Podcast for 3 February 2014

Started by MrBogosity, February 02, 2014, 04:00:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
[mp3]http://podcast.bogosity.tv/mp3s/BogosityPodcast-2014-02-03.mp3[/mp3]


Co-Host: Jonathan Loesche

News of the Bogus:
21:03 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: The Daily Show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/the-daily-show-minimum-wage_n_4688134.html

29:45 - Idiot Extraordinaire: China http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-23/news/46514138_1_internet-qihoo-sina-com

This Week's Quote: "Let children read whatever they want and then talk about it with them. If parents and kids can talk together, we won't have as much censorship because we won't have as much fear." —Judy Blum

When it comes to the Amanda Knox stuff, I read the most asinine remarks by a Harvard law professor about this issue. It was on an article on CNN called, "What's next for Amanda Knox?"
QuoteHarvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Knox's looks and public support may help her. "As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman, we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld.

"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he told AFP.

From the same article, Julian Ku also said this when American lawyers argue that this is double jeopardy:
QuoteA law professor disagreed. "They always forget she was convicted first," Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York, told Agence-France Presse.

If Italy does file an extradition request with the U.S. State Department, Knox will have the right to challenge her transfer to Italy in a U.S. court. "The chances of her winning that are not high because there has to be some very strong claim she'd have to make to block her extradition," Ku added.

"I followed the trial, it was slow but I never got the sense that it was unfair," he said.

Complete nonsense.

As far as Peter Schiff goes however, while it's true that the Daily Show acted completely dishonestly and are massive hypocrites for using unpaid interns to make a guy who disagrees with minimum wage laws look like a selfish monster who hates the poor, Schiff should have known better than to agree to do a comedy show and expect honest to goodness journalistic integrity. The Daily Show has been around long enough that he has no excuse to not know better.

Quote from: D on February 02, 2014, 04:54:21 PM
When it comes to the Amanda Knox stuff, I read the most asinine remarks by a Harvard law professor about this issue. It was on an article on CNN called, "What's next for Amanda Knox?"

I think I've seen ONE picture of Amanda Knox. And I can't even call up what she looks like in my head. This isn't about that. It's about an obviously innocent person being railroaded.

QuoteFrom the same article, Julian Ku also said this when American lawyers argue that this is double jeopardy:

It doesn't matter if she was convicted FIFTY times! Once you're found not guilty, that's that!

QuoteAs far as Peter Schiff goes however, while it's true that the Daily Show acted completely dishonestly and are massive hypocrites for using unpaid interns to make a guy who disagrees with minimum wage laws look like a selfish monster who hates the poor, Schiff should have known better than to agree to do a comedy show and expect honest to goodness journalistic integrity. The Daily Show has been around long enough that he has no excuse to not know better.

They're usually not THAT bad. And he's been on the show before and they were pretty respectful to him. Of course, like FSBlueApocalypse said, there's a difference between being interviewed live by Jon Stewart and being in a prerecorded segment. Also, I think Schiff said he knew going into it it'd be a hit piece.

February 03, 2014, 01:53:02 AM #3 Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 03:30:57 AM by thalamay
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that. In fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge. That's what they were held accountable for. It's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur when they knew that this was impossible to predict. BTW, the politicians in question were also convicted.

Ok, so I guess I was right. I dunno where you got your info, but I just checked some news stories from 2009 where Amanda Knox' sentence was discussed. According to the verdict, there was DNA of Amanda on the victim and they found a knife in Amanda's boyfriends flat that had both her and the victim's DNA on it. While the evidence appeared to be flimsy, it's certainly false that they didn't find anything.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 02, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
I think I've seen ONE picture of Amanda Knox. And I can't even call up what she looks like in my head. This isn't about that. It's about an obviously innocent person being railroaded.
Well, what I remember from the original lawsuit was that her looks were made into a big deal by the media. I think she was called "angel with icy eyes" in Italy. Of course that shouldn't have anything to do with anything, and I'm confident that at least when it comes to the courts, it doesn't.

However, I wonder how you know that she's "obviously innocent". Personally, I certainly lack the necessary information to make a call on the matter, but I seem to know more than you do. From what I know, I'd still plead 'not guilty', but I wouldn't say that it's obvious. But even if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't claim it to be without being in possession of all the facts, preferably reading all the court's transcripts. It's somewhat presumptuous to make such a bold statement without knowing the basics of the lawsuit, let alone the details.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 02, 2014, 05:53:18 PMIt doesn't matter if she was convicted FIFTY times! Once you're found not guilty, that's that!

Why's that? Again that's a very bold statement. Say a murder suspect gets away due to insufficient evidence, then later new evidence appears that prove beyond doubt that he/she did it, for example a video tape. Shouldn't he/she be convicted then?

February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM #6 Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 06:54:51 AM by MrBogosity
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 01:53:02 AM
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that.

Yes, they were. We covered it in detail when it happened.

QuoteIn fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge.

NO THEY DID NOT. They told the truth: smaller quakes are no indication of a bigger one coming. Sometimes they're preceded by smaller quakes, sometimes they're not. And a lot of times the smaller quakes happen with no big one following after. Pretty much every geologist on the planet backs them up on that. Smaller quakes are NO predictor of a bigger one coming.

QuoteIt's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur

They DID NOT predict that no earthquake would occur. They never said ANYTHING LIKE THAT. They said there's no reason to believe a large earthquake would occur then any more than there would at any other time, WHICH WAS TRUE.

Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 03:07:07 AM
According to the verdict, there was DNA of Amanda on the victim

None of Knox's DNA was on the victim.

Quoteand they found a knife in Amanda's boyfriends flat that had both her and the victim's DNA on it.

Nope, just hers the victim's. None of the victim's Knox's DNA was on the knife. (EDIT: Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly before.)

Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 03:54:27 AMHowever, I wonder how you know that she's "obviously innocent".

Because of the complete and utter lack of evidence, combined with the copious evidence pointing to Guede. As I said, how likely is it that she'd be able to clean up every single bit of her own DNA and other material there, while leaving his? It's a Likelihood Ratio that's so low it might as well be zero!

QuoteWhy's that? Again that's a very bold statement. Say a murder suspect gets away due to insufficient evidence, then later new evidence appears that prove beyond doubt that he/she did it, for example a video tape. Shouldn't he/she be convicted then?

Nope. No do-overs from an acquittal.

February 03, 2014, 06:35:36 AM #8 Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 06:40:19 AM by MrBogosity
Now the judge has spoken out: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amanda-knox-s-judge-says-he-suffered-over-guilty-verdict-1.2520222

Apparently, Knox is guilty because of two things:

1) She had a motive (although prosecutors couldn't agree on what it was)

2) She didn't show up for work

That's IT. If you can convict someone on that line of reasoning, you can convict practically ANYONE.

What's also interesting (aside from the incredibly short amount of time the jury spent deliberating, which I neglected to mention in the podcast) is also that, apparently, the jury AND THE JUDGE have to agree on a verdict. Wow. Italian courts are screwed up.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot 3) The defendants didn't take the stand in their defense. Yeah.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:35:36 AM
Now the judge has spoken out: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amanda-knox-s-judge-says-he-suffered-over-guilty-verdict-1.2520222

Apparently, Knox is guilty because of two things:

1) She had a motive (although prosecutors couldn't agree on what it was)

2) She didn't show up for work

That's IT. If you can convict someone on that line of reasoning, you can convict practically ANYONE.

What's also interesting (aside from the incredibly short amount of time the jury spent deliberating, which I neglected to mention in the podcast) is also that, apparently, the jury AND THE JUDGE have to agree on a verdict. Wow. Italian courts are screwed up.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot 3) The defendants didn't take the stand in their defense. Yeah.

Wow. As far as I'm concerned, that makes their court system illegitimate.

Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 01:53:02 AM
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that. In fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge. That's what they were held accountable for. It's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur when they knew that this was impossible to predict. BTW, the politicians in question were also convicted.

OK, let the Geologist here actually have some input:

firstly, the Geologists in general didn't really say what you imply they said: they said at the meeting of theirs there was no way to know that there was an earthquake coming: it may or may not. big difference. As Boschi pointed out, the only way they could have avoided this whole bullshit was to say: "yeah! and Earthquake is definitely coming!" but, not being God, he and the others couldn't, and can't.

secondly, and very much worth noting is that the Geologists--especially the geophysicists and seismologists--themselves were not allowed time to talk to the media regarding this: a couple of the commissioners (one of whom was a volcanologist) did try to reassure the public, but even if we were take it as saying "there will be no earthquake" (which it wasn't), that's just two of the six people: why punish four others for what two did?

so I hate to break it to you, but yea, they are being punished for failing to predict an earthquake: pretty it up all you want, but it's the truth. failure to predict an earthquake, is not the same as saying "there will be no earthquake", since the persons in question only had to to say "I don't know, and there is no way to know", and still meet the criterion of failing to predict an earthquake.

http://www.livescience.com/39978-enzo-boschi-denounces-laquila-conviction.html
"All you guys complaining about the possibility of guy on guy relationships...you're also denying us girl on girl.  Works both ways if you know what I mean"

-Jesse Cox

Peter Schiff just released this:
QuoteFrom: [redacted] [mailto:xxxxxx@thedailyshow.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Andrew Schiff
Subject: RE: FW: The Daily Show

We NEVER edit out of context.  Meaning we never ever show responses to a question we never asked.  For starters it LOOKS BAD!  But in all seriousness it's not our prerogative to attack our interview subjects & slander them (unless they say really horrible, awful, racist things... but last I checked Peter doesn't say such things!).

The general idea is to pretend this is a real news interview & correct our correspondent when he/she asks goofy questions.  Our questions usually come from misunderstanding the other side's arguments, for example.  We want our interview subject to play the straight guy & that way they look normal & we look like the fool.

In this case Samantha Bee is our correspondent.  She'll take things she heard at these fast food strikes & report them back to Peter.  Peter tells Sam why she may be mistaken, or what the strikers aren't taking into account, etc.  That's the general idea.  And we'll go over all of this before we start up the cameras next week.  (Peter & Jena can also discuss these concerns over the phone tomorrow.)

But rest assured-- NOTHING will be edited out of context.

If you guys have any other questions or concerns don't hesitate to bring them up!

[redacted]
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
604 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

This needs to be spread like wild fire so that future guests will be made aware that the Daily Show's promises mean nothing.

Quote from: D on February 03, 2014, 04:52:26 PM
Peter Schiff just released this:
This needs to be spread like wild fire so that future guests will be made aware that the Daily Show's promises mean nothing.

From his post immediately before that one:

QuoteThe segment shows Samantha Bee asking a question or making a statement, but then uses my answer or reaction to a completely different question from an entirely different part of the conversation.

In fact, my comment about people being "worth what they are worth" was not said in reference to the intellectually disabled. I told Samantha Bee something to the effect of, "If an individual can only deliver $5 per hour of productivity to an employer, but the government mandates a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, an employer would be legally prohibited from hiring that worker. The government cannot force employers to pay workers more than they are worth -- YOU ARE WORTH WHAT YOU ARE WORTH -- and the only way a worker can earn more money is to increase his value to employers."

What can I say but, "CALLED IT!!!"

Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 03, 2014, 04:18:50 PM
OK, let the Geologist here actually have some input:

firstly, the Geologists in general didn't really say what you imply they said: they said at the meeting of theirs there was no way to know that there was an earthquake coming: it may or may not. big difference. As Boschi pointed out, the only way they could have avoided this whole bullshit was to say: "yeah! and Earthquake is definitely coming!" but, not being God, he and the others couldn't, and can't.

secondly, and very much worth noting is that the Geologists--especially the geophysicists and seismologists--themselves were not allowed time to talk to the media regarding this: a couple of the commissioners (one of whom was a volcanologist) did try to reassure the public, but even if we were take it as saying "there will be no earthquake" (which it wasn't), that's just two of the six people: why punish four others for what two did?

so I hate to break it to you, but yea, they are being punished for failing to predict an earthquake: pretty it up all you want, but it's the truth. failure to predict an earthquake, is not the same as saying "there will be no earthquake", since the persons in question only had to to say "I don't know, and there is no way to know", and still meet the criterion of failing to predict an earthquake.

http://www.livescience.com/39978-enzo-boschi-denounces-laquila-conviction.html

Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. I'm sure that most of the time these geologists in question were honest and said that there is no way of knowing when an earthquake might hit you, but here there was clear evidence that local politicians and these scientists came together and conspired to give the public the perception of there not being any danger.

For example there was the case of Giampaolo Giuliani, a technician who has been able to predict a couple of earthquakes in the past. The city of L'Aquila funded his research and shortly before the devastating earthquake, he predicted it. What the people that were later sued did was not only to doubt his prediction (which they would have been perfectly justified to do as he is a bit of a crank), they actually sued him for panic mongering claiming that no earthquake was coming.

Secondly, there were lots of wiretaps going on at the time due to suspicion of corruption (many of which turned out to be justified) and they proved that the geologists were persuaded by the politicians to act against better knowledge.

Lastly, on the night before the quake, there was the fatal press conference with those scientists in which they didn't qualify their statements by saying that nobody can predict earthquakes or that the chances of an earthquake are as they always are. They deliberately (as the wiretaps proved) failed to do so. What they did say was that there's nothing to fear and that the inhabitants should make themselves a nice evening. A couple of hours later, more than 300 were dead.

Back when the court case was finished, I heard a radio program where they questioned German geologists about the case and while they were shocked by the severity of the sentences, they agreed with the lawsuit being brought forth to begin with as the scientists and politicians in question "made statements that were simply factually wrong".

So as I originally said, this is more complicated than it is made out to be. It's really less a case about science and more about Italian corruption.

February 03, 2014, 06:45:25 PM #14 Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 07:14:05 PM by thalamay
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
Smaller quakes are NO predictor of a bigger one coming.
Sure, but that's not what I claimed and it's not what this was about. See my post above.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
None of Knox's DNA was on the victim.
I checked it once again, and YES, they DID find DNA of her. Which if you think about it isn't too surprising as they shared an apartment. It would have been more extraordinary if they didn't find her DNA. Crucially however, they did find Amanda's DNA on the bra the victim was wearing.

Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
Nope, just hers the victim's. None of the victim's Knox's DNA was on the knife. (EDIT: Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly before.)
That's true, I have since read more on the issue and while a first test found both, her and the victim's DNA, a second test didn't. In that case, it should be "in dubio pro reo".
Apart from the DNA evidence, what did play the biggest role in the original lawsuit (and I would guess also in the most current one) were her contradictory statements and her accusation of someone who turned out to be innocent, combined with a faked break in to the apartment.

As I said, I'm also in the "not guilty" camp, but I wouldn't call it obvious. I think the overall evidence (as far as I'm aware of it) is too flimsy so convict anyone. But there's another chance as there's one more appeal court to go to.

EDIT: Here's an overview of the evidence against Amanda and her former boyfriend. It comes from a biased source I guess, so take it with a grain of salt. Again, I'm still not convinced that this is enough to convict them. But it shows that this isn't as open and shut as you made it out to be:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence