Wednesday August 24, 2016
Jump to content
I am giving you a link to the AZ newspaper which carried this story because it is far too long for more than a quick summary, although when we get done discussing bail, I'll give you the entire discussion that took place on fines, and we can discuss that too.
Some criminal law experts say that bail should be based on ability to pay. Some of the reason they say that are:
The cost of jailing people who can't afford bail costs the state a million dollars a day.
Bail should only be used for high-risk individuals.
Some people sit in jail for far longer than the sentence they receive.
People lose their jobs because they can't post bail which is too high.
Many of the people in jail do not pose an actual flight risk.
Bail is actually being used as a form of punishment.
I'd advise you to read the whole article; there's a lot more.
Okay, how do you feel about all this?
Reuters reports that MaxMind, a company I've never heard of, is a business that "matches IP addresses ... to physical locations." IP stands for Internet Protocol and is the way each machine on the net "knows" where another one is electronically located.
However, being able to electronically contact another machine through its IP address is not the same as being able to tell where that machine is physically located. And while it's easy to see that it could be useful to law enforcement agencies to know where someone is located, tracking down IP numbers is not an exact science. Sometimes the closest a tracking company can come is to say, "well it's somewhere in the USA."
According to Fusion, a TV network and website, MaxMind goofed. Since there were many times when the company was sure that an IP number was located in the USA, but didn't know exactly where it was, they assigned all such places the same code. Fair enough, except that they identified that code with a specific location, the geographic center of the nation.
What's wrong with that? Well the Arnold family rented a house in Kansas, and the geographical center of our country happens to be just about where that house is located. James and Theresa Arnold of Butler County, Kansas say that the code registered their home as the physical location of more than 600 million addresses.
That did not make the Arnolds happy.
Can you picture what happened?
No? Read on .....
The very first week the Arnolds moved in, two deputies from the Butler County Sheriff's Department came to the house looking for a stolen truck.
Then the Arnolds began to be disturbed at all hours of night and day by local, state or federal officials who might be looking for anything — a runaway child, a missing person, the place from which someone had made a suicide call.
Threats were made against the Arnolds by individuals convinced that the perpetrator of some internet scam lived in their house.
State investigators - convinced that the plaintiffs had been involved in identity theft - came to the residence to take pictures of their assets.
Law enforcement officials might show up at the Arnold home expecting to find stolen cars, stolen credit cards, or stolen social media data. Another time they might expect to see a pair of shady private investigators. And yet another time they might be after someone running a fraudulent fund.
To top everything off the Butler County Sheriff's Department, curious about the reason for all the 24 hour a day activity at the Arnolds residence ran a background check on them.
Well, the Arnolds finally found out what was going on and now they have sued MaxMind for $75,000 to repay them for their days in "digital hell."
Frankly, I think they are being much too lenient. I'd have sued for ten times that much.
How much would you want?
994 How much would you sue for if someone did this to you?
PS, Chuck. I'm not trying to prove you wrong; I'm just trying to show you the difference between the reality and what we see in the news. I was nothing less than astounded when I arrived in Karachi in 1958 and found it 180 degrees out from what I expected. I never would have expected to see 11 Christian churches in the capital city of a Muslim nation. Nor did I expect to see most people other than the poor dressed in western clothes. And remember, this was more than half a century ago.
I think that the news doesn't necessarily intend to be false; it just think that perhaps when they talk about, or take pictures of, some exotic culture they show us the most exotic parts of it even if they are not longer as true as they were. Try, for example, looking at downtown Tokyo; if it weren't for the Japanese people standing around (all dressed the same way we are) it would look like Boston.
Here's another example. Jakarta:
Indonesia is largely Muslim but it sure doesn't "look it," does it?
"...France, which opposes Islam because it decrees what a woman may or may not wear on a beach, is making laws which decree what a woman may or may not wear on a beach."
Their law has it dead wrong. It says that laws must have a secular purpose, but defines "secular" in a special way only applies it to any religion the French don't like.
The dress of a Catholic nun exactly what the mayor of Cannes says is wrong, namely, "... wear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation..."
As it happens, I am a Catholic so I am obviously not showing some kind of prejudice. But I defy anyone to show me the difference — except that one is banned and one is not. The French have made themselves a target.
"For the record, I think Islam is incompatible with Western values..."
Chuck, I'll bet that if you had lived in a Muslim country as I have and had seen that it made absolutely no difference in daily life, none at all, you'd think that over.
I probably should mention that all the way back in 1958, 58 years ago, no women who a burqa in Karachi except for a very small number who were totally outside the mainstream of life.
Just go here. It may surprise you.
This will too, I think. It's a mall in Karachi. The main difference you'll notice is that the people are obviously poorer.
This is revealing too. It is women wearing the traditional chemise and salwar in Karachi.
Paints an entirely different image, doesn't it?
And these are snapshots of Victoria Road in Karachi all the way back in 1959. That's a long time ago and yet it doesn't look like some corner of Saudi Arabia, does it?
If you really want a surprise, though, Google Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Karachi, or Saint Lawrence's. You could the same thing in almost any non-Arab Muslim country.
If you went to that link you saw that the city of Cannes has banned the wearing of burkinis on its beaches. A burkini is a conservative swimsuit sometimes worn by Muslim women. Looks a lot better than the things my Mom used to wear (a long time ago, of course). If you go take a look at what was banned you'll see that there's not a thing wrong with them. And the one shown is nothing like some that you'll see if you Google them and ask for images. They can be very attractive.
Not only that, the Mayor's comment shows just how wrong both he and French law can be, and that's what is important. His new law says, "Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to anyone who does not have bathing apparel which respects good customs and secularism."
See? That law could never stand here in the US; it has the primary effect of inhibiting religion by requiring that what anyone wears have a "secular purpose." But that's not all; since beaches over there often allow full nudity I suppose that's covered by the term "good customs?" Are they kidding?
To cover himself the Mayor adds, "We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach ... but ostentatious clothing which refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us."
That's bunk! The burkini shown in the link is okay, but some of them are much more attractive, and none of them have anything to do with terrorism. His comments show a clear cut prejudice against one religion. You could dress up as the Pope, as Moses, or as one of the Three Wise Men, or you could dive into the water wearing an overcoat and a beaver skin hat, or you could just go nude, and you'd be legal. How much more anti religion can a law get?
Why you could trot out there wearing a swimsuit that had a cross or a picture of Budhda on it. But you are not allowed to wear a simple little outfit with a modest top, a cover for the hair that is usually not too different from the swimming caps you can buy at Amazon to protect your hair, and either a little mini-skirt kind of thing or what look like leotards. Go Google "burkini" and see what I mean.
And that, you see, is a major reason why France is such a target for Islamic terrorists. The terrorists are as wrong as they can get, but French law is dead wrong too.
Just thought you might like to know one reason why France is getting hit harder than the rest of Europe. I wondered why it was, but it explained everything when I found out how some French laws read. You would not believe the number of laws that target what people of religion wear. There are dozens of them. Why you can't even wear the little Jewish yarmulke over there! You know? That little round cap? And kids can't even go to school wearing a simple cross. How does wearing something like that hurt anybody else?
Well, now that you know, how do you feel about it? Are French laws right or are our laws right?
Please don't take anything I say here as implying that terrorism against France is justified. I don't believe that for one minute. But having done my homework I now see why France is being so targeted by Islamic terrorists. I didn't know what I just discovered, so I assume you didn't know it either. Hence this string.
I think that one place where America has got it right is in its constitutional stand on freedom of religion. By and large our stand is "hands off!" That means that any law we write, or any action we take, has to pass what is called the "Three Part Test."
One, it must have a secular legislative purpose.
Two, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
Three, it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
The problem in France is that its fundamental law regarding religion, which was passed in 1905, quits after part one. It only says that the law must have a secular purpose, forgetting (?) to say that it must neither advance nor inhibit religion. And with no real controls to stop them, literally every city and town in France has been pumping out laws, regulations, and ordinances about religion, and I don't mean just about Islam either.
Also, if you look at current French law and regulations right across the nation you can see that they do not only inhibit religion in general, they often contain a specific hostility toward Islam. I'll give you just one example and you'll see just what I mean.
Luckily, instead of my having to dig around for French laws that demonstrate a hostility toward the Islamic religion, it just so happens that there's a perfect example in current world news, so here's a link where you can see what some city council has just banned.
I have to warn you though. The article includes this incorrect statement: ... there is no ban on wearing religious symbols or clothing." That's not true. Check it out in Wiki if you like.
That's the way it is. Take the fact that we were getting aerial photography film, along with a half dozen other things I saw, and there wasn't the slightest doubt in my mind that we were overflying the USSR and taking snapshots of all the pretty Russian girls.
The funniest part was when one of our U-2s went down (it was NOT shot down, by the way) in the USSR and we were all sitting around the table eating at the time when we heard the Voice of America radio station saying that Ike had denied that we did any such thing it was really funny. All six of us said, "Oh no, Ike!" None of us officially knew a thing about the program. But we all knew about it anyway. :-)
We all knew it, but none of us knew the others knew it.
"Tom, I think "while" should have been "which"."
Right! Didn't think of that.
I'll bet it was some "feature" which auto-corrects. I hate those things.
"Never heard of a "pit bull rescue center" either."
Apparently the story came from the UK even though it was about the US.
"Not a great story, but a happy story. I've never heard of a dog that defended anyone but its owner."
I know nothing about pit bulls, but my son David says they are very protective of their owners, and sometimes even of others. Don't ask me why.
"None of us hacked into your computer. It was the Russians."
I take it you're kidding. :-)
As to Clinton and what she did — or didn't — do, I've always wondered why civilian government people handles classified info so differently than we did in the military. For example, when I was stationed in the Embassy in Karachi and was a VERY small part of the U-2 Program I lived in one of several staff houses before I got married. We'd be eating dinner and one of the men might ask something like, "Hey, Sam. Was that you that I saw in a little beat up old Chevy yesterday? What was that all about?" The answer quite often was, "Well that's neither here nor there," which meant "classified. Can't talk about it." It was amazing how often that happened. It was there that I learned how true the old saw was that said "If you know enough unclassified information, you know classified information."
Example, one thing that used to come in on the aircraft I handled was small pallet load of boxes that were just large enough to hold six number 10 cans each. (A number 10 can is a very large can that about 8 inches wide and 12 high.) They were classified SECRET, the text on them was always painted out with gray paint that really hid the text, and the boxes were strapped to the pallet with metal banding. Then came a day when some genius of an air freight man over in Dhahran saw that the Embassy Run aircraft had very few passengers, so he yanked out some of the seats up front near the pilot's cabin, broke the bands on the pallet load, carried the pallet over the seats, carried boxes over them too, and reassembled the pallet load with the outside of the boxes painted out.
The jerk must have had a brain the size of a pea. It was more or less (mostly less) okay for American airmen to see what was in those boxes, but how could I offload them In Karachi using Pakistani workers? When they carried the boxes off the aircraft they would be able to read the text on them, which you may have guess said AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FILM. I had long since figured out what was in those boxes, so I had to send them all the way down to the Philippines where they were rebanded and returned on a cargo aircraft.
"The thinking was that if we gave it away to charity, or to employees, then there was incentive to cook more food than necessary, which would drive up costs and lower profits."
Aha! That didn't occur to me, but I worked in a restaurant for a short time in my late teens and that was their policy. Nothing went anywhere except in the trash. They probably did it for exactly that reason.
I think you're right about the health laws and whatnot too.
Come to think of it the first time anyone got sick from eating food that was going to be tossed and then some crafty lawyer sued that would be the end of that program.
It's like so many, many things; they sound good but they don't work.
Last login: today