Federal judges are usually pretty good. State judges, depends a lot on how the state picks its judges. Elected judges are a pretty terrible thing.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
We are in the midst of the 148th anniversary of Sherman's march to the sea.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe View PostHell no. I would only feel better in the arena of technical matters when and if judged by competent individuals capable of understanidng the evidence placed before them. (Which is why arbitration often is the preferred route) A judge is often times merely a political appointee without many firing nuerons but replete with ambitions. The jury solution is only poor in that our general public is so woefully inadequate. Likewise the jury slection process designed to include the most woefully inadequate people possible to make up the jury.
Comment
-
Southerners have been mutants since the 1860's. Northeasterners became mutantized after love canal et.al. in the 50's and 60's."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostI'm talking about in criminal matters, in which case the technical matter at hand is law, which judges are eminently more qualified to consider than juries."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
If I were the guy who shot Trayvon Martin (I still insist, what the hell kind of name is Trayvon, seriously) then yes, political aspirations of the judge would be something to worry about. However if it's just an ordinary trial with no media attention like 99% of the trials in this country then I wouldn't be worried about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostHere is the very simple Bayesian case against believing the charges laid against Agent Orange:
There is some chance that the controversy surrounding Agent Orange is a purely social phenomenon, with no basis in scientific evidence. We've seen such phenomena elsewhere - I alluded to one such earlier, the anti-vaccine movement. The notion that vaccines cause autism has been an ongoing controversy for nearly 15 years, but is complete bull****. It originated from a single (incorrectly interpreted) experiment published in 1998. Even if the experiment itself had been done correctly, one paper would generally be insufficient evidence for a conclusion like this, but it was seized upon by some (hysterical) elements of the public. They then generated a whole bunch of extra data that supposedly demonstrated the link.
Other examples: cell phones causing cancer, depleted uranium weapons doing various terrible things, fluoridation being a Communist mind-control plot. The public is well-disposed to believe this sort of thing, especially if the accused is scary-sounding.
Also consider the diversity of claims about Agent Orange. Agent Orange isn't just accused of being a carcinogen, it is also accused of causing all kinds of birth defects. There is not and probably cannot be any scientific evidence for that (it is just too hard to study, absent enormous effect sizes).
Finally, there are a bunch of vocal people who have a political interest in making the US look bad.
The conclusion from all of this is that even if Agent Orange had no harmful effects whatsoever, we would not be surprised to see the controversy that we do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostThere is some chance that the controversy surrounding Agent Orange is a purely social phenomenon, with no basis in scientific evidence.
Read up on how it started. The US government became aware of the potential health effects of components of Agent Orange in the late 60's, and it was due to studies on agricultural use of some of the components of Agent Orange. It had nothing to do with the war initially. The issue post-war exploded when those and similar findings were first researched by veterans and their families to explain health problems (rightly or wrongly).
We've seen such phenomena elsewhere - I alluded to one such earlier, the anti-vaccine movement.
The conclusion from all of this is that even if Agent Orange had no harmful effects whatsoever, we would not be surprised to see the controversy that we do.
It's rather clear that Agent Orange was latched onto by these specific actors (rightly or wrongly) because of specific studies that showed physiological effects in laboratory animals. Pretending that it's just something hippies thought up while protesting on campuses is rather absurd.
I would also be surprised to see Monsanto paying money if there was absolutely no scientific basis for the claims. They don't willingly pay money to GM nutjobs, because that's all they are is nutjobs without any actual evidence of potential harm, even though there's a lot of nutjobs gnashing their teeth about GM crops. It's not like we've gotten rid of juries either ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostHowever, the literature is inconclusive, particularly on the specific question of whether the concentrations of TCDD in contaminated Agent Orange were sufficient to cause the diseases attributed to it. Much of it is also suspect - either because it was politically motivated (this goes for both sides) or (more seriously) because medical research in general is in a sorry state and is statistically crippled.
I am sorry for your loss - that sounds like a particularly awful situation to go through, for him and for you - but this is no more evidence than Jenny McCarthy has against the MMR vaccine.
I'll admit that I'm not familiar with this, but it isn't convincing on its own. There are a large number of rare diseases, so any small population might be expected to have a wildly disproportionate incidence of some of them. There's also the general "maybe there was some other exposure that was well-correlated with Agent Orange" etc. that you allude to earlier.
The diseases attributed to Agent Orange are also much more diverse than this - birth defects, etc. - so even if Agent Orange did cause elevated incidence of a few rare cancers, it is almost certainly not guilty of most of its charges.
The fact is, even knowing its effects, I would have used the stuff under the circumstances that applied in that war - not for broader purposes of forced urbanization and support of the "strategic hamlet" program (the pre-Orange rainbow agents), but for limited purposes of creating FOB perimeter security zones, and exposing supply routes such as parts of the Ho Chi Minh trail. However, Dow still knowingly sent contaminated product, and USG knowingly accepted it, and both tried to stonewall any communication or collection of information about the effects. From a legal standpoint, that's enough, and the question of which disease processes were caused to what extent by Orange specifically is pretty much moot. Knowing there is a hazard, concealing the hazard, and obstructing communication regarding the effect of that hazard creates liability. End of story.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove View PostSherman used agent Orange? D**n you Yankee ingenuity! Can someone post pics of the three headed rebel kids resulting from this Northern atrocity?!
Hell, doc, ever been through back country West Virginia or northern Georgia or deep in the Ozarks?When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostThe fact that it was used in an unpopular war and has a menacing-sounding name makes it even more likely to capture the public's imagination. Nobody ever talks about Agent Pink. Or Agent White.
Comment
-
Originally posted by regexcellent View PostI'm talking about in criminal matters, in which case the technical matter at hand is law, which judges are eminently more qualified to consider than juries.
Comment
-
F*ck you Kentonio, you made my point and agree with me again. :mad! q:"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostMichael, you suck at statistics. That's all I have to say. Until you learn up a bit, you're going to keep being insistently, confidently wrong.
You probably weren't even a gleam in your daddy's eye when this issue started, so your internet research is laughable. It wasn't leftists and hippies who started raising the issue, and it wasn't an anti-war crowd - they didn't give a rat's ass about a bunch of baby-killers. It wasn't a bunch of greedy vets looking to sponge off the government and make a ton of money. The original issue, back in the days before the internet when dinosaurs roamed the earth, was raised by vets who were generally proud of their service, had no connection with or liking for the hippies and fashionable anti-war crowd, and the issue was being able to share and communicate medical records and information in the face of an unusual degree of stonewalling from VA.
You weren't there, so read what you want off of whatever internet site passes for reality in your world, but the simple fact remains, you weren't there. So we all know which orifice you're posting from.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Comment
Comment