Commenter Archive

@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.

I think that's a pretty common sentiment, at least in the middle class and above enclaves of blue America.

I'd heard about that as well. We're also in agreement about what the minimum outcome should be.

That is certainly possible. That said there was a similar case in AZ earlier in the year where an unarmed guy was shot and killed by police while laying down with his hands up and begging for his life. The victim was white so it got a bit less attention but the officer was charged. As we all know that in itself doesn't guarantee a just outcome but I think the state's attorney will find it hard not to at least go through the motions seeing as how this was caught on video.

There are plenty of ways to appear to take it seriously with the knowledge that there will be no indictment

The implication of the article is that, because public entities who conduct anti-tobacco research are funded by tobacco taxes and settlements, they have an interest in people not switching to smokeless alternatives. It creates an alliance of the entrenched interests and the puritans. Its the worst of all worlds.

Regarding e-cigs, why is it that our society manages to turns everything into an entrenched interest? Combined with the various strains of modern puritanism out there it's no wonder we can't get to a better, even if imperfect, place for public health.

I think its less culture war and more normal course of consumerism. What you buy isn't only about the qualities of the product itself, it's what your choice in that purchase says about you as an person. Maybe it's becoming more pervasive but I don't think it's exactly a new phenomenon. The introduction of social justice politics and social media into the mix maybe gives it a nastier tone.

You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.

Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.

I think you're incorrect when you say they aren't offering plans. The plans they're offering just aren't sensible, plausible, or likely to improve the lot of the people who are being appealed to. However I think even a ridiculous plan, especially one that plays on latent (or not so latent) prejudices sounds appealing in the absence of an alternative.

Some such people can probably never be swayed but insisting that none of them could be strikes me as a dodge, and maybe a tacit admission that the cosmopolitan progressive side of this debate doesn't have an answer either. I'd like those of us doing ok in the current economic order to start coming up with one before the dispossessed of globalization succeed in putting a demagogue in power.

I have no disagreement that there are some really ugly sentiments that come out of that movement. I also don't want to give the impression that I object to calling a spade a spade. What I think is that, if we want to keep those ugly sentiments from becoming a truly dangerous political movement, we need a better answer than 'shut up you stupid insecure racists.'

That racism is wrong can and should be part of the message, but that message also needs to include a plan for how those people are going to have a decent economic quality of life and a stake in the government.

It's a lot easier to call people racists (and no doubt some are) than grapple with the fact that globalization and trade policy is leaving a big chunk of citizens in Western countries behind. If I were British I'd have voted to stay and I certainly don't support Trump. However I understand why someone who lives in some former industrial town where the jobs left decades ago and the standard of living has dropped and low skill work is now done by immigrants for peanuts might see the world differently.

But yes, it'd be racist and xenophobic for the state to ever take their interests into account.

That's my opinion as well. The fact that a referendum may have disagreeable results sometimes doesn't mean they have no place in how government works. It's not like elected officials never craft bad laws or policies themselves.

I'm pretty sure this is basically what happens. The banality of so many of the diplomatic wires that were leaked is pretty good evidence that the government is classifying information that isnt dangerous but is awkward or embarrassing.

I don't entirely disagree, and I tried to speak to that in my response below to Jaybird. I could live with delays in disclosures, or temporary secrecy provided there's a regular system that promptly and reliably, if not immediately, brings things to light. Maybe it's just my attorney ways but there are also times for in person conversations where certain thoughts aren't put to writing. I'm sympathetic to off the record discussions when needed and a good leader should know how to distinguish that.

That said my position is based on my view that our government is too opaque, not too transparent. I'm more worried about citizen ignorance of official activity than I am about a politician or bureaucrat having an embarrassing or sensitive email disclosed.

I think that issue is something that can be addressed with statutes of limitations and normal sunsetting of classification protocol. To me it's more the allergy to any type or accountability that prevents positive change. The government has just convinced us there's something noble in its secrecy, and finding out what it does behind closed doors, even many years later, could jeopardize our safety because terrorism, etc.

While it'd be a great thing for Congress to act on I think ruling class nihilism ensures it will never happen. The last thing anyone wants to do is write a law increasing government accountability. Any Rep or Senator with any ambition knows that it one day might be used against them.

When it comes to those cases my advice is be careful what you wish for. In the current paradigm where overreaction and excessive use of force is a major problem I'm not sure that we want to tell the police they can be sued for failing to intervene. It'd be another incentive to escalate every situation.

'The suspect was behaving aggressively and I feared if I didnt shoot he might attack a bystander and I would be subject to liability,'

I mean, that argument actually sounds better to me than 'I was afraid for my life due to the suspect's furtive movements and fighting stance.'

I think we may be talking passed each other. To the extent anyone buys a piece of property at market value (no government intervention, favors, greasing of the wheels, etc.) and does what they want with it, I have no objection.

I've never advocated for a free for all, and I'm personally very conflicted on the subject. I can't speak to the realities of SF but you and @north are acknowledging that there can be an arbitrariness to this process. We had a thread a few months ago discussing a situation where (if I recall correctly) a city was using zoning to force a mechanic's shop out if an area where the city was pushing urban renewal. That's the sort of thing that bothers me.

Now I agree that restrictons trying to preserve the character of a neighborhood at some given point in history can also be arbitrary and I tend to oppose them. That doesn't mean I have to love the idea of people's homes and livelihoods being subject to whether developers can get their guy on the city council (or strong NIMBYism frustrating needed changes for that matter). From a policy perspective I'm sympathetic to safety rules (it makes sense not to have chemical plants next to residential homes) but less so to zoning that seems designed to keep who is perceived as the wrong type of people out or bring the good type of people in.