edge to the right of publicity. The issue I want to look at is whether the right of publicity should survive death. The courts have said it does. I think that's reasonable, but with some caveats.

On Google Books I found a little reading on the case law from a section of Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials, by E. Richard Gold (Amazon link). Most of the history centers around the use of Elvis Presley's likeness after his death (there's also a whole website devoted to Elvis-related legal cases). The quick history is that initially, in Memphis Development v. Factors Etc., Inc, the courts found that the exclusive license to market Presley's persona expired when he died because a persona was more than a piece of property. Later, in Factors Etc. Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc. and subsequent decisions, the courts ruled that the right of publicity could be transferred just like any other piece of property. Read the section title "Creating a Descendible Right of Publicity" (I linked to that section) for a three page summary if you're interested in the details. It's not heavy reading. Suffice it to say that now whoever owns your right of publicity before death owns it after death.

The arguments make sense. If I bought Brad Pitt's right of publicity and he died tomorrow I would be out a lot of money if I couldn't exploit his likeness after the death. In a way, the courts have provided a safety net for an inherently risky investment. That means there is greater financial incentive to acquire the rights to public personas and therefore a greater financial incentive to create one. Is it in the public's interest to spur people to create public personas or would it be better to have people competing for the best way to exploit it after the person dies? I lean towards the latter but I don't think it's black and white. Certainly someone should have commercial control over their persona when they are alive. However, assuming they have sold that control, giving a monopoly over that persona for all of time is too long and restrictive. Can you imagine if our own historical figures had sold the rights to their personas? Correct me if I'm wrong but I see no provisions that expire these rights. Even copyright law caps exclusivity at the author's life plus 70 years. I've said before that that's ridiculously too long, but that would at least be a starting point. Why not bring it in line with copyright law and say that the right to exploit a person's name and likeness expires 70 years after the person's death?

Comments, (0)

Stat Ogling - Phil Hughes vs. Johan Santana

Phil Hughes had a pretty good first half, so I was thinking, "Hey, that non-trade the Yankees made with the Twins for Johan Santana is looking a lot better now." Well, let's look at that. Since Santana was traded to the Mets rather than the Yankees Phil Hughes has had one disastrous season, one great season in the bullpen, and is now putting together a solid season as a starter. Johan Santana put up one badass season, one injury-shortened season, and what is shaping up to be another badass season. Including this season up to the All-Star break, Hughes is three wins above replacement; Santana is 13.2 wins above replacement since the trade.

In conclusion, no, you are wrong, Jeffrey. Some other considerations make my claim a little less wrong though. Santana pitches in the weaker hitting National League so his numbers would be down in the AL East and Hughes' numbers would be up in the NL East. Hughes has made just over a million dollars since the trade while Santana has made over fifty-five. Also, Hughes alone wouldn't have been the package. If Cano, Chamberlain, or Melky Cabrera had been included the Yankees would have lost more value. If Ian Kennedy, Austin Jackson, or Jose Tabata had been included the Yankees would have lost a trade chip. Over the life of Santana's contract I still think he'll be more valuable than Hughes. Considering Hughes will probably make less than a quarter of the salary - assuming he gets a decent, but not huge, contract in his first couple years of free agency - it makes him a better value. The Yankees actually look like they've been keeping to a (very high) budget so it's possible that if they obtained Santana they wouldn't have obtained Sabathia. Sabathia + Hughes over the life of Santana's contract is certainly a better deal.

Comments, (0)

Irrational Actors

This hilarious take on World War II has been making the rounds:

But then there are some shows that go completely beyond the pale of enjoyability, until they become nothing more than overwritten collections of tropes impossible to watch without groaning.

I think the worst offender here is the History Channel and all their programs on the so-called "World War II".

Let's start with the bad guys. Battalions of stormtroopers dressed in all black, check. Secret police, check. Determination to brutally kill everyone who doesn't look like them, check. Leader with a tiny villain mustache and a tendency to go into apopleptic rage when he doesn't get his way, check. All this from a country that was ordinary, believable, and dare I say it sometimes even sympathetic in previous seasons.

I wouldn't even mind the lack of originality if they weren't so heavy-handed about it. Apparently we're supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? And that they diverted all their resources to use in making ever bigger and scarier death camps, even in the middle of a huge war? Real people just aren't that evil. And that's not even counting the part where as soon as the plot requires it, they instantly forget about all the racism nonsense and become best buddies with the definitely non-Aryan Japanese.

This reminds me of something I was thinking about recently. Often times, when analyzing a television show or a movie, I'll complain about how stupid people are acting (24). If people would just act rationally (listen to Jack Bauer) things (investigations into terrorist attacks) would work out. Why am I asking TV characters to act rationally though, when real human beings often don't make any sense?

Link via Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Comments, (0)

RIP, George Steinbrenner

I'm not a God-believing man, but this is still pretty poignant given the recent death of Bob Sheppard:

Seems like the Boss was waiting for an appropriate Voice to introduce him as he comes through the Pearly Gates.

Big Stein certainly has a mixed legacy, even within the Yankees organization. As a fan of the New York Yankees I'll certainly curse a few of his moves after I celebrate the overwhelming good he did for my favorite sports franchise.

It's funny, being in the Boston area I see a lot of things through the eyes of the "enemy". One of my friends in Red Sox Nation is quick to say that he would love to have Steinbrenner (presumably only the good parts) as his owner. To a certain extent the Red Sox did benefit from Steinbrenner. Without Steinbrenner I doubt any team would be spending $150 million on player salaries. I don't think the Red Sox would have been pushed as hard as they have in the past decade without their Soviet Union. Maybe "The Curse" would have been broken but I don't think you would have seen teams as strong as those put out in 2004 and 2007. You might not even have those "monster seats" and other renovations spurred by the need to keep up with the Yankees. Steinbrenner's cash elevated the level of play in the American League East.

Comments, (2)

Mehserle Convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter

A year ago I was surprised that BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed and restrained man in the back on a San Fransisco subway platform. Last week Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder. So many times it is our own government that fails to hold police officers accountable for infractions or crimes. In this case it was 12 jurors who gave Mehserle a lighter sentence. Ultimately though, it's the public who lets police officers off in every case. Government officials execute our will and giving police the overwhelming benefit of the doubt seems to sadly be our will.

There are two major issues I want to discuss with regards to this case. Did Mehserle really intend to use his taser rather than his gun? If that is true, how much should it change his punishment? As to the former question, the jury believed the accused:

Their verdict suggests they believed Mehserle when he testified that he had mistaken his pistol for his Taser as he sought to subdue the 22-year-old Grant at Fruitvale Station in Oakland following a fight on a BART train, a shooting that was captured on video by five other riders as well as a platform camera.

For me that's hard to believe because I like to think that the majority of cops are highly trained in the use of firearms. More importantly, there is evidence to suggest that Mehserle lied:

Taking the stand near the end of the trial, Mehserle testified that he had decided to use his Taser on Grant because he saw Grant put his right hand in his pants pocket and believed the Hayward man might be reaching for a gun.

Mehserle said he had accidentally pulled out his pistol and fired a single shot before realizing he had grabbed the wrong weapon.

Mehserle's Taser was positioned to the left of his belt buckle. The right-handed officer's gun was on his right hip.

However:

Video footage played repeatedly in court showed that as Mehserle raised his gun, Pirone had his left knee on Grant's neck. Pirone's left hand was pressing Grant's head into the platform, and Pirone's right hand was holding Grant's right arm - the same one Mehserle said he had struggled with - behind his back.

Furthermore, another cop on the scene was fired because she wasn't truthful about the incident to investigators:

Pirone and his partner the night of the shooting, Marysol Domenici, were fired earlier this year by BART - Pirone for his actions on the train platform and Domenici for the way she reported the incident to investigators.

So Mehserle lied about what happened. Another cop wasn't truthful. Why should their version of the story be believed? Would jurors give that benefit to a civilian defendant? Police officers certainly need to be given some edge in credibility over accused criminals but if they are obviously not truthful then that edge needs to be repealed.

Let's assume that we believe Mehserle when he says he meant to shoot Grant with a taser. Should that matter? As I've said on this blog before, I believe tasers should be a substitute for deadly force. If a police officer is in a position where he or she feels anyone is threatened, and were going to use a gun, the taser is a substitute method to subdue the criminal without killing him or her. Instead, tasers are used substitutes for physically restraining someone. Tasers can and do kill people. They should only be used when someone is threatened. Grant was not threatening anyone on the platform, therefore the use of the taser was not justified.

A conviction of involuntary manslaughter was at least warranted. Why not voluntary manslaughter though? Here's the question I would ask about that situation. You know a taser is less deadly than a gun but that it can kill. What if the officer hit the criminal with a blunt object in the back of the head, not intending to kill him, but it resulted in death? What if the officer shot the suspect in the leg, not intending to kill him, but it result in death. Remember Sean Taylor? Isn't the use of force in an unjustified action subject to greater penalties than a mere accident?

Comments, (1)