Is that really what's happening in this country nowadays? Is the President of the United States really going to pardon racist sheriffs who repeatedly break the law and willfully violate court orders? The President of the United States is pardoning Joe Arpaio for intentionally disregarding the courts of the United States when they repeatedly instructed him to stop using unlawful practices to target minorities.

We can leave aside how Arpaio is a racist who flouted the law at every opportunity. We have leave aside how Arpaio is so narcissistic he plotted a fake assassination attempt against himself then framed a man for it so he could get good publicity. We can leave aside how Arpaio is responsible for numerous deaths and the continued sexual abuse of many people, including children.

We can leave aside just how horrible a person Arpaio is. It won't change the nature of this case. Arpaio did used unlawful practices as sheriff to target a class of people he didn't like. The courts told him to stop. He responded (metaphorically), "Screw you!" The courts told him to stop again. And again. And again. Each time, he responded, "Screw you!" The courts finally got tired of this and recommended he be prosecuted. He was, and he was convicted.

Then Donald Trump came along and told the courts, "Screw you!" and pardoned Arpaio. Because apparently the President of the United States wants to defend individuals who intentionally engage in unlawful practices to target people he dislikes. Trump basically just told everyone who might want to target minorities, "Hey, don't worry about the courts telling you what you're doing is illegal. Just keep doing it. I've got your back."

I don't have the words.

Post about math is scheduled to go up tomorrow when I'll have time to discuss it/correct errors people might find. In the meantime, I want to share something which amuses me.

In the United States, people have the right to remain silent when questioned by the police. The Supreme Court has ruled to invoke this right, a person must unambiguously indicate they do no wish to speak to the police, such as by saying they want to remain silent. If they do so, the police cannot continue to interrogate them.

To invoke your right to remain silent, you must speak out. Being silent is not invoking your right to remain silent. In fact, remaining silent can actually be a waiver of your right to remain silent:

Thompkins makes various arguments that his answers to questions from the detectives were inadmissible. He first contends that he “invoke[d] his privilege” to remain silent by not saying anything for a sufficient period of time, so the interrogation should have “cease[d]” before he made his inculpatory statements. Id. , at 474; see Mosley , 423 U. S., at 103 (police must “ ‘scrupulously hono[r]’ ” this “critical safeguard” when the accused invokes his or her “ ‘right to cut off questioning’ ” (quoting Miranda , supra , at 474, 479)).

This argument is unpersuasive. In the context of invoking the Miranda right to counsel, the Court in Davis v. United States , 512 U. S. 452, 459 (1994) , held that a suspect must do so “unambiguously.” If an accused makes a statement concerning the right to counsel “that is ambiguous or equivocal” or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid. , or ask questions to clarify whether the accused wants to invoke his or her Miranda rights, 512 U. S., at 461–462.
...
Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley , supra , at 103 (quoting Miranda , supra , at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.

I can't get past this. Remaining absolutely silent for three hours while police interrogate you is not invoking your right to remain silent, but speaking out to say, "I don't want to talk to you" is.

My last post was more rambly than I care for so I'm going to take the time to make one more post on the subject of the Civil War before moving on. I mostly want to because over the last few days I've been derided, and even labeled a racist, for saying it is wrong to summarize the Civil War by saying, "The Civil War was fought over slavery."

Slavery was obviously an important factor in the Civil War, but for the first two years of the war, slaves weren't freed. More than one Union state had slaves during the war, and the last slaves to exist in the United States were actually ones held by members of the Union. To claim the war was just because of slavery is absurd.
Continue reading →

I had a post scheduled to go live today to follow up on the mathematical discussion of my last post. However, the recent unrest in the United States over racial issues, particularly in how they relate to the Civil War, has provoked me to write a different post for today. If you're not interested in such things, or in what's bound to be a lot of rambling, I suggest skipping this.
Continue reading →

Suffering from a bit of heat exhaustion after doing too much yardowrk, so for today, I'd like to ask a question I've long pondered:

Here's a question for you, if we're our meanest to the ones we love because we can be most open with them, who do we really love?

— Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos) August 14, 2016

I'm supposed to have another post about mathematics going up today, but I can't figure out how to write it. I have all the calculations done, but some good news over the last couple weeks has left me in too energetic a mood to write about slow, detailed stuff. Rather than skip posting, I thought I'd do something different. Here is a recent headline:

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

Based on that headline, what do you think the article would say? Specifically, how would a person make this comparison work? Continue reading →

Hey guys. As you all know, today is a holiday celebrating the independence of the United States. This means explosions, grilled food and whatnot. What it doesn't mean is that today was the day the United States became independent.

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail as I plan on enjoying some grilled hamburgers shortly, I just want to spread a little awareness of something I feel is important: The United States gained its legal independence On July 2nd, 1776. That is the date the Second Continent Congress voted to declare independence for what became the United States of America.

What makes this particularly interesting is people celebrate on July 4th because that is the date on the Declaration of Independence. That is interesting because historians generally believe the Declaration of Independence wasn't actually signed on July 4th, but rather, August 2nd. The evidence supports that idea even though Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson all claimed to have signed it on July 4th later in their lives. The presumption is that they themselves fell into the same trap everyone else has.

I don't know what the truth is. Maybe the Declaration of Independence truly was signed on July 4th, 1776. Maybe not. What's incredible is nobody knows for sure. Americans have celebrated Independence Day on July 4th for over two hundred years not because that is the day the nation became independent (it isn't), but because that's the date listed on a piece of paper, a date which may well be wrong.

I think that's kind of incredible. What I also think is incredible is the smell of what, if I'm not mistaken, are grilled peaches. I'm going to go check. I hope you all have a good July 4th, whatever the day may mean to you.

A person on Twitter suggested a recent paper might be of interest to me due to its use (or believed misuse) of statistics. I wasn't going to talk about it, but while reading it, I saw this line:

When it comes to the impact of AGW seriousness and existence beliefs on environmental attitudes and partisan identity, Republicans would be expected to be more likely to engage in motivated reasoning than Democrats.

I can't ignore that. This isn't about statistics. I'm not even going to talk about math today. Today, I'm going to just talk about some basic matters of logic. Because honestly, if you think one side of an argument is more likely to engage in motivated reason than your side, you probably need to rethink the fundamentals of your views.
Continue reading →