Slouching Towards Oblivion

Dec 1, 2014

A Cop's Eye View

I copied this whole post at Democratic Underground.  The author says he asked his nephew about Darren Wilson killing Mike Brown. Take it or leave it according to your own bent.
Not only is he a 29 year cop, he is the third highest ranking officer in the county that he works in. I asked him about this. Being the Republican that he is, I expected him to jump to Darin Wilson's defense. He had this to say.

He would not say it was a racial thing because he doesn't know. He did say he read all of the reports and the grand jury testimony.

1- He said at very least Wilson is completely incompetent. That you never get out of the car by yourself if you know there is going to be a physical confrontation with an unarmed person. Especially if you were in Wilson's words, "afraid" of the guy.

2- He said Wilson should have let Brown go, followed him as far as he could in the car as he called for back up. If he had to, arrest him later.

3- He had no business firing once Brown was down on the ground. He fired four shots too many even if you believe his story.

4- It is unheard of to leave the guy laying in the street for four and a half hours.

5- If all of this was in accordance to Wilson's training, an idiot trained him.

6- Brown's family will get a huge settlement from Ferguson because if this goes to civil trail it will cost them many millions more.

What my nephew thinks happened is that Wilson got into an argument with the guy, got out of his car to whip his ass. Quickly realized he bit off more than he could chew, so he shot the guy.

Take it for what it's worth.

Today's Wow

I'm something of a Sapio-Sexual, so I think any Fem-i-Nerd is kinda hot anyway, but holy crap.  If STEM courses are populated with women like this one, I suddenly have reason for hope.

Merry Mythmas

Nov 30, 2014

Where's The Outrage?


Yo - "Conservatives",

Michael Jackson was plagued with financial problems at the time of his death in 2009. Last year, the IRS sued Jackson’s estate, claiming that it owed over $700 million in federal taxes.

If you're really all that het up about Da Gubmint staying off everybody's back, then you need to be raising something of a stink every time.  Being selective about your deep concern over who's getting stepped on is why the rest of us are pretty sure you're a lot more worried about who gets to join your little club and who doesn't.  

BTW, here's a tip for ya: You're not in the club.  And your eagerness to slag people in order to keep them out of the club is an obvious attempt to suck up to the bosses who are in the club, and - listen to me now cuz I'm talking sense here - that's not gonna get you into their club.  They need you to think they think you're cool so you'll go on doing the heavy lifting, but you're just another credulous rube gettin' played for a cheap trick.

Nov 29, 2014

Nov 26, 2014

Baloney Detection



1) Is the source reliable?
Errors occur, but if the source's errors tend to be all on one side or bunched together, it should raise a big red flag.
2) Does the source make similar claims on other subjects?
On related (or even marginally tangential) topics, is this source making the same general statements of fact?
3) Have the claims been verified independently?
Can the claimed results be replicated? 
4) How does the claim fit with the way we know the world works?
Too good to be true = prob'ly not true
5) Is the claim falsifiable?
What's the alternative explanation?  What's been done to try to disprove it? 
6) Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Any claim supported by only a few points, while challenged by lots of other points, is prob'ly bogus.
7) Are you playing by the rules of the scientific method?
UFOlogy vs SETI
8) Is the one making the claim presenting positive evidence?
Or are they just making unsupported denials of an "opposing" theory?
9) Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Pointing out a few anomalies or outliers doesn't negate current theory
10) Is the claim being driven by personal belief?
Is Confirmation Bias at work here? Is the claimant pushing a "theory" in support of an ideology and/or religion and/or world view?