Self-Recording Police?

No-brainer! Yes!, I say. Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (HT: Instapundit) agrees: she required that stop-and-frisk encounters be recorded in parts of NYC with high incidences of such encounters.

1. The Reason article notes that such recordings are a win-win which deters both police abuse and false accusations by unscrupulous citizens. It has plausible suggestions for fine-tuning the policy.

2. It's too bad that this had to be imposed by a federal magistrate, rather than by the mayor or city council. I'm guessing that the elected officials are deterred by the clout of police unions.

Unfortunately True

This (boldface in the last sentence is mine):

Words that think for us

An accusation of “denial” is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness. Few issues warrant such confidence. The Holocaust is perhaps one, though even here there is room for debate over the manner of its execution and the number of its victims. A charge of denial short-circuits this debate by stigmatising as dishonest any deviation from a preordained conclusion. It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives. The extension of the “denier” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed.

HT: Judy Curry.

Zimmerman Verdict

Rapper Lupe Fiasco suggests the black community take a hard look at the many cases of black-on-black violence. His tweet got more support than I expected. The forces of chaos are winning, but the forces of good are still around.

Randians Strike Me as Nuts, But...

...there's this. Multiculturalists...

...hold that the basic unit of existence is the tribe, which they define by the crudest, most primitive, most anti-conceptual criteria (such as skin color). They consequently reject the view that the achievements of Western— i.e., individualistic— civilization represent a way of life superior to that of savage tribalism.

(HT Instapundit. Boldface is mine.)

Sometimes the village madman is the sanest guy in the place.

Such times aren't the best of times.

R-e-s-p-e-c-t

Lack thereof is why Bryan Caplan thinks the GOP loses Asian voters. A number of comments are worthwhile, for example this one and this one about Canadian Tories' success at attracting these voters: attracting them away, in fact, from the Liberals who imported them. (HT: Instapundit.)

Shikha Dalmia notes that GOP traditionalism may have echoes of colonialism and the concomitant racism. She notes also that the image of the GOP as a Christian party does not play well with non-Christian Asian-Americans, presumably less so as Asians become increasingly confident wrt the West; in other words, visible Republicans like Jindal and Haley are less influential with their ethnic group than one might suppose.

Yes, once again the Republican base is also a ceiling.

OT: Despite the best efforts of the Left to polarize the country by race, intermarriages are apparently booming. If they start to dwindle, look out.

Drug War Cartoon

Spot on. I commented:

This is what I’ve been thinking. Crime makes strange bedfellows. (Would pro-legalization legislators get threats if the issue came to a vote?)

This cartoon deserves wide circulation.

You haven’t even mentioned the prosecutors, police, correctional officers, prison corporations, social workers, therapists, probation officers, etc. who get paid for waging the idiotic Drug War.

Hopefully cartoons like this will spread into the major media.

Glenn Reynolds...Easygoing?

Usually, but this time he does not mince words:

Let me be clear. These people are not well-meaning do-gooders who have just gone a bit too far. They don’t actually “mean well” at all. They don’t mean well, they mean to be in control. They are power-fetishists, drunk on the joys of bossing the little people around. They are not good people. They are evil. They should be ashamed of themselves, but shame — like taxes — is for the little people.

A reminder that Glenn is a preacher's son.

His Lileks link is pretty blunt too:

A culture that redefines food choices as moral issues will demonize the people who don’t share the tastes of the priest class. A culture that elevates eating to some holistic act of ethical self-definition - localvore, low-carbon-impact food, fair trade, artisanal cheese - will find the casual carefree choices of the less-enlightened as an affront to their belief system. Leave it to Americans to invent a Puritan strain of Epicurianism.

But I must admit that if I had money, I would buy free-range meat and eggs for humanitarian reasons. But this is none of the government's business. I also welcome the day when meat is vat-grown.

Bill Clinton Speaks

1. Seems reasonable to me:

Should you raise taxes on anybody right today — rich or poor or middle class? No, because there’s no growth in the economy. Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America’s public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that’s what I think

2. Maybe we need a supercommittee of one. Let Bubba do it.

(A supercommittee of ex-Presidents? No way: Clinton is the only one who is competent.)

Let's Call a Spade a Spade

James Taranto:

"Collective bargaining" is outrageous because it is an affront to democracy: a system of collusion between politicians and unions, which cuts out the taxpayers whose money they are spending.

Bargaining between government unions and Democrat politicians is misnamed as collective bargaining. It should be called what it is: collusive bargaining.

(It's my impression that it is unconstitutional to prevent unions from participating in politcs: for the same reason that businesses are allowed to participate. But is that privilege negotiable?)

On, Wisconsin!

The Democrats and government unions urgently to nip Walker's efforts in the bud because otherwise they will spread to other states--and then it will be possible to compare the economies of states in which government unions are curtailed and those in which they are dominant.

See here and here for summaries of Walker's proposals. I'll substitute better references when I find them.

Bio-Geo-Engineering

According to a preliminary study, apparently carbon sequestration with genetically modified trees merits investigation.

I completely agree with the proposition that we shouldn't impose 20th-century technological limitations on a 21st-century issue. (Iirc part of Freeman Dyson's climate skepticism is that he does not think that climate models adequately characterize biospheric response.) Nor should we preclude the economic growth that will underwrite such technological progress.

Humanity should not be reckless about manipulating the planetary climate, but it should not have a conniption fit if and when unintended consequences occur.

Simply Put, and Well

'Langshorn', an American who had visited China, wrote:

It is difficult living in a nation in decline.

His entire comment is worth reading.

(A number of people in that thread correctly respond that one shouldn't get carried away. One who does get carried away rhapsodizes about life in Thailand: yes, life in the Thailand that is currently wracked by extreme political factionalism.

Economic downturns seem all but inevitable given the rapid rate of China's growth. They were part of US growth in the 19th century. A key test for China will be how they handle such downturns.)

But Langshorn's perception of the USA remains apposite.

Hitting the Nail on the Head

Scott Johnson at Power Line:

The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.

I have never accepted the notion of 'positive rights', but this is the best concise refutation I've seen.

My neighbor's claim to positive rights is actually a claim against my liberty: a claim that he wants the State to back with force.

An Intellectual Framework for the Tea Party Movement

Angelo Codevilla has supplied it. (HT: Daily Pundit)

Especially important is that he is aware of the danger that one form of Big Government will be replaced by another. (Yes, I'm talking about the "compassionate conservatives" and the theocrats.) And he has no illusions about the Republican Party as a defender of individual sovereignty.

Conservative/libertarian candidates for major offices should invite Codevilla to their brain trusts immediately.

Codevilla's piece helps to structure and focus the anger and dissatisfaction of Tea Partiers and likeminded people. It is an important article.

Addendum 20100718. Codevilla on Palin vis a vis Quayle and Obama.

AGW: What Would the Victorians Do?

What would the people who designed the Erie, Suez and Panama Canals do?

They wouldn't wring their hands and snivel about the need for austerity. They'd go right ahead and fix it.

Bill Gates, who, unfortunately, increasingly seems like a transient throwback to a more vigorous time, is funding research on cloud seeding.

Bravo, Fred Bright, Georgia DA

He decided that there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute the tacky Ben Roethlisberger. "We do not prosecute morals. We prosecute crimes." Like I said:

That saying should be posted on the wall of every prosecutor in the country. And every on the wall of “activist” zealot, for that matter.

Whether he seeks higher office, remains in law enforcement, or enters private practice, I wish Mr. Bright well in his future endeavors.

Bravo.

Addendum 20100418. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the case was as professional as Bright: Cop who investigated Roethlisberger forced to resign.

I Hope She's Right

Rand Simberg interviews NASA second-in-command Lori Garver:

A caveat to begin: the agency is still planning its mission sequence and goals. With that in mind, within five years, I would expect to see at least one commercial U.S. vehicle carrying astronauts to and from the ISS on a regular basis for a per-seat price. I would anticipate that additional private citizens and other government agencies might also be buying transportation services to and from a possible co-orbiting commercial/industrial space station, perhaps using inflatable technology. NASA will be, at that time, developing our state-of-the-art heavy-lift vehicle that will take us into deep space for missions to a variety of destinations throughout the solar system...I'm confident the excitement of the President's future-looking vision for NASA will carry the day and in five years, we will be amazed at how far we have progressed beyond today's capabilities.

The private sector servicing the space station within five years? Together with, perhaps, a private sector version(s) of the station? If that happens--and I hope it does--, wow!

The first sustainable step out of the gravity well. (By which I mean that it can be profitable via tourism if nothing else. Hopefully additional economic opportunities will arise.)

Paul Ryan

Worthwhile speech here (HT: Neo-Neocon).

Transterrestrial commenter McGehee:

I’d be more open to the idea of Paul Ryan running for president if his Reagan hairstyle didn’t look so obvious. I hear all kinds of good things about the guy, but that hairstyle just looks a bit too cute.

Agreed.

I Like This Hopeless Cause

Jim McGovern is my Congressman. Though I strongly disagree with his leftist orientation, his responses to my constituent inquiries have been courteous and to the point. He is a competent professional politician: I still remember how skillfully he ejected his hapless predecessor, the stupid incumbent Republican Peter Blute. I expect McGovern to survive even if the GOP makes historic gains in November. He is no Martha Coakley.

Nevertheless, I have to salute Mike Stopa's quixotic effort, in particular this:

I am calling for an immediate reduction in the civilian federal workforce of 10 %. While businesses big and small across America have to tighten their belts in order to adjust to hard economic times, the federal government has become more bloated than ever, topping 2 million (including military personel) for the first time in ten years. Upon election, I will propose legislation that will immediately reduce the civilian workforce from 1.25 to 1.1 million and will freeze the workforce at those levels until the unemployment rate overall drops below 6 %.

This is so gloriously anti-political I have to love the guy. I wish the GOP and Tea Partiers would find a way to make this point in an electorally palatable way. Perhaps a federal hiring freeze would fly?

If the government is the employer of last resort in a recession but there's no need to restrain government growth during economic expansion, when exactly do we stop government from growing faster than the economy?

If American voters reduced government workforces during a recession, that would be a major step toward delegitimizing the impacted governments. (I mean delegitimizing government's claim to be public's master and/or nanny rather than creature and servant.)

Worth Its Own Post

Pajamas Media commenter 'kazooskibum' has been repeating:

Remember: The issue is never the issue. The issue is control.

Amen.

When a legitimate issue does come up that calls for pulling together and shared sacrifice, the government will have no credibility left. (I'm not saying it has any now.)