Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AgelessDrifter

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1317
So, opinions on the sit-in?

General Discussion / Re: Limbo free on Steam today y'all
« on: June 23, 2016, 10:02:19 AM »
dammit, fully planned on downloading this and fully forgot

General Discussion / Re: Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 23, 2016, 05:08:26 AM »
College is a racket.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Not entirely inaccurate =/

Spamalot / Re: cover letters
« on: June 23, 2016, 05:07:16 AM »
Please tell me this is for some mail room job...

How are the cops going to know I sold that gun so they can come ask me if I got the guy's ID? Unless you have some of centralized gun registry and mandatory reporting, requiring someone to show ID when making a private purchase is pointless.

That's the point

Spamalot / Re: cover letters
« on: June 23, 2016, 02:56:59 AM »
He received the only 'A

map is about ids, not background checks


If you don't run a background check what exactly are you going to do with an ID? Make sure it matches his credit card?

Keep a record of who owns what guns in case they crop up in a crime down the road.

Imagine a spamalot in which we are all mods
Across a number of professions, bosses have been vanishing. Last year, Tony Hsieh, CEO of the online shoe mega-retailer Zappos, announced that the company would implement Holacracy, a hierarchy-free office model with which Hsieh had become enamored after attending a conference talk by its creators. Under Holacracy—which bills itself as a system that “removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles”—Zappos employees would design their own job descriptions and work with colleagues in autonomous “circles” free from the hovering interference of “people managers.” (Former people managers were to find new roles in the company or accept buyouts.)

Hsieh hasn’t been the only boss to institute a bossless office in recent years. Somewhere between rigid corporate hierarchy and the approximately three hundred worker cooperatives that exist in the US today lies an expanding realm of manager-free workplaces. Most are white-collar and many, like Zappos, are the sorts of tech firms that have been famously predisposed to collaborative work arrangements, casual dress codes, beanbags, and other anti-corporate trappings since the beginning. But there are also industrial operations like Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processing plant, where over 2,000 employees annually sign “Colleague Letters of Understanding” that lay out each worker’s job description and output goals, in lieu of managers to oversee production. In a 2013 overview for New York Magazine on the rise of bossless workplaces, Matthew Schaer reported that even Morning Star’s internal conflicts were resolved without hierarchy: instead of management or HR handling clashes between employees, anywhere from one to ten of the feuding parties’ colleagues would be enlisted to mediate the spat.

Does the bossless office signal progress for workers? The majority of Americans still answer to supervisors, and there are scant few who haven’t grumbled—if not seethed—over incompetent, abusive, or overly controlling managers. A number of studies have unsurprisingly confirmed that bad bosses create undue amounts of stress for workers. Thus, it stands to reason that removing such meddlesome disciplinarians, as companies like Zappos and Morning Star have done, has the potential to improve worker morale vastly. “It’s a beautiful way of structuring a workplace,” Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen told Inc. magazine last year. “Management is not nearly as necessary as it thinks it is.”

Growing evidence suggests that the disappearance of management bureaucracy also makes offices more productive. In an interview with Current, Martha Little, a senior producer at Audible, praised the company’s collaborative work structure and explained that top-down management was quickly becoming an obsolete way of organizing workplaces. “In this very fast-paced, very tech-oriented media-delivery-service world, I don’t think the hierarchies can really keep up with the fast pace of change, flexibility and input of ideas that you need to compete,” she said. In the Wall Street Journal, Tim Clem, an employee at the tech outfit GitHub [ed. no relation], similarly noted of his company’s bossless setup, “It makes you want to do more.”

But if employees at bossless offices often report good spirits and high productivity, outside of true worker cooperatives there is a hard limit to the workplace democracy, and it usually takes the form of the company’s purse strings. As Schaer noted of Morning Star, “The company is privately held, and no employee, no matter how hard-performing, is entitled to a share of the profits.” And different pay grades exist at all of the aforementioned “flattened” companies, no matter whose or how many voices are “heard” at company meetings.

Not only does the bossless office camouflage longstanding monetary inequalities, it also outsources the tasks once assigned to managers to an increasing number of workers. Employees at bossless companies who have supposedly been liberated from their manager overlords are generally compelled to absorb the duties of the now-nonexistent management in addition to whatever roles they might otherwise perform. At the software company Menlo Innovations—which prides itself on its boss-free, non-hierarchical work environment—committees of employees must reach consensus on most HR matters including hiring, firing, and determining employees’ pay. The absence of management, in other words, tends merely to displace “traditional” boss responsibilities onto a new group of people rather than eliminate them entirely.

Media theorist Alexander Galloway has challenged the assumption that horizontal arrangements are inherently egalitarian. According to Galloway, over the last few decades, labor and culture alike have been increasingly organized as networks—evident in the rise of “flexible” workplaces and cultural phenomena like the rise of social media. While plenty of academics and activists alike continue to believe that the dissolution of official hierarchy (the boss, the state) is synonymous with the dissolution of power, Galloway argues that such processes may only reflect the changing nature of a post-Fordist world. He further cautions, “Centralized verticality is only one form of organization. The distributed network is simply a different form of organization, one with its own special brand of management and control.”


While Amazon’s punitive, highly-surveilled workplace indeed sounds nightmarish, it’s perhaps the new breed of bossless office that illuminates the dystopian endgame of work under neoliberalism.

The bossless, decentralized Zappos model has been proffered as a liberatory answer to the soul-crushing environments of places like Amazon. However, while Amazon’s punitive, highly-surveilled workplace indeed sounds nightmarish, it’s perhaps the new breed of bossless office that illuminates the dystopian endgame of work under neoliberalism. Imagine, in other words, a labor-extraction apparatus so well-oiled that bosses are obsolete because every worker is one; that is, willing to oversee and discipline both their own production and that of their peers in service of capital. If managers are, as economist Frédéric Lordon has described them, “strange employees, materially on the side of labor but symbolically on the side of capital,” we might also call them neoliberalism’s model worker.

Converting a population that has historically required coercion to participate in wage labor into model workers requires, above all, reconfiguring that population’s desires when it comes to work and management. In his 2014 book Willing Slaves of Capital, Lordon examines the ever-increasing alignment of employees’ desires with those of their employers, tracing the shift from workers’ gloomy toil under Fordist capitalism to the seemingly cheerful servitude of our current era. If work was once primarily a means to obtain the money necessary first for staying alive, and then, for accessing the pleasures of consumerism, these days, Lordon finds, “the desire to find employment should no longer be merely a mediated desire for the goods that wages circuitously permit buying, but an intrinsic desire for the activity for its own sake.”

We can see this in the explosion of what the critic Miya Tokumitsu has called “Do What You Love,” the pleasant-sounding but pernicious mantra that exhorts workers to seek employment that they find personally fulfilling above all other criteria (and in particular, “conventional” criteria like job security, higher pay, and employee benefits). This ideology, which muddies the division between work and leisure time and privileges certain forms of labor over others, functions as an important part of what Lordon terms “co-linearization,” or the process by which workers’ interests come to fully overlap with his or her employer’s. While creative and white-collar professions have demanded at least the appearance of employees’ co-linearization for some time (try admitting in a job interview that you’re pursuing the position for the money rather than a unique passion for the firm), this condition has expanded to even undesirable, low-wage jobs, including sandwich makers and telemarketers.

And alongside the requirement for workers to wear a happy face even in a time of stagnant real wages and soaring income inequality is the rise of new methods for enforcing this good behavior. The digital era has birthed low- or no-cost modes of monitoring workers’ activity, many of which rely on the general public to appraise a company’s employees. For instance, a report by Josh Dzieza in The Verge late last year found that ratings systems for apps such as Uber and Handy, which are meant to regulate the quality of the services provided, effectively transform customers into “unwitting and sometimes unwittingly ruthless middle managers, more efficient than any boss a company could hope to hire. They’re always there, working for free, hypersensitive to the smallest error.”

Likewise, social media platforms and review websites such as Yelp have outsourced worker management to the public behind the veneer of improving customer service. We often hear about customer feedback mechanisms when they function in service of social justice, such as with dentist-cum-hunter Walter Palmer—whose office’s Yelp page swelled with angry comments after his unceremonious slaying of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe—or the Yelp reviews that tipped off the public to a Napa Valley wine tour that had ejected a group of black women from its train seemingly for the crime of laughing. But far more common are the clampdowns on quotidian infractions described by Joshua Sperber in his sobering New Labor Forum article on the rise of Yelp as a tool for labor discipline. Sperber notes of restaurant workers:

Yelp reviews are frequently read by restaurant owners and have been invoked to discipline, and even fire, restaurant employees who have been criticized on the site. In this way, Yelp contributors not only enrich Yelp but function as unpaid managers, or “secret shoppers,” for the restaurant industry.

These technologies not only allow actual managers to better surveil their employees, but also prime their users to assume managerial roles by encouraging them to identify and publicly discipline the behavior of workers they believe have underperformed, such as rude or slow-witted customer service reps.

The compulsion to act as a surrogate boss has also surfaced through an increasing number of more innocuous forms. One is the popular internet meme “You Had One Job,” a running catalogue of upside-down signs, ill-conceived shop displays, and other “fails” which unintentionally but inevitably implicate some worker somewhere for not having executed a task properly. While there are probably little to no repercussions aside from embarrassment for those who find their work displayed on “You Had One Job,” such practices nevertheless subtly encourage the public to scrutinize and evaluate the labor of others under the guise of a benign form of entertainment.

Modern career literature even encourages us to manage our managers. Especially within white-collar professions, work advice over the last few years has extolled the benefits of “managing up”—that is, placating moody, temperamental, or inept bosses in order to perform one’s own job better. While much of this advice is merely practical, it usually also advocates some variation of taking on the qualities absent in one’s manager. (In the event of a bumbling boss, Harvard Business Review recommends “filling the leadership void”; US News advises “thinking like a CEO.”) “Managing up” may bestow the illusion of increased power for underlings, but new reports have found that employees who feel trusted by their bosses—in other words, those who end up taking on those bosses’ burdens—suffer psychologically for it. It turns out that feeling like a boss, so to speak, isn’t entirely pleasant.

Though the blurring of the lines between worker, manager, employer, and employee may sometimes look like egalitarianism, under capitalism, it portends the further erosion of organized labor. If every union contract begins with a grievance against management, what of the shop where no managers exist, or where everyone is one? As more and more workers are primed—and in many cases forced—to become bosses-by-proxy both in and outside of their workplaces, it’s worth recalling the time-tested union-busting tactic of companies promoting employees to management in order to bar them from joining nascent unions. Our current moment of capitalism, in which the allure of horizontalism masks the slow conversion of all workers to bosses, amounts to this practice writ large.

According to Lordon, breaking the insidious co-linearization between employee and employer that defines this era will entail reconstituting our interests as workers to no longer desire work in and of itself. This, of course, is easier said than done, but a first step might include rethinking the idea that the disappearance of the traditional manager is necessarily a step forward. If it is infinitely more difficult for workers to assert our class interests when management is invisible or dispersed, let us keep our bosses. Or, more specifically, let us keep them in our sights.

Sort of parallels the recent concern over China's public karma system.

The article's not necessarily entirely convincing of the particular points it's trying to make, but I did think it was thought-provoking. In particular, it's interesting to see "follow your dreams/do what you love"esque preaching attacked from this particular perspective (that it's being co-opted to make people feel more willing [or more compelled] to do more work for less compensation). You often hear people attacking that philosophy from the other side--ie that following your dreams is impractical, improbable or selfish, or whatever, and that instilling that desire in our children has made us all *less* willing to do real work. But thinking about how long it took unpaid internships to become illegal (presumably because the bulk of the people willing to make noise over it were people who had gotten their unpaid dream internships but were well-resourced enough to be comfortable bashing them at the risk of losing them or burning the bridge they'd created by surviving it), it's not hard to see where this writer is coming from with that.

General Discussion / Re: Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 23, 2016, 12:15:50 AM »
i like both physical books and ebooks

but i buy physical books because when bought second-hand they're generally still cheaper than ebooks (which i find insane, but nonetheless)

or that's true for textbooks, anyway

The textbook racket is a whole other story for sure. That's one market I'd love to see get overhauled.

There're definitely some textbooks I wouldn't mind having on a kindle for portability. I think I'd still prefer to also have physical copies for permanence, though. Moreso than regular books (which I've been known to just leave in public places after I finish reading them for someone else to read) I see textbooks as an investment, and not just because of the price. I wound up buying back like half the textbooks I gave away/sold cheap before I left Florida  ::facepalm::

Spamalot / Re: Fiancee and I are getting a corgi today
« on: June 22, 2016, 12:18:32 AM »
Euler still has hers and it hasn't been a problem. I have heard on the street that they can tear off and be really painful, but no vet has ever so much as mentioned to me their presence or whatever hazard they pose though.

General Discussion / Re: spammer in our midst
« on: June 22, 2016, 12:15:24 AM »
tbh i can't imagine why a guest post feature even exists... i mean i guess if your messageboard is 100% internal w/no access to outsiders it might be useful if you absolutely can't be bothered to have people create accounts


also I often wish I could guest post on forums I stumble across looking for help with, say, tech or math stuff; places where I'm not likely to post repeatedly in the future. It's gotta be a headache from an admin standpoint but the public benefit is definitely there

General Discussion / Re: Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 22, 2016, 12:13:02 AM »
I don't have a kindle and have never read a book on one but I can see the appeal for certain circumstances. Like if you're traveling for a long time, or if you move a lot, or if the only alternative edition of the book you want is a huge hardcover. The screens aren't shit on your eyes like reading off a computer or a cell phone is (I've done that with several books--that shit sucks)

I like hard covers the way I like vinyl--it's ridiculously and needlessly impractical and yields little if any benefit, but there's just a certain draw to having a shelf full of them in your house for when you just want to plop down and enjoy them.

But I most prefer a small paperback I can carry in my back pocket. Japan's publishing standards are on-point as hell; there are like maybe 10 standard dimensions for books' lengthXwidth so that book collections line up perfectly on bookshelves, and most novels are published either in fancy hardback for or in a paperback form small enough to carry in your pocket. No awkward, yeah-it's-paperback-but-unless-you-carry-a-purse-you're-reading-it-at-home sized editions.

General Discussion / Re: spammer in our midst
« on: June 21, 2016, 08:48:47 PM »
I didn't think guests could post anywhere on the board. Seems like it'd be easier to disable that ability than to go to the trouble of trying to track down and block the thing at its source.

Seems legit

General Discussion / Re: Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 21, 2016, 08:35:03 PM »
I do know some people like you in that way, Agrul. I--who am, I would say, an avid reader--do not, in particular, share that habit, though.

I am a little dubious of the article's claim that book stores are the only way books *can* get the kind of publicity they need, even taking as true its premise that it *is* the primary way currently. Although I do think we tend to filter out big website banners and shit like you might see on Amazon (and even the Others Who Bought This Book Also Enjoyed type of stuff) to a greater extent than we do big displays in physical stores, but I imagine there are other ways to get word out there about challenging books, if getting-word-out-there is really what's at stake here.

I think it's just a question of whether innovating in terms of advertising is a challenge publishers will continue to be willing to take, when publishing frill is plausibly an easier and equally-or-more-lucrative alternative.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones S6 [Spoilers]
« on: June 21, 2016, 08:27:37 PM »
It felt like I was watching a summer blockbuster, both in terms of production quality and writing. Take that for what you will; it's not meant as a total condemnation, but to me it was personally disappointing. Summer blockbusters have their place, but it's not what I started watching GoT for.

That said, it's probably the best that can be hoped for and I can't really bash the writers too hard despite whatever complaints I have. You just can't get the same type of writing out of a few months of brainstorming in teams from 9-5 5 days a week that you can get from one guy who literally invented the entire world carefully contemplating, writing and rewriting his characters' and world's interactions for years straight, and doing so only when he's inspired to do so and not because he has x number of weeks to get *something* on paper.

General Discussion / Re: Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 21, 2016, 08:16:06 PM »
It's not about ebooks vs print books, it's about where people get the books. The article argues that people only go onto Amazon to buy books they've already heard of, and a lot of book sales are apparently in-store impulse buys.

So the risk isn't the abandonment of print (people still order print books online), it's that publishers may become increasingly unwilling to pay for books that aren't guaranteed to sell in a strictly-online market (stuff by already-famous authors, stuff with mass appeal [50 Shades of Gray])

General Discussion / Barnes and Noble failing would ruin books
« on: June 21, 2016, 06:56:37 PM »

If Barnes & Noble goes out of business, it’ll be a disaster for book lovers.
June 20, 2016
Even by the standards of the ailing book publishing industry, the past year has been a bad one for Barnes & Noble. After the company spun off its profitable college textbook division, its stock plunged nearly 40 percent. Its long-term debt tripled, to $192 million, and its cash reserves dwindled. Leonard Riggio, who turned the company into a behemoth, has announced he will step down this summer after more than 40 years as chairman. At the rate it’s going, Barnes & Noble won’t be known as a bookseller at all—either because most of its floor space will be given over to games and gadgets, or, more ominously, because it won’t even exist.

There’s more than a little irony to the impending collapse of Barnes & Noble. The mega-retailer that drove many small, independent booksellers out of business is now being done in by the rise of Amazon. But while many book lovers may be tempted to gloat, the death of Barnes & Noble would be catastrophic—not just for publishing houses and the writers they publish, but for American culture as a whole.

If Barnes & Noble were to shut its doors, Amazon, independent bookstores, and big-box retailers like Target and Walmart would pick up some of the slack. But not all of it. Part of the reason is that book sales are driven by “showrooming,” the idea that most people don’t buy a book, either in print or electronically, unless they’ve seen it somewhere else—on a friend’s shelf, say, or in a bookstore. Even on the brink of closing, Barnes & Noble still accounts for as much as 30 percent of all sales for some publishing houses.

But the focus on sales masks the deeper degree to which the publishing industry relies on Barnes & Noble. The retailer provides much of the up-front cash publishers need to survive, in the form of initial orders. Most independent bookstores can’t afford to buy many books in advance; a single carton of 24 books would represent a large order. Amazon also buys few books in advance, preferring to let supplies run down so as to prompt online shoppers to “add to cart” because there are “only five left in stock.”

Barnes & Noble, by contrast, often takes very large initial orders. For books it believes will fly off the shelves, initials can reach the mid-five figures—hundreds of thousands of dollars that go to the publisher before a single book is even sold. That money, in turn, allows publishers to run ads in magazines and on Facebook, send authors on book tours, and pay for publicists. Without Barnes & Noble, it would become much harder for publishers to turn books into best-sellers.

Even if Barnes & Noble doesn’t close, publishers are already starting to suffer from the chain’s decline. “What can happen is that their number of stores can shrink, their store footprint can shrink, so that the number of titles on which they put meaningful advance orders can shrink,” says Mike Shatzkin, an industry veteran. “Publishers are going to have to adjust to a model where they print what they know will sell rather than what they hope will sell.”

Big-name authors, like Malcolm Gladwell or James Patterson, will probably be fine. So too will writers who specialize in romance, science fiction, manga, and commercial fiction—genres with devoted audiences, who have already gravitated to Amazon’s low prices. But Barnes & Noble is essential to publishers of literary fiction—the so-called “serious” works that get nominated for Pulitzers and National Book Awards. Without the initial orders Barnes & Noble places, and the visibility its shelves provide, breakout hits by relative unknowns—books like Anthony Doerr’s All the Light We Cannot See or Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven—will suffer.

In a world without Barnes & Noble, risk-averse publishers will double down on celebrity authors and surefire hits. Literary writers without proven sales records will have difficulty getting published, as will young, debut novelists. The most literary of novels will be shunted to smaller publishers. Some will probably never be published at all. And rigorous nonfiction books, which often require extensive research and travel, will have a tough time finding a publisher with the capital to fund such efforts.

The irony of the age of cultural abundance is that it still relies on old filters and distribution channels to highlight significant works. Barnes & Noble and corporate publishers still have enormous strides to make in fully reflecting America’s rich diversity. But without them, the kinds of books that challenge us, that spark intellectual debates, that push society to be better, will start to disappear. Without Barnes & Noble, we’ll be adrift in a sea of pulp.

Not to mention it'll make Amazon a practical monopoly. It's interesting the the film industry and the book industry seem inevitably drawn to the same issue (the bold) for such different reasons, but much sadder in the case of books. With movies there's the simple solution of simply not pirating, but in this case there's not really anyone to blame.

Matthew McConaughey is the perfect choice to play Randall Flagg. This could be good on his performance alone.

Shit, yeah that is perfect. And good point about Suzannah.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how adaptable I think the story is to begin with. Or maybe I should say I'm not sure how interested I am in seeing a big production adaptation of it, unless they give it to someone (directorwise) who's gonna take some serious stylistic risks with it to make it interesting and fit the feeling of the original print of the first book.

And yeah they need to completely shitcan the bulk of 5-7 and do a lot of rewriting all over the place if it's not gonna be a joke like most of the film adaptations of his full-length books wind up being. Maybe that's what makes the Suzannah thing ok: she was written to be the sole black character in the books but if they're gonna overhaul everything else I guess the emphasis on her blackness doesn't need to be focal to her character--it's not as if King said anything particularly insightful about race in all those books to begin with.

Still, until I see a trailer that can convince me otherwise, I'm giving this like a 0.0002% chance of not being a total letdown.

General Discussion / Re: Uthgard DAOC
« on: June 21, 2016, 04:57:35 AM »
maybe that dude'll finally get his fucking cloudsong back

Hillary does work for them, but I doubt Wall Street really cares. Liz Warren as VP has less power over Wall Street than Liz Warren the Senator. Maybe they know Hillary will get indicted and have to get pardoned by Liz, who will then get tough?

I'd be more prone to believe they're saying it just so that Hillary can choose Liz as VP in an apparent act of defiance to improve her image. If Warren accepts she'll have neutered herself, if she doesn't, then the PR for Hillary comes free. (I call this the Too Much House of Cards theory)

That or the VP is actually a greater force than a single senator despite the conventional wisdom to the contrary.

The only possibility I don't buy at all is that Wall Street is just saying it because they're too dumb to realize they have less to fear from Warren as VP even though it's been parroted all over the internet since before the primary started.

Spamalot / Re: Fiancee and I are getting a corgi today
« on: June 21, 2016, 12:15:31 AM »
First Corgi is Bailey who is now 4.5 years old approximately.  Just like AD said, she is a great dog in all kinds of ways.  Listens very well, very obedient and playful, very motivated to learn new things, and just mostly a pretty good dog.  Like AD, Bailey has problems adjusting to other dogs.  She loves to be around other dogs sort of, but she is very afraid of other dogs.  I blame it on my girlfriend taking her around bigger dogs when she was a puppy who hurt her.  Not sure if this is the case, but she generally just barks a lot at other dogs and doesn't socialize well.  Kind of runs away and keeps her distance while making lots of noise because she wants to play, but she is afraid. 

Man this is exactly like Euler. The more corgis I meet the more I think it takes some skilled training to avoid this outcome. I've been to corgi meet ups once or twice and while some of the corgis do play together, by and large there's a sense you get looking at the other owners that they're all relieved they don't have to pretend they think they can stop their corgi from barking at the other dogs because the other dogs are all corgis who're also barking at nothing.

The first one I went to, there was one corgi in particular who was a little bit older and kinda chubby, who took its frisbee about 50 yards from the main congregation of corgis, laid down in front of it and just barked in the direction of the other dogs the entire time, like an old man in a rocking chair on a porch on an empty street, yelling into the sky that everyone *better* stay off his lawn

Spamalot / Re: Fiancee and I are getting a corgi today
« on: June 20, 2016, 09:50:01 PM »
Happy to help

Euler literally chewed a chunk out of the wall one time because I didn't let her back in my room when I went back to bed after letting her out to pee one morning when she was young  :bick:

Sometimes they ruin your shit for lack of better ideas (can't find their chew toys), but sometimes it's definitely just a "fuck you, dad" thing




Police can use illegally obtained evidence in court, SCOTUS rules, sabotaging 4th Amendment

A new SCOTUS ruling poses a threat to Americans’ constitutional rights, a Supreme Court justice warns.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police can use evidence they obtained illegally against a defendant in court.

One of the four liberal Supreme Court justices — Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994 — joined hands with the conservative justices in support of the ruling.

The justices voted five-to-three in favor of a lawbreaking police officer in Utah v. Strieff, a drug-related case involving a Utah man.

Police spied on a South Salt Lake City home after receiving an anonymous tip about drug activity. When Joseph Edward Strieff, the defendant in the case, walked out of the house, a police detective illegally stopped him, questioned him and checked his name in a police database.

The State of Utah conceded that this stop was illegal. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the police “officer did not suspect that Strieff had done anything wrong. Strieff just happened to be the first person to leave a house that the officer thought might contain ‘drug activity.'”

Yet the police officer saw that Strieff had a “small traffic warrant.” He therefore arrested Strieff and illegally searched him, finding methamphetamine in his pocket. Utah subsequently charged Strieff with illegal drug possession.

Strieff’s attorney argued that allowing police to use these illegally obtained drugs as evidence in court would effectively permit them to continue with such illegal searches in the future. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed. But the Supreme Court ruled against it.

Sotomayor warned in a scathing dissent that the ruling jeopardizes Americans’ constitutional rights, and will disproportionately hurt people of color.

“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” she wrote.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Sotomayor said.

“If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant,” she added.

“Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.”

Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan also filed a dissent.

Clarence Thomas, the most right-wing Supreme Court justice, supported the ruling, arguing that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Clinton-appointed liberal justice Stephen Breyer joined Thomas and the other three conservatives on the court: John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

“When courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward ‘manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution,'” Sotomayor said, citing a previous court ruling.

Justice Sotomayor noted that outstanding warrants for minor offenses “are surprisingly common,” and the ruling has thus “given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine” average Americans.

“When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner,” she added in her dissent. “We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.”

Sotomayor warned this ruling will disproportionate impact on Americans of color. “The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated” by police, she said. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

She cited “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,” a book by legal scholar Michelle Alexander that exposes the structural racism in the U.S. justice system.

“For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them,” Sotomayor continued.

“By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”

“We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated.’ They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere,” Sotomayor concluded.

“They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”

Jesus Christ this fucking country

Spamalot / Re: Fiancee and I are getting a corgi today
« on: June 20, 2016, 08:09:49 PM »
When Euler was a puppy her shot records were wonky and it took longer than it should have had to to get her all her shots because of it. For that reason I didn't let her around other dogs (except my at-the-time lady pal's chihuahua, who I knew was on the level) unless I absolutely had to, and as a result she really doesn't like other dogs very much (with rare exceptions). She's not aggressive but she'll either try to herd timid dogs into corners and not let them move unless they snap at her, or get chased by any dog that's not afraid of her (even if it's much smaller than here, which is actually really comical).

But long story short, don't skimp on socializing your pup. Corgis bark enough to begin with. Euler's super well behaved in general, but to this day she can be a headache around other dogs, and it's a bummer.

Driving stick is fun (unless you're in bumper to bumper traffic, then it's a nightmare) even if you have a crappy stick.

I regret that I haven't had an opportunity to drive a stick left handed here in Japan just to try it out, but you need a special license here.

Push staring is the other best reason for neutral to exist

Spamalot / Re: Fiancee and I are getting a corgi today
« on: June 20, 2016, 06:56:13 PM »
Also congrats. Corgis rule

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1317