I think the problem with either approach is that they rely on the idea that you can completely separate policy from values.

Maybe he will write in Jodie Foster.

I don't know. I think there's way too much evidence corroborating the FBI's malfeasance for it to be conspiracy theory. I think the FBI knows there isn't much they can do to stop the true lone wolf/self radicalized murderer but they also know they can never admit that. They go around agitating losers and crazy people into phony plots then patting themselves on the back for foiling them and making people feel safe that the authorities aren't completely impotent.

Now the idea that they might chose not to foil a plot they themselves engineered in order to further some agenda gets into some weird territory...

It's all well in the realm of wild speculation right now. Kind of ironic in a way but the scenario I think she most needs to avoid is George H.W Bush in 1992.

To me the 2020 election, even if way out, might offer even more intriguing and/or disturbing possibilities than this election. You have to figure even if Hilary is running (I think she will be and that she wins this election but only narrowly) she could be the weakest incumbent in a long time. If the GOP has gone full Trump it may be able to find someone able to tap into the same discontent Trump is riding but who is more disciplined and able to turn it into a victory.

Don't apologize for the joke that was hilarious!

Maybe we're talking passed each other but courts reach holdings based on policy arguments all the time. There is a large body of case law on when non-compete agreements are and aren't enforceable and different jurisdictions take different approaches. There's nothing radical about taking the position that courts shouldn't enforce non-compete agreements in circumstances like this which is all I'm arguing.

I have no objections to arrangements like that. As you note there's an exchange of value there.

That's not true unless the contract required the company to take some tangible action or pay for something. Maybe if there is a real quid pro quo (you don't quit and we pay for your college/masters/certification) that might be the case but that's a different discussion.

First no one is saying society should intervene. The question is should a court enforce it if asked. Second, if your opinion is that courts should prioritize enforcing non-compete agreements over all other considerations then fair enough but I'd say that's pretty myopic both about the realities of the world and how the law works.

I think the investment stuff is a nice little piece of BS put together by the company's legal and/or marketing office to avoid calling this what it is which is a non-compete. There are certain instances where a person provides a highly specialized skill or is in a position to poach personnel or a client base where thats reasonable but for the policy reasons stated above (as well as just plain old fairness in our economic system) I don't think they ever are for run of the mill employees, middle management, etc.

You're too focused on the individual circumstances. Again, imagine this applied on a macro level where leaving one non-specialist job for a better non-specialist job is penalized (potentially ruinously). Would we be encouraging a mobile workforce that climbs or a sclerotic workforce where people are stuck where they are? Are we encouraging employer-employee litigation or minimizing it? Are we creating more bankrupt people or fewer? Are we encouraging productivity or discouraging it because people are trapped?

This isn't about whether or not she is sympathetic and it's why there's more to contract and employment law than 'well the fool signed the dotted line so that's that.'

On Rieves I think there are sound public policy reasons not to enforce a contract like that. Imagine if every company required it. It would create arbitrary restrictons on the movement of human capital that could hurt economic growth and people's ability to get ahead, earn more, and engage in economic activity. In many ways it's the same as the type of regulations that the French have that lock up the labor market, it just favors the employer instead of the employee.

I think the bigger questions is whether raising the minimum wage is really a solution to that problem. There are alternatives.

Assuming unions in the United States haven't already crossed the line into irreversible decline I think your proposal might give them a new lease on life. The challenge I think would be finding a way to fund the union in a way that workers could live with even with the knowledge that they could still be fired or laid off.

On Syria I think there's a serious question as to what we really can do to help. Also note that this is being published by a rebel organization that if I had to guess wants more military assistance from the West. I don't think that Syria's children will benefit much from America giving more weapons to random militants in the desert or dropping more ordnance.

I think the intent probably depends on the officer but I'm not sure it matters. The system is so full of bad incentives that I think it can cause even well-meaning, regular people to use excessive force. The protection from consequences is itself only part of a bigger web of bad policy (quota based policing, over-criminalization) and cultural problems (thin blue line).

@mike-dwyer I think it's completely fair to ask if there aren't other professions where we should be asking these questions. That said I can't think of any other profession out there that are as protected from accountability as the police. Graham v. Connor, while sounding reasonable enough in print, has resulted in extreme deference to the decision of officers on the scene. Combine that with qualified immunity, powerful unions, toothless civilian oversight boards, LEO bill of rights, and a siege mentality that keeps the police from telling on each other and citizens revering the thin blue line and we get to a place where it's hard to hold the police accountable for even the most outrageous conduct.

I mean, the only place I can think of where it might be more difficult to discipline someone for on the job activity is a sitting chief executive (president, governor, mayor etc.) and at least they have to face the voters periodically.

I think you're alluding to this but the cameras themselves, while helpful in some situations I don't think are necessarily the panacea people think they are. In addition to making sure they're used appropriately, cameras can allow the officer to become the director of how things appear on screen. It's quite possible to record incidents in a manner that presents a misleading picture of the encounter. Absent additional reform I see no reason to think that law enforcement wouldn't get pretty good at choreographing scenes in ways that are favorable to their perspective.

@kazzy the public school teacher union issue I think is extremely difficult. My opinion is that the problems we have with education in this country don't really stem from incompetent teachers (not that they don't exist). They stem from the fact that we expect the public education system to solve all kinds of profound socioeconomic problems that we're unwilling to address comprehensively. I think it might be easier to dissolve teachers unions if we didn't expect teachers in poor jurisdictions to be miracle workers or hold them responsible for the failure of students arising from issues teachers can't control. Unfortunately we've spent so much time convincing ourselves that education alone is enough.

I probably fall in a weird place on the scale. I support ending all public sector unions because I think they inherently create a new constituency for the government to serve when by its nature the government should serve everyone equally. Improvements in public policy shouldn't be frustrated because it isnt in the interest of some some group of government employees. The public good should always win out.

I'm much more sympathetic to unions in the private sector. The union members have an interest in the plant staying open and should he able to use their numbers as leverage for a decent share of the profits. The government on the other hand never goes out of business.

None of this should be interpreted as me disagreeing with your remarks on how public perception of the police also play a role in enabling the situation we have with law enforcement. The unions are a part, deferential courts and legal precedents are a part, politicians are a part, our culture is a part....

No one likes to say it because conservatives are generally extremely deferential to law enforcement and progressives are generally pro union but it illustrates the worst aspects of collective bargaining in the public sector. The interests of the union members can end up winning out over the interests of the public at large and result in terrible policy outcomes.

This is anecdotal and I'd imagine certification varies agency to agency and location to location. That said I had a room mate who was in law enforcement and I was surprised how rarely he trained with his service weapon. I'm a casual shooter (I make it to the range on average every month to month and a half) and I found that I shoot much more frequently than he did. Just because police carry weapons doesn't mean they're particularly adept at using them. It takes practice and it's a skill you need to maintain if you want to be a consistently good shot.

It's all about the new professionalism.

We'll find out soon enough. Munich police are setting up a site for people to upload any video to look for clues. I haven't seen anything in the German press yet about identified suspects.

http://mobile.scribblelive.com/Event/Schusse_in_Munchen_im_OEZ/?Theme=13112

Edit: They appear have upped the death toll from 6 to at least 8.