>> ^Payback:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Payback:
This is why Springer doesn't work with smart people.

I'm not hep to your jive.
??

Who would watch Springer if the guests just sang broadway musical scores at each other instead of throwing chairs?


Ah yes, of course.

Thank You for your patience with my density.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Payback:
This is why Springer doesn't work with smart people.

I'm not hep to your jive.
??


Who would watch Springer if the guests just sang broadway musical scores at each other instead of throwing chairs?

>> ^Payback:

This is why Springer doesn't work with smart people.


I'm not hep to your jive.
??

>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not incidentally, that is also the AUMF for the war in Afghanistan as well.

>> ^SDGundamX:

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court.

In the Jose Pedilla case, they arrested him when he came onto American soil, and then held him without trial on the basis that he was a prisoner of war, and not a criminal.

In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court.

That does not mean that the government has to try all enemy combatants before killing them.

It means that people who get taken prisoner under some sort of wartime doctrine have the right to a day in court to challenge their status as being a participant in war.

>> ^SDGundamX:
He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

What's the definition of "battlefield" and "during combat"? Are soldiers in war never legally allowed to attack first? And what's the battlefield mean when we're talking about a non-state entity engaging in guerrilla warfare from strongholds located in many countries?

Again, I say all this not because I think it's right, but because it's where we're at now.

Obama didn't create this legal precedent. Obama isn't violating the law by using this to go after terrorists. I wish Obama was fighting it rather than using it, but wishing doesn't make it so any more than wishing it was illegal makes it illegal.

Obama deserves some shit for this, but I think Tapper's got exactly the right tack on the type of shit he deserves -- make the administration come out and explain a) what exactly they claim they have the right to do, b) explain why they think they have the right to do it, and c) explain whether their answers to a and b jives with their own view of American legal traditions.

The people who want to make this into "Obama committed a crime" aren't helping fix this, they're just helping Republicans win the next election.

Accuracy isn't memory's primary concern. Memory is highly functional, just not in the way you think it is. I never said memory was always inaccurate, but it often is.

Your reaction is one I encounter all the time. People are perfectly willing to accept that other people's memories can be inaccurate, just not theirs. It doesn't bother me, because unless you study memory and understand how it works, it's difficult to accept.

But I'll say this again, because it is worth repeating until people really stop and think about what it means: Confidence is not related to accuracy.

You have also misinterpreted the research I linked to. Yes, they found that emotional features were remembered poorly, but so were non-emotional features. The emotional features were just remembered more poorly. If you would like to read the entire article and not just the abstract, there are even more surprising data they present.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Like I said, I don't doubt that memory is inaccurate, but if it were always inaccurate to the degree you're describing it wouldn't be very functional at all would it?
I remember the names of all of my teachers from first through eighth grade
Mrs. Henyadas
Mrs. Summers
Mrs. Walters
Mr. Polinski
Mr. Leonard
Mrs. Bagget (which I will NEVER forget b/c my sixth grade brain always wanted to call her Mrs. Faggot)
Mr. Syzniak (sp?)
Mrs. Lessner
I highly doubt that I imagined teacher's names from entire years of my life, I will dig out my old report cards and photograph them if you like (but you'll probably just say I forged those and forgot about it while I was sleep walking through an entire week).
On the other hand, the link that you provided even says "the strong emotional reactions elicited by flashbulb events are remembered poorly, worse than nonemotional features such as where and from whom one learned of the attack"
So when you say "you will be completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened" to me it doesn't seem to jive with the research YOU have provided. I'm sorry my memory isn't as faulty as you are doing a poor job presenting it to be.
Wait what were we talking about?
>> ^berticus:
Yes, it is precisely the time to bring them up. And yes, your memory really is that faulty. Everyone's is. I'm very sorry memory doesn't work the way you want it to.

Like I said, I don't doubt that memory is inaccurate, but if it were always inaccurate to the degree you're describing it wouldn't be very functional at all would it?

I remember the names of all of my teachers from first through eighth grade

Mrs. Henyadas
Mrs. Summers
Mrs. Walters
Mr. Polinski
Mr. Leonard
Mrs. Bagget (which I will NEVER forget b/c my sixth grade brain always wanted to call her Mrs. Faggot)
Mr. Syzniak (sp?)
Mrs. Lessner

I highly doubt that I imagined teacher's names from entire years of my life, I will dig out my old report cards and photograph them if you like (but you'll probably just say I forged those and forgot about it while I was sleep walking through an entire week).

On the other hand, the link that you provided even says "the strong emotional reactions elicited by flashbulb events are remembered poorly, worse than nonemotional features such as where and from whom one learned of the attack"

So when you say "you will be completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened" to me it doesn't seem to jive with the research YOU have provided. I'm sorry my memory isn't as faulty as you are doing a poor job presenting it to be.

Wait what were we talking about?
>> ^berticus:

Yes, it is precisely the time to bring them up. And yes, your memory really is that faulty. Everyone's is. I'm very sorry memory doesn't work the way you want it to.

excuse me, stewardess. I speak jive.

Happy birthday, Jive Mittens!

Wow.

"Women and children first " goes right out the door when its a me or you situation.

good to know.

I never did understand fully the whole women and children first, seriously, you want equality then it should be Children first, everyone else for themselves, your an adult you can sway and jive just like any man.

It doesn't jive with how you experience reality? Well sorry, but, too bad -- that's precisely what it is. Your phenomenological experience feeling different to your epistemological experience is irrelevant. At some point you have to stop the infinite regress of intervening variables and just accept that brain=mind, and that ironically, your mind has not evolved to comprehend the vastness of a system like the brain. All the evidence we have suggests brain=mind. You can invoke dualism but it's akin to supernaturalism -- there's no need. Furthermore, the idea that the eye and smell system never "touch" is wrong. Finally, why focus on cross-modal sensory integration when there are more interesting questions that relate to the brain and mind? e.g., qualia, peak shift, synchrony.

Sorry don't mean that to sound rude, just my 2c.

@chilaxe

I have heard similar explanations and they still don't make sense to me. Mostly because it doesn't jive with how we experience reality. It is like saying 2 different radio stations broadcasting 2 different signals at 2 different frequencies are one radio station. Or, to put in back in the Brain; the Eye and Smell system never "touch" in your brain, but still form a mind where they are touching. What, where, why and how are the 2 signals being interpolated as one? The thing that is doing that is what we call mind...what, where, why, and how still haven't had a convincing explanation...to me at least.

>> ^marbles:

In response to the latest title edit "California man trolls local news station?"
He was probably going by what he was told by the Federal Agents when he said it was about unpaid student loans. Does the rest of his story not jive?
Going by the warrant, it looks like his wife was running multiple financial aid scams.
She may have been just trying to take out a bunch of different loans and then stick her husband with them.


Who gives a fuck about that shit, the important thing is did the door make it?!?!?

I had the same reaction to the new title. Was this guy trolling? Or was he misinformed about jurisdiction and who was doing what? Did he exaggerate a little bit (he is hysterically funny) but the essence of his story is true?

I'm still not all that comfortable with feeling like we have the whole story.... if we had all the facts, we might still think that the SWAT response was over the top for the offense. Warrants by definition are written very broadly -- how many loans are we talking about? I can't tell from the warrant. Is it one bad application? Or multiples? How much money?

When it is okay to bring in SWAT on a financial crime? From wiki: "A SWAT team is an elite tactical unit in various national law enforcement departments. They are trained to perform high-risk operations that fall outside of the abilities of regular officers."

Fraudulent loan application(s?) is a "high-risk operation"? Maybe @Lawdeedaw can give us some perspective, if he's willing?


>> ^marbles:

In response to the latest title edit "California man trolls local news station?"
He was probably going by what he was told by the Federal Agents when he said it was about unpaid student loans. Does the rest of his story not jive?
Going by the warrant, it looks like his wife was running multiple financial aid scams.
She may have been just trying to take out a bunch of different loans and then stick her husband with them.

In response to the latest title edit "California man trolls local news station?"

He was probably going by what he was told by the Federal Agents when he said it was about unpaid student loans. Does the rest of his story not jive?

Going by the warrant, it looks like his wife was running multiple financial aid scams.

She may have been just trying to take out a bunch of different loans and then stick her husband with them.

@blankfist, the correct Krugman answers are:

Commodity prices are going up for supply & demand reasons, core inflation and wages are still flat (as are bond interest rates). A weak dollar is how you solve the unemployment problems, just ask Milton Friedman. The problem is that it's going to be hard to get a weak dollar.

Oh, and on the "dollar closed weak", you should go here and hit the 3Y timeframe. That's the dollar index from about when the recession started to now. Would an honest person describe that as a consistent downward trend?

As for recessions and their official end, I haven't seen any economist declare that the official end of the recession meant the economy was A-OK now. Mostly they interpret "end of the recession" as "beginning of recovery", which jives with the metrics the NBER uses to decide those things.

Oh, and this month commodity, oil, and gold prices are down, and the dollar is up: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/17/markets/oil_gold_selloff/index.htm

And here's Krugman on that topic three days ago, pointing out once again that fluctuations in commodity prices != inflation.