My dad used to take me fishing all the time. Large-mouth bass, mostly--sometimes fortunate enough to also fight with small-mouth bass. We even fished tournaments from time to time (amateur stuff, not pro) and even finished well once in a while.
For the first time in almost 15 years, I went fishing again last Saturday. A friend asked the day before, and I was able to swing the time, despite having no tackle or other gear. He's got a great little boat, which is perfect for this little lake we've got here. Very simple, not a lot of time wasted getting things ready or having to be too careful with a perfect fiberglass finish.
Anyway, going fishing again was incredibly therapeutic. We found another friend on the lake (also fishing), and the pace of catching fish was great fun. Between the two of us, we had nearly 20 fish in something like three hours. Most of these were tiny, fearless small-mouth bass, but we had some "keepers", too. (We didn't keep anything--just returned them after getting our jig heads back from their mouths.) I even caught a tiger muskie that was ~30" long. Good thing our friend was out on the water, since we needed his huge net to get that one in the boat. We were fishing light-weight rigs with plastic worms and light line, so there's no way we could pick up a fish that big with no steel leader without breaking the line. We sort-of measured this fish through the net and returned him. If he had the per-pound fight of a small-mouth bass, we'd have instantly snapped the line or tipped the boat for sure.
Sorry--I have no evidence for all this. No cameras were on board. So this might all be a fish tale, but for the smile on my face.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Forced Compliance
This is getting more and more press. Increasingly, tools of forced compliance (such as the TASER) are being used to force immediate compliance of any order given by any police officer. This story from Car and Driver illustrates some ridiculous uses of this forced compliance tool. What I'd like to know is what right does a police officer have to force compliance of orders when not in immediate, demonstrable danger if compliance is not attained?
For example, I could picture using something like a TASER on someone running around threatening to stab people with a knife--particularly if such a person has a history of violent behavior or is showing signs of being intoxicated (or having other signs of impaired judgment). But refusing to sign a traffic ticket before being told what the ticket is for? No evidence of imminent danger to officer or public--just a stall in immediate compliance of an officer's demand (never mind whether the demand is made legally). From the Car and Driver article:
This whole situation sits strangely with me. Back when I was interning for college requirements, I worked for a lean design firm that developed some of the first working prototypes for Taser. It seemed like such a great idea at the time. Since then I've done "ghost design" for other design firms whose client list includes Taser International. Knowing now what I didn't know then, would I design for them? No, I don't think so.
Remember Dr. Robert Stadler from Atlas Shrugged? He allowed the State (whether good or bad) to use the produce of his mind for for their desires (ultimately for evil). The problem with working with the State, as I see it, is that the creator of a given invention is immediately divorced from any control over such an invention. So I ask myself--with all I see happening with misuse of force--why I would want to contribute to the arsenal of tyrants? I do not. I'll save the produce of my mind in this regard for my own discretion.
Perhaps I should set upon developing Taser-thwarting apparel, such as a grounded shirt of conductive mesh. Obviously I'm now at risk for being a target for the illegitimate use of force, courtesy of the State.
For example, I could picture using something like a TASER on someone running around threatening to stab people with a knife--particularly if such a person has a history of violent behavior or is showing signs of being intoxicated (or having other signs of impaired judgment). But refusing to sign a traffic ticket before being told what the ticket is for? No evidence of imminent danger to officer or public--just a stall in immediate compliance of an officer's demand (never mind whether the demand is made legally). From the Car and Driver article:
What is wrong with him? I think that's a valid question. How is this acceptable behavior? How are police departments avoiding huge civil lawsuits for behavior of this kind? Maybe they're not. Certainly, Taser International has its share of lawsuits for wrongful death after many people treated this way by police inexplicably die. That doesn't jive with the "non-lethal" use of force so prevalent in standard Taser marketing materials.When he returns to the SUV, we hear Massey say, “You’re giving me a ticket, but you won’t tell me why.” The driver wants to go back with the trooper to see where the 40-mph sign is.
“You’re gonna sign this first.” Massey refuses.
“Okay, hop outta the car.” Nineteen seconds have elapsed since Trooper Gardner reappeared with the ticket. The driver complies quickly and walks back in the direction from which he had driven, pointing toward something. He’s not aggressive toward the trooper, is not even facing him but, rather, looks down the road pointing. The officer draws his TASER, points it at Massey, and says, “Turn around and put your hands behind your back.”
The driver recoils. “What’s wrong with you?” he asks. He starts to walk the other way. Gardner fires at the driver’s back.
Zero to TASER: 32 seconds after the Trooper’s return.
This whole situation sits strangely with me. Back when I was interning for college requirements, I worked for a lean design firm that developed some of the first working prototypes for Taser. It seemed like such a great idea at the time. Since then I've done "ghost design" for other design firms whose client list includes Taser International. Knowing now what I didn't know then, would I design for them? No, I don't think so.
Remember Dr. Robert Stadler from Atlas Shrugged? He allowed the State (whether good or bad) to use the produce of his mind for for their desires (ultimately for evil). The problem with working with the State, as I see it, is that the creator of a given invention is immediately divorced from any control over such an invention. So I ask myself--with all I see happening with misuse of force--why I would want to contribute to the arsenal of tyrants? I do not. I'll save the produce of my mind in this regard for my own discretion.
Perhaps I should set upon developing Taser-thwarting apparel, such as a grounded shirt of conductive mesh. Obviously I'm now at risk for being a target for the illegitimate use of force, courtesy of the State.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
"Conform or be cast out..."
That's the theme of a song by Rush called Subdivisions, perhaps truer now than when written in the early '80s. For such an "independent" culture, it's amazing how much conformity is increasingly not only expected, but enforced. Illegally.
Take this example, as reported by the New York Post a couple of days ago. Last year during the singing of "God Bless America", a fan was ejected from the game because his bladder apparently interrupted the song with some urgency. In heading toward the restroom, mid-song, he was out of accord with the spirit of conformity, of course--blasphemy! Eject those who demonstrate their hostility with non-conformity. "Conform or be cast out," in other words. Of course the cops hold that he was disorderly in a drunken manner. Perhaps. Non-conformity is often deemed "disorderly" by those in power.
Cops made this same claim in this case, too, but it was clearly a lie, as the victim of this attempted force of conformity has evidence by means of recorded audio of the entire ordeal. This guy is leaving a Costco parking lot, but has no choice but to be routed through a DUI checkpoint. He's picked out of the crowd, and--being tired of such DUI stops--decides to see what happens if he doesn't answer the officer's question regarding drinking this time. Well, that's clearly not in the spirit of conformity, either. Despite the fact that the fifth amendment guarantees the right not to self-incriminate (and to stay silent) and the fourth amendment guarantees the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches or seizures, the officer instead demands an instant breathalyzer test as a must-conform "lawful order". Hmmm. Much worse, the officer this man first encountered stated to his superior that this driver had watery red eyes as cause of suspicion of drunkenness. When in the light (after the car was seized by officers), it was apparent this wasn't true. So the officer then alleged the smell of alcohol on the driver as cause of suspicion, changing his story. Even though this was obviously not true either, the superior involved insisted the driver could either submit to the breathalyzer or go directly to jail for failing to obey a "lawful order". Conform or lose your freedom.
Does anyone see anything wrong with all this?
My understanding is that the duty of law enforcement is to "protect and to serve" through enforcing laws. Which laws, exactly, are these officers enforcing? Are they enforcing any laws? Or are they enforcing laws that are in stark non-conformity with the Bill of Rights? Obviously, such laws--if they exist at all--would be illegitimate. I would think falsification of evidence (lying) would be taken quite seriously among law enforcement circles, but we don't know how this trumped up DUI case played out in the end.
We seem to be in a bit of transition in this country--from the our inalienable rights as given by our Creator (not our government), to a sort of constant-flux Calvinball set of rules, which change at the whim of tyrants to best fit the security of their rule. Lets not have any absolute standards of ethics and behavior, lest we lose the power of our whims--and with that, the power to remove the freedoms of any who do not conform. Conform or be cast out!
Take this example, as reported by the New York Post a couple of days ago. Last year during the singing of "God Bless America", a fan was ejected from the game because his bladder apparently interrupted the song with some urgency. In heading toward the restroom, mid-song, he was out of accord with the spirit of conformity, of course--blasphemy! Eject those who demonstrate their hostility with non-conformity. "Conform or be cast out," in other words. Of course the cops hold that he was disorderly in a drunken manner. Perhaps. Non-conformity is often deemed "disorderly" by those in power.
Cops made this same claim in this case, too, but it was clearly a lie, as the victim of this attempted force of conformity has evidence by means of recorded audio of the entire ordeal. This guy is leaving a Costco parking lot, but has no choice but to be routed through a DUI checkpoint. He's picked out of the crowd, and--being tired of such DUI stops--decides to see what happens if he doesn't answer the officer's question regarding drinking this time. Well, that's clearly not in the spirit of conformity, either. Despite the fact that the fifth amendment guarantees the right not to self-incriminate (and to stay silent) and the fourth amendment guarantees the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches or seizures, the officer instead demands an instant breathalyzer test as a must-conform "lawful order". Hmmm. Much worse, the officer this man first encountered stated to his superior that this driver had watery red eyes as cause of suspicion of drunkenness. When in the light (after the car was seized by officers), it was apparent this wasn't true. So the officer then alleged the smell of alcohol on the driver as cause of suspicion, changing his story. Even though this was obviously not true either, the superior involved insisted the driver could either submit to the breathalyzer or go directly to jail for failing to obey a "lawful order". Conform or lose your freedom.
Does anyone see anything wrong with all this?
My understanding is that the duty of law enforcement is to "protect and to serve" through enforcing laws. Which laws, exactly, are these officers enforcing? Are they enforcing any laws? Or are they enforcing laws that are in stark non-conformity with the Bill of Rights? Obviously, such laws--if they exist at all--would be illegitimate. I would think falsification of evidence (lying) would be taken quite seriously among law enforcement circles, but we don't know how this trumped up DUI case played out in the end.
We seem to be in a bit of transition in this country--from the our inalienable rights as given by our Creator (not our government), to a sort of constant-flux Calvinball set of rules, which change at the whim of tyrants to best fit the security of their rule. Lets not have any absolute standards of ethics and behavior, lest we lose the power of our whims--and with that, the power to remove the freedoms of any who do not conform. Conform or be cast out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
