February 22, 2005
The Infallibility of Government
“The government should fix that!”
“The government should pay for that!”
“How could the government let that happen?!”
All statements and questions that we frequently hear in our society. We have grown into a myth that the government is a benevolent and all-powerful force in this country. We have more faith in government to be good than Catholics have in the Pope. We trust, despite endless evidence to the contrary, that government not only can, but will come in and fix the problems that we face.
When corporations or individuals go wrong, people assume that it’s just because they’re naturally self-interested and evil. When the government does wrong, the perpetrators get a pass, because they were just acting in the peoples’ best interest. How it is that we demonize the people who have earned their positions of power, while exalting those who have simply been “elected” or “appointed” to positions of much wider power, is simply beyond me.
I’ve often asked myself why people have such faith in the government. Scott Scheule, posting at Catallarchy, in an impressively insightful write-up, posits that it is due to a sampling bias:
The only time the federal government steps in is when the States or market do something wrong. People don’t hound the government when the market is working, and citizens don’t write their Congressmen when the fifty States are doing the right thing, all in their fifty different ways. If it ain’t broke, then why subsidize it?
So, I suggest that it is only when markets and sovereign States err that the ire of people is aroused to such a level that the federal government acts.
The result of this is that the federal government develops an illusion of heroism (legitimacy?), a deus ex machina to swoop down from above to integrate schools, sue tobacco companies, protect the environment, free slaves, and all those other marvelous things you learned about in history class if you went to public school. Thousands of politicians cloak and reinforce this bias; they are rationally of course quite willing to take as much responsibility as they can for being saviors–their reelection depends on it.
For 200 years, the government has been the one stepping in, with much fanfare and hoopla. No mention has ever been made to go back ten or twenty years later, to make sure that they had solved the problem and not created any new ones. Likewise, once a government “solution” has taken hold, there is always the reminder of the initial problem brought up when the proposal is made to remove the solution.
This is made even worse by the fact that so much of government’s cost is hidden. People have a much easier time ending a benefit when they realize they’re paying way too much for it. As I mentioned in my post on tax withholding, we rarely ask ourselves how much we are truly paying for the services of government. When taxes are withheld and you get a small refund at the end of the year, tax rates and the effects of regulations are an abstraction. “The government’s money” no longer registers in your mind as having come from your own wallet.
So what’s the answer? Unfortunately, I can’t say that I know. But at least now we have begun to identify the problem. If we can convince people how badly the government is doing their job (see: IRS, immigration, postal service, Amtrak, Department of Education, Agriculture, FBI, CIA, Social Security, Medicare, etc etc), and then explain what these “services” cost (end withholding and simplify the tax code), maybe we’ll see some real change.
Bush tells UN: “Talk to the Hand”
From the text of Bush’s speech after meeting with NATO, I was struck more by the absence of something than what he said. He never used the words “United Nations”. (Actually, he mentioned it once, at the very end, while answering a question, and referring to resolutions pertaining to Iraq rather than the UN itself).
From Bush’s speech, it was very clear that he was holding out NATO as a truly working alliance, and deliberately snubbing the UN (and perhaps EU) as a bunch of useless bureaucrats.
After all, NATO is the most successful alliance in the history of the world — think about that, the most successful alliance in the history of the world. Because of NATO, Europe is whole and united and at peace. And that’s a milestone in the history of liberty.
Hmm, does someone think the UN should go the way of the League of Nations?
I appreciate so very much the transformation of NATO that’s taking place. In order for NATO to be vital it’s got to be relevant, and if it stays stuck in the past it’s slowly but surely going to fade into oblivion. But it’s not staying stuck in the past. We’ve created a NATO response force — and I want to thank you for your leadership on that, Jaap — in the chemical and biological and radiological and nuclear battalion. The NATO command structure is streamlined.
Notice the use of the term “relevant”. Does this remind you of anything? And I think Bush’s version of a “response force” will carry a little more weight than the blue-helmets.
It gave me a chance to say that the relationship between the United States and Europe is a vital relationship, a necessary relationship, an important relationship, and our relationship within NATO is the cornerstone of that relationship. So, Jaap, thank you for your hospitality. Glad to be here.
Again, although I don’t mean to harp on this, he says that NATO is the cornerstone of the relationship. Not the UN.
It is clear, and has been for a while, that Bush thinks the UN has jumped the shark. The UN is an organization that does not seem to be useful for US interests, nor do they seem to be effective at doing anything to assist the third world. It’s simply a forum for tin-pot dictators to act like they have some semblance of legitimacy to try and push around the civilized countries of the world. Bush can’t come out and openly state this, of course, but it doesn’t take much to read between these lines.
February 21, 2005
Strengthen the Fifth Amendment
The last 12 words of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution are “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
They say that power corrupts. We, as Americans, gave the government power to take land when it was necessary for public use, and required that the government compensate the owners in return. This power was granted, and rightly so, for issues where the land was truly needed for public usage, such as routing of transportation, supplying water or electrical power, and the link. But as of late, the power has been regularly abused.
The City of Freeport is using the doctrine of Eminent Domain to “acquire†a parcel of land that is currently owned by a shrimp company and turn it over to another private investor for the purpose of establishing a luxury yacht club. According to the spokesman representing the City of Freeport; pardon my not having an exact transcript in front of me, “The State of Texas encourages this.†The idea being that the City of Freeport would be better off, its image would improve and more especially its tax base would greatly improve if there were a bunch of rich folks with yachts instead of a smelly shrimp company using that piece of the beach front.
Nor is this an isolated incident. Larry Salzman and Alex Epstein of Capitalism Magazine report that “this type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property.” Justifying seizure of private property, or worse, simply condemning the property to reduce what “just compensation” entails, in order to permit the development of more taxable development, is absolutely at odds with the ideals this country was founded upon.
Likewise, this is something that was previously subject to judicial review, and prevailing wisdom had placed a high burden on those seeking to invoke the power of eminent domain. As Findlaw.com explains:
At an earlier time, the factor of judicial review would have been vastly more important than it is now, inasmuch as the prevailing judicial view was that the term ”public use” was synonymous with ”use by the public” and that if there was no duty upon the taker to permit the public as of right to use or enjoy the property taken, the taking was invalid. But this view was rejected some time ago. The modern conception of public use equates it with the police power in the furtherance of the public interest. No definition of the reach or limits of the power is possible, the Court has said…
If this is the belief of the courts, it is high time to go over their head. I don’t have many times where I advocate changes to our Constitution, but I see the only way to curb this abuse as amending the US Constitution to drastically curtail the government’s authority to invoke eminent domain. It is time to stop the Scandal in Freeport, as well as everywhere else this abomination occurs.
Update: Yahoo! reports on the progress of the case, including the Supreme Court challenge.
New Template
I put up a new template. Feel free to let me know what you think.
If you notice any problems, email me at the link in the upper right.
For those of you looking for templates, allow me to recommend Blogger Templates. They’ve got quite a few available.
Form Follows Function
Quincy, at News, the Universe, and Everything, just posted an exceptional essay titled the Paradox of Education. It revolves around a debate over a couple recent postings he has made about the differences between progressive and essentialist teachers; progressives being the type to allow children to control their own learning process, and essentialists believing that the basics can only be learned by memorization and drill. The flip side being that progressives believe essentialists crush the creativity of students, essentialists believe progressives are not preparing their students for life.
Quincy believes, as I do, that there are two stages of education. These stages are not related to age of student, they are stages for anytime one is learning a new subject. The first stage is mastering the basics, which is best done by rote memorization and instruction. That stage is necessary, and a complete mastery of the basics is necessary before one can be truly proficient at the more abstract stages. The second stage, of course, is abstract application of the knowledge gained in the first stage.
Quincy’s example relates to music, where you must learn the basic keys and triads (his words, I know nothing about music theory) before moving ahead to higher-level music theory. You need to understand keys and triads, as they are the building blocks of music. If you fail to understand these, you simply make the abstract musical forms that much harder to understand:
Now, think back to my music theory class. Those who chose not to learn their keys and triads since they did not seem relevant were kept from ascending to the next level of understanding about harmony precisely because they could not mindlessly recall the knowledge upon which that level was based. They were kept not only from the simple chord progressions of first semester theory, but from all the material that builds upon them as well.
I have a similar experience with engineering. In the beginning of electrical engineering instruction, you learn to “solve” circuits. It’s very boring, and since you cannot see how such a circuit would eventually be used, difficult to see its direct relevance. However, without this instruction, the later classes that involved design would not be possible. I can now look at a schematic and “see” what is going on, since I know how circuits operate. I don’t think my creativity was stifled by memorization and drill while solving circuits. I believe that the ease at which I can do it now enhances my ability to be creative, by freeing up my conscious mind while my subconscious mind takes over the simple tasks.
As I said, form follows function. Progressive educators see the form. They believe that if you are building a house, you decide what you want the house to look like and everything else will fall into place. You don’t need to be an architect or engineer to know that’s a load of BS. Without a complete understanding of how structures, loads, statics, materials science, etc affect the building of a house, you may get something that looks like what you want, but built on a foundation of sand.
February 20, 2005
Free Speech and Campaign Finance
In my last post, I highlighted some of the changes that are going to be coming around due to the new voices that are now gaining access to the marketplace of ideas.
When the McCain-Feingold legislation came around, many of us on the libertarian side of the fence opposed it. For so many people in our society, the simple answer to speech they don’t like is to ban it. Considering the effects of campaign finance reform, which rather than curbing negative ads just limited them to people with money, one would hope that they would see the error of their ways. Of course, that’s not very likely in the near future.
Truly, the only legitimate way to combat speech you don’t like is with more speech. This is where blogs are really having an impact. In the last election cycle, I firmly believe that Bush won partly as a result of bloggers refusing to allow the mainstream media to control the marketplace of ideas. Looking at the Rathergate and Swift Boat controversies, it was bloggers (and some talk radio) who forced the mainstreams to actually address the issues. Had bloggers not been able to do what they did, would Bush have been able to carry a couple of those narrow states?
I personally am for only one form of campaign finance reform, and that’s to remove all restrictions. Part of the reason that politics is so apathetic in this country is that all that we’ve seen for the last few election cycles is the sanitized, mainstream version. As I mentioned yesterday, free speech is messy. But I’ll take messy and vibrant over the sanitized version any day of the week.
February 19, 2005
The Growing World of Bloggers
Peggy Noonan has an excellent take on bloggers and their relationship to the mainstream media.
I’m excited to be taking part in this “revolution” in the media. I may not be one of the 800-lb gorillas like InstaPundit, Daily Kos, LittleGreenFootballs, Atrios, or all the rest. But like most of the other little guys, I take part because I feel like I have something to say. And anyone who stumbles across this blog gets to hear it.
Noonan makes an excellent point that the mainstream media might be suffering from “Freedom Envy”. To be a blogger, there are no editorial controls on what you say. Of course, that doesn’t mean there are no controls at all, the controls are based upon credibility and reputation. You are constrained by your own conscience, and if you are consistently wrong, you’re finished. Mainstream journalism, on the other hand, has a lot of editorial controls. To get something that you want to say out onto print requires that you get by an editor, review process, meet length and topic requirements. For the longest time, however, there was no check on credibility. The bloggers have brought that check into mainstream journalism, and the mainstream doesn’t like it. Just ask Eason Jordan.
In the long run, however, bloggers need the mainstream giants. Without them, we couldn’t report or comment on anything, because they’re still the main source of “news”. And the check on power that the bloggers represent will improve the quality of the mainstream as well. We’re in the early days of a new medium. That means it’s going to be messy. But messy isn’t bad. The fact that journalism went through such a period of cleanliness is why we need this messiness now.
Hat Tip: Consternations
Way to Celebrate!
Well, in honor of our President’s Day, the Food Network is running a marathon of $40 A Day. For those of you who don’t watch the food network, here’s a link to the half-naked FHM spread that host Rachel Ray did for FHM. Yowsah.
Okay, so this whole post is nothing more than an excuse to post the Rachel Ray pictures, and comment on the fact that she’s a lush. If anyone has seen her show Inside Dish, it seems like she’s drunk in every one. Not that I have anything wrong with that, as the wife and I get a little tipsy and silly often enough for anyone, but we don’t do it for the cameras.
Seriously folks. Watch Inside Dish sometime. It’s much funnier when you think she’s loaded!
February 17, 2005
Civil Unions and Multiple Wives
Based on the mockery someone made of my Valentine’s Day post, I felt this was timely.
Jackie Passey posted yesterday about a topic I feel is pretty much unassailable, Civil Unions for Everybody. The idea, which I fully agree with, is that marriage is a religious concept, that happens to bear the same name as a legal concept. Most of the uproar over the gay marriage issue is based upon the contention that it will somehow damage the “sanctity of marriage”. This claim underscores the fact that church and state have become much more intertwined on the issue of marriage than is needed. We would be much better off if the government never broached the subject of marriage, and instead gave any consenting adults who wanted one a “civil union”.
Of course, that leads to the slippery slope argument. Many have claimed that if we allowed same-sex marriage, we would then have no moral argument against polygamy. In fact, in Utah, the legal abolition of polygamy has just been challenged in the courts, but remained illegal.
To them I say, what of it? A civil union, which the state calls “marriage”, is just a legal agreement on ways to divide property, provide “group” legal benefits based upon a mutual contract, and help to handle things such as next-of-kin issues. Who’s to say that this needs to be limited to two people? After all, how is it that much different from a legal partnership in a business? It is multiple people contractually binding themselves to one another for the perceived benefits of the arrangement. As long as all members bound by the agreement are consenting adults, I fail to see the problem.
I’ve said that people who scream about the “sanctity of marriage” don’t understand that the best way to preserve it is for the government to butt out of the deal. Marriage has become a legal arrangement, and as such, the government cannot discriminate as to who is acceptable to meet that legal arrangement. Marriage and religion will both be better served by extricating them from the government. If we then still allow the government to endorse and protect civil unions for anybody who wants one, all parties are better off.
Flights to Europe are About to get Pricey
New EU Laws Protect Air Passengers’ Rights
Well, that does sound good. And then, anyone who has ever had a rough airline experience, which is anyone who travels regularly, will get happy when they hear:
The airlines will have to pay hefty reimbursements to any passenger with a confirmed ticket who gets bumped off a flight. The fines can reach euro600 (US$780) for long-haul flights, double the limit set in 1991.
To get happy about that is a normal response. But a simple understanding of economics reminds us of Heinlein’s principle of TANSTAAFL.
Consumer groups have backed the new rules, which the EU hopes will force airlines to improve the quality of service. However airlines say they’ll be forced to push up ticket prices to cover the compensation claims and have threatened legal action.
Hmm. You take struggling airlines, and add a whole bunch of new cost and regulation. How this will “improve the quality of service”, I don’t know. What I do know is that all flights into or out of Europe are going to get more expensive. And, of course, that will hurt Europe’s tourism revenue, which is about the only industry that is healthy on that continent.
Update: The Adam Smith Institute has followed my lead and reported on this story.
February 16, 2005
I’m Assuming that Means-Testing is Off the Table Too
Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
This is going to be a quick-hitter, since I’m a little busy today. But I just couldn’t bear to wait until I got home tonight.
Bush is keeping the idea open of raising the tax ceiling to above $90K. He won’t increase the payroll tax rate, but I can’t think of anything more likely to hurt economic growth than adding 12% more taxes to income that is currently available for investments.
Please, let’s look at means-testing before we look at tax hikes. Let’s stop paying people who don’t need the money, rather than taking more money away from the people fuelling economic growth.
Could be Worse…
Only 58%. I know I can do better!
February 15, 2005
Delphi XM MyFi Usage Report
First things first. This is not intended to be a review of the XM service in general. I had that in my truck for a year before getting the Delphi MyFi, so obviously I was pretty gangbusters about the service. But I’ve now had the MyFi about 3 weeks, including a two-week trip to Atlanta including air travel, hotels and rental cars, so I’ve gotten some good mileage out of it so far.
Pros:
Battery: This little beauty has about a 5-hour battery life (conservative estimate, as far as I can tell). This means that even for car trips, taking the dog for a walk, and any normal use, it has enough battery life to last. During our long car ride on the trip, I didn’t really need to use the car charger, which was one less wire to hook up. I hate having a gadget that needs lots of random junk hanging off, and the battery capacity really cuts down on that.
FM Modulator: This is one of the major plusses to this little unit. Again, like the above, this means that in the car, you don’t have a cassette adapter or wired aux jack. It may cut down slightly on sound quality, but it’s still higher than standard broadcast FM radio. In addition, this had a special added benefit in the hotel. Usually a hotel has a clock radio, but not much else. The FM transmitter gave me the ability to broadcast to the clock radio, which was the only way to get tunes in the room.
Accessories: If you’ve bought the SkyFi, which is the unit I have for the truck, it comes with nothing. You need to buy a car adapter kit, then perhaps a home adapter kit, then worry about installation, and when all is said and done, the $100 SkyFi costs closer to $300 or more. This unit comes with *everything*. Car kit, home kit, headphones, belt clip, protective case, it’s all there. Sure, the unit itself costs $350, but for a portable unit that’s not bad.
Sound Quality: Again, XM is closer to CD-quality than FM. It won’t meet the standards of the audiophiles out there, but it’s not bad. I’d place it about as high quality as 128kb bitrate MP3. As long as you have decent satellite or terrestrial reception, the sound is pretty good.
Variety: This, of course, is what separates the MyFi from an iPod. Ever since the RIAA started suing people, I haven’t been downloading any MP3’s. And without good radio, I don’t keep up to date on music anyway, so I wouldn’t download music. So, I leave the music programming to professionals. XM has enough stations that unlike local LA radio, there is always something I want to hear, and unlike local LA radio, I don’t flip through 6 presets of commercials. The really cool feature is that the name of the artist and song title are displayed on the screen, so I actually know who I’m listening to!
Neutral:
Reception: From what I could tell, reception was great in some areas, and not so good in others. At one of my hotels, I had southern exposure facing Atlanta. Connected to the home kit, I had three bars (of three) on both satellite and terrestrial antennas. Yet at my hotel in Montgomery, AL, I didn’t get any reception. There were no terrestrial antennas in Montgomery, and my room didn’t face south. Likewise, in my apartment here in California I have a lot of restriction as to where the antenna is placed to get reception. In the car, the reception is pretty much uniformly good. During most of my trip, I had the external antenna up on the dash, and got great reception. I’ve found from installing the car-specific antenna in my wife’s car that this is even better, but once that is installed and the wire routed, it is something you don’t want to remove. In the car, though, using the standard personal antenna is fine. Walking around, however, the reception can be spotty. While this is intended as a portable device, it doesn’t 100% live up to its billing. I put this as neutral rather than a con, though, because in most situations it meets my needs.
Stored Content: The MyFi has the ability to store 5 hours of music content. It is billed as a major feature, but after the above reception issues, I believe it is added as a crutch because of some of the reception issues. That being said, if they had implemented the record feature better, it would easily have moved up to a pro for this unit. The main problem is twofold. First, the XM SkyFi2 buffers content, so that if you’re listening to a song and want to pause/replay the song, you can do so. This is not available as a feature on the MyFi. Second, it has two recording slots, each with a 2 1/2 hour maximum. You cannot schedule it to record 5 1-hour slots on 5 different channels. You can’t schedule it to record a 3 1/2 football game on one channel, followed by a 1 1/2 hour program on a second channel. I think that purely from a software programming standpoint, they could have fixed this easily. Last, I it needs to be in the home kit to record. I’d prefer that it be able to record easily on-the-go, so that if I wanted to leave it in a car overnight recording, I could do so. Alas, no such luck. However, even with all these problems, the record feature is a plus when traveling. I got no reception on an airplane, and the saved content was a lifesaver when I needed something to listen to.
Cons:
Antenna Compatibility: The personal antenna plugs right into the side of the unit. The car and the home antenna, however, don’t. They don’t plug into the unit at all. They plug into the car or home kit. I didn’t think this would be too much of a problem, but in my wife’s car, the optimal place to put this unit is in the cupholder. If the car antenna plugged directly in, I could do so. However, the car antenna only plugs into the car docking station. Which doesn’t fit into the cupholder. If the antennas were interchangeable, it would be helpful.
Conclusion:
All in all, if I had to do it all over again, I would still buy this unit. I had read the Amazon reviews, and the reception exceeded the limited expecations they had given me. The ease of use for car usage makes it simple to take in and out of the car, and since I already have XM in my truck, my wife might start getting some use out of the XM as well. I’ve said before that I’m not a major gadget guy, and I usually look for gadgets that will improve my life, rather than just buying gadgets to own them. The Delphi MyFi meets that criteria.
I Always Wanted to Join a Lynch Mob
Last night on Hannity & Colmes, they had Democratic strategist Bob Becker, a former CNN employee, to discuss the Eason Jordan Scandal. Video can be found here, and a full transcript here.
I’ve snipped a few choice quotes on Becker’s opinion of bloggers:
BECKEL: Hold it, wait a second. What he said clearly went over the line, or he wouldn’t have resigned. In my view, CNN, of course, cut and run on this because of the CBS experience. They didn’t want to stand up for one of their own. Secondly, is a 20-year career should be shot down, for as outrageous and horrible comment as it was, should it go this far? And the third thing is, and I’d be interested in what Bob says about this, these pseudo-journalist lynch mob people who call themselves bloggers, who have no rules–
BECKEL: You know you’re probably right about that Sean, but I want to go back to what Bob said. Bob, are you defending these lynch mob bloggers who go out there and report this stuff, a tenth of it is not true? They have no backup, no confirming data. Are you defending them? Is that where you want journalism to go?
BECKEL: You’re taking the word of a bunch of bloggers; I get back to the point.
BECKEL: And we allowed bloggers, who have no rules of engagement except to shoot first and ask questions later, to rule journalism.
Seems he doesn’t like bloggers very much. Now, I think he probably doesn’t know anything about blogs or bloggers, truthfully. Are bloggers accountable to editors if they misrepresent a story? No. Are they accountable to their own reputations? Of course. When I was shown to be wrong here, and checked out to verify that I was wrong, I admitted it immediately. Most bloggers are willing to do the same.
With Jordan, the initial remarks reported by a blogger, which were bolstered by Barney Frank’s and Chris Dodd’s mention that the blogger was accurate, have not been refuted by Eason Jordan, by CNN, or by the Davos folks. The problem here is not the bloggers, it is the people who refuse to release the tapes of the Davos conference. If the tapes of the conference prove that Jordan didn’t say what he is reported to say, it would be pretty easy to call off the dogs. Yet I notice nobody is jumping to do that.
The best snide remark of the evening, though, has to rest with Hannity himself:
HANNITY: Hey, those bloggers are right more often, as I see it, than the New York Times there, Bob. The media has changed and it’s shifted; you’re going to have to get used to it.
Time For a Strike
Many of you outside Southern California, land of perfect weather, bleached-blond beautiful big-breasted broads, and city-mandated insanity, may not have heard about this story. It seems a 13 year old minority individual (what’s the accepted term these days? I gotta check the NAACP web site again) decided to steal a car and go joyriding. The cops, who saw this induhvidual run a red light, decided to pull him over. Since this is SoCal, of course, rather than pulling over, a short chase ensued. The driver eventually pulled over, and the cops parked behind him. The driver then put the stolen car into reverse and backed into the patrol car. The officers fired 10 rounds into the car, killing the boy.
For a land that hates the LAPD, and since the perpetrator was a minority youth, the response was exactly as expected:
“I know he was wrong for stealing a car, but what I really don’t understand is the police have had so much training,” said Carmen Dorsey, 38, a church youth leader who visited a memorial Monday honoring Brown.
Yep. Instead of blaming someone who stole a car, led police on a pursuit, and then tried to use that car to assault the police officers, let’s blame the cops. I realize that despite the fact that a 3000 lb car is coming after you, you don’t have the authority to use force on a wonderful young man such as this.
Some visitors said Brown loved to play football and basketball and was interested in history, his favorite subject at Audubon Middle School, where he was enrolled in a charter program for the gifted.
…snip…
Friends and neighbors said the teen had recently begun skipping school and spending time with gang members after his father’s death last year. They insisted, however, that he wasn’t in a gang.
“It’s a bad crowd he was starting to hang with but he wasn’t a gang member yet _ and I say yet,” said Kevin Mitchell, a gang prevention specialist who knew Brown and himself a former gang member.
Obviously this kid was having problems. And I’m sure to most of the people who knew him personally, he was a good kid. But that night, he made one bad choice after another. He stole a car. He initiated a police pursuit. He then attempted to assault the police with the vehicle. He may have been a good kid, although headed down the wrong road. But that night, he brought his punishment on himself.
Now, of course, the LAPD is trying to decide what to do. In the face of this widespread community reaction, they have decided to change their policy regarding police shooting guidelines:
The change would prohibit officers from firing at a moving vehicle “unless the officer or another person is being threatened with deadly force by means other than the moving vehicle,” Bratton said in a memo to police commissioners.
Normally, I would agree with this policy. Except the last few words, ‘by means other than a moving vehicle’. Since when is someone coming after you with a 3000 lb hunk of speeding metal not threatening you with deadly force? I agree that threat with deadly force is the proper hurdle for police to justify a response, but that needs to be consistent. A criminal can kill you as easily with a car as with a gun. This principle is absolutely stupid. And if I were a cop in the field, I would trust my own judgement if faced with the situation above, not some edict from the chief. The consequences be damned. If it’s him or me, I’ll do what it takes for it to be him.
Perhaps, though, sentiments like these are not acceptable in our nuanced, modern world. I know my neanderthal brain may not be able to grasp the subtleties of this situation, but I am the type of person who gives the cops the benefit of the doubt, unless shown otherwise. But maybe, as the residents seem to say, the LAPD is actually just a bunch of racist rednecks out to kill indiscriminately. After all, according to the first story above, the LAPD is the problem, not the people in these communities:
Signs were displayed, criticizing police for the shooting. One read, “LAPD … Thank you for giving us yet another reason to dislike your services. We have seen enough deaths caused by you and do not agree with your execution of yet another young black male. You are a cancer to the community.”
I see an easier solution. The LAPD should circulate polls in various communities. Those communities that think the LAPD is the problem, and not the criminals, can “opt-out” of LAPD presence. In these communities, the LAPD’s work is not appreciated, therefore, they should stop offering their services. Just please, put up signs marking the “LAPD-free zones”, so I know to stay the hell away.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
The most dangerous words in the english language very well may be “There oughta be a law”
Comment by Chris Byrne — February 23, 2005 @ 5:56 am
To the extent that your post was at all related to our recent back and forth (and certainly I kid myself to even bring it up).
I would never say that government is good. I would say that government is the most accountable of the three major institutions:
Church (in all religions and denominations),
Business,
State.
(I would not make a distinction between state and Federal government for this conversation).
Because I believe that government is, when it is run reasonably well, the most accountable, I would prefer the services to run through government.
I believe that in this country, at least, the government is run reasonably well. Especially when you compare it to everything else
Comment by B — February 23, 2005 @ 6:50 am
All,
In response to B’s questions here and in the comments section of his most excellent blog, I posted the following over there. Since it is relevent here as well, I’ve cross-posted.
First, his questions:
If society has the moral obligation, and the government should not be the agent for discharging that obligation, whose obligation should it be?
Why do you think someone other than the elected government can deliver services in a way that would avoid the problems that you think government causes?.
First question: My thought is that one of the major problems with government is that it is not voluntary. I believe, and I think most Americans believe, that helping our fellow man is an incredibly important act of virtue. America has consistently held itself out to be an absolute leader in charitable contributions, even on top of all the money paid to government.
I think it is society’s job, but while I might try to convince you to help others, I don’t think I have a right to stick my hand in your pocket and force you to. I believe private charity can and will step up, help those in need, and be fully funded by Americans who, like me, believe that it is our job to do so. When the government steals from me for the same purpose, I think they steal more than just money, they pull “virtue” out of the equation.
Second question: This is related to the comment you left on my site about accountability.
I believe private charity is more flexible, more accountable, and more efficient than the government.
Flexibility: Federal government specifically, is simply a “one size fits all” solution. Show up at the door, take your check, move along. People are individuals with individual problems. I think private charity has more intention and more ability to take an individual approach and cure problems, rather than treat symptoms.
Accountability: Who is the federal government accountable to? Not voters, with the gerrymandering problems we have. Not the recipients, because they have no power to speak out. Not their funding, because people who are spending other people’s money rarely worry that much about how it’s spent. Private charities rely on voluntary contributions. As such, they need to provide results and honesty, or their contributions will be put to more reputable charities. Government gets their cut of your income without any choice, nor do individuals have any recourse for removing that funding if they don’t like the system it supports.
Efficiency: Much like the above argument, this comes down to an OPM (other people’s money) issue. When you’re spending OPM, efficiency goes out the window. When there is no competitive market providing services, efficiency goes out the window. When oversight and control is farther and farther away from the people providing money and the people providing the service, efficiency goes out the window.
Simply put, I just don’t think the government is capable of living up to the promises they make. And a system outside government won’t be hampered by all the same problems, but will have competition and inherent feedback loops to ensure better performance. Note that I don’t say perfect performance, because that won’t be acheived either way. But I think the market is more perfect than the government.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 23, 2005 @ 9:30 am
Mrs. TF Here, Too many “services” turn into entitlements.
Comment by T. F. Stern — February 23, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
I’m working on an essay which posits that it might be the need for many to give a single entity credit for things that drives many people to credit government for the condition of society. Therefore, when things go well, government gets the credit by default.
Comment by Quincy — February 25, 2005 @ 12:54 am
Much solid thinking in these comments
and in Brad’s post.
All empires fall and the US is now
in the empire stage.
Best not to be underneath…if that’s
possible.
I’m beginning to suspect that the fall
occurs when the weight of the sacrifice
by the citizens to support empire is
unbearable and in a myriad of ways they
cease to do so, in word and deed.
Comment by jomama — February 25, 2005 @ 5:28 am