Over the past 48 hours, nearly 3500 e-mails that were sent in late October or early November have magically appeared in my Gmail Spam folder. Some of the e-mails were legitimate, so Gmail is quietly delivering real e-mails a month late. Other users are having the same problem. Are you?

I’m still waiting for an update from Google explaining what went wrong. An e-mail application can have all the space and ajax in the world, but if it’s not reliable, it’s worthless.

When I was 7, my mother served corn and green beans alongside Pizza Hut at my birthday party. That’s what mothers are for.

When I was 15, my mother made me wear a jacket to a pool party on a cold evening. That’s what mothers are for.

Twenty minutes ago, my mother e-mailed me to inform me that new operating system is an anagram of Ross’ giant enemy wept. That’s what mothers are—what? No. That’s what my mother is for!

Ah, family. Happy Thanksgiving!

The UCPD has published its Taser policy [pdf] as of September 27, 2005. I urge you to read the document yourself and come to your own conclusions about Tuesday’s incident, as I will be quoting only portions here.

For comparison: the Taser policy (p.3) of the University of Texas (Austin) police department as of December 2002.

UCLA Police Policy § 301.24 (Pain Compliance Techniques) gives officers the right to use a Taser in drive-stun capacity to attain compliance from passively or aggressively resisting individuals “only when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” The policy urges officers to consider “the totality of the situation” and cites a number of factors (transcribed verbatim):

• The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used.
• The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled.
• The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance.
• The nature of the offense involved.
• The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved.
• The need for prompt resolution of the situation.
• If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.

Furthermore, part 4 of the procedure urges (but does not require) officers to “give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser” to:

• Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained. Mostafa was Tasered at least three times after being handcuffed.
• Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g. falls from significant heights, operating vehicles, etc.). Mostafa was Tasered at or near the top of a staircase. The video shows him falling down.

Putting aside questions of racial discrimination that only cloud the issue of unnecessary force, I have trouble reconciling the officers’ repeated use of the Taser with UCPD policy.