Saturday, August 16, 2014

Yeah... Police Militarization is totally a "Red State" problem.

Some maps,  from the NYT of all places.   Again, this shows that blaming this on "conservatives" (or liberals) is a myopic view.   The problem is far too widespread for that.

Course liberal gun controllers also have to deal with the whole "Only the Police should have guns" and the proliferation of "military rifles" in states where they banned commoners from having 'em.

I'd like to stress that this gear is symptomatic of a greater problem.  That is the abandonment of Peelian Principals.

It's less the gear the police have and more their acting like an occupying army and thinking warrant service has to be framed like a tactical assault.

The problem with this gear is that it's expensive to maintain, is handed out cheaply,  and thus can become a big budget drain and threaten to be a white elephant.  So there's the temptation to use it.  And why not use it? Afterall aren't the police the front line in the War on Terror and the War on Drugs?

One can readily see how problems crop up.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Mr A knows who's to blame for the Militarization of Police.

Well.... it hasn't been quite a month since my last post... Yay?

So doubtless you've heard about the Ferguson riots and the over militarized police response. If not,  use your search engine of choice to read up on it.

What's fascinating is how this has mainstreamed the whole "Hey the Police are acting more and more like an occupying army and that's not good."

And of course whenever something enters the mainstream that conservatives and libertarians have been debating and warning for years many liberals have to pretend that conservatives and libertarians haven't been talking about it.

Enter Washington Post blogger Paul Waldma who makes such claims. Now I'll leave you with a link to David Kopel at Volokh

Of course, I'm not here.  I'm here to put up the latest bit from Mr. A.
(Hey it was this or his rant against the Israelis and how mean they are and that Egypt's Gaza border doesn't count.)

I was having a conversation with some friends talking about the police militarization.  These folks are very differing politically, but know that I personally am a large 2nd amend advocate and have been harping on the militarization of police for years.

And in saunters Mr. A who drops this bomb:
Those police are Conservative America in a nutshell
Big mouths, lots of gear, not much between the ears
I blink and give a drawn out...  Riiiiiight.  And he follows up with 
It's conservative towns that have these cops, that pay them, buy their tacticool gear.
And I ask "Liberal towns don't? Can we talk about cities? What about the armed helicopters that the NYPD has?  Does the LAPD need to have everyone armed up in SWAT gear?  How about Boulder or Burlington or any other city in the country?"

He then goes on about how cops are inherently conservative. Huh, an upper class liberal seeing LEO as untermenschen.

I then followup by pointing out "Heck, isn't the idea that 'Only the police should have guns' especially military guns pretty liberal?  Aren't liberal gun control laws the ones that specifically exempt cops?"

To which he demurred and then started talking about his job offeres.

It really does show that so much of gun control has a "stop hitting yourself" vibe.

Example: silencers are banned,  then people complain about the noise gun-ranges make.

Police are going all tacticool with military gear,  then very people that want it make it so that *only* the police can have such gear blame gun owners for the police having such gear.

And of course David Frum is on board with it going on about how 
the police wouldn't be all militarized and abusive in their powers if it weren't for all those armed proles.

Edit:  That's not to say that there isn't a "Law and Order" Conservative streak.  Tough on crime sells.  But for a liberal to think the militarization of police is only a conservative problem is to be in total denial.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Oh look another "X wants to reclaim the constitution"

So I've been seeing this article floating around and now it's in the WaPo.

How liberals can reclaim the Constitution

(I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is written by a guy hawking his book  on "Living Originalism")

What's fascinating is that it's just advice on Liberals to simply claim the constitution.   It boils down to "Hey remember civil rights and women's suffrage!"  And "The constitution is more than just the actual text and what judges say!"

So...  in other words.  Ignore that the amendment process was key in civil rights and women's suffrage  and keep pretending that the Constitution means "Laws we want are not just acceptable but mandatory!"

Basically this guy is going "Nu-uh! That the Constitution can change to mean whatever we want it to mean IS the real origininalism!"

Which is...  different from the status quo... how?

Though this is a huge admission of defeat: "Second, to better understand how the Constitution actually grows and develops, liberal scholars have turned away from the courts and judicial review — now the focus of conservative obsession — and toward the work of ordinary citizens and political movements."

It's not a wise idea to cede the courts and judicial review.

Course the article is full of paranoia about "Oligarchy" (but is oddly silent on how to *deal* with that problem) , and it weaves a conspiracy theory that somehow it was Conservatives who *tricked* liberals into abandoning Constitutional fealty.

And the guy ends by using examples of passed amendments to show how legitimate "Living Constitution" is.
I wonder if he's aware that Originalists don't actually thing amendments aren't legitimate.

I know he *is* aware that the biggest point of the Living Constitution view is that you don't *need* Amendments. That's um... kind of the whole point.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

It's not just Diversity of *thought* that is eliminated due to these policies...


Related: Education is Producing a Nationwide Gentrification Effect. “The larger the share of a city’s workforce that’s made up of college graduates, the more expensive it is to live there.” And yet education is pushed as a cure for economic inequality.
Via Glenn Reynolds.

It's no stranger than how states with bigger "Blue State" policies have more inequality.  Course you can have a fun time looking at the causality in that codependent relationship.

Friday, July 18, 2014

There's a reason the Democratic Party doesn't normally put these party planks *next* to each other.

So ABC has their own List Post.  5 Things Liberals Really want out of the Obama Presidency

And the only thing surprising is that parts 4 and 5 are next to each other:

4. Gun Violence Prevention5. Voting Rights

And by four they mean "expanded background checks"  which really means a private sale ban.   And by 5 they mean "invalidate Section IV of the Voting Rights Act" which really means "Voter ID is racist!"

Okay, so if Voter ID is racist due to the disproportionate impact ID requirement on poor and minorities...

How are expanded background checks for guns not racist? They're literally proposing a law to make it impossible to legally buy a gun without presenting ID.

While at the exact same time saying a less stringent requirement is unacceptable because it's racist.

I suppose their argument is  "voter fraud never killed anyone", what but that's really saying is "Racist laws are okay if they keep those people from getting guns."

See, this is why the Democratic Party normally has a bit of daylight between these two issues.

Monday, June 9, 2014

But it's not bad when the Federal Pork brings us things we like!

Well, I've seen another example of why Congress is so fucked up.

I've got a friend who's really into gay rights.  And unfortunately his Congressman is a real ball-buster "family values", traditional marriage scold.

You know those preachy guys who make your skin crawl?

And of course my friend isn't too fond of this guy.

But!  My friend is really big into municipal parks redevelopment.

Well guess what Congressman is pledging to bring in a few dozen million dollars of federal money to revitalize a major riverside park.

Now all of a sudden my friend likes this plan. Yes, when even a politician who you find ethically and morally reprehensible can bribe you with your own tax money....

And people wonder why incumbents keep getting reelected.
(Fair disclosure I may have swapped the issues and what is getting federal teat money.... or I may not).

Monday, April 28, 2014

Great con!

Had a great time at the NRAcon!

Things got... busy this week, but I'll have a writeup and some pictures when I get the time.

Thanks to everyone who came to the BBQ on Friday!

And thanks to Erin, Wenthe, Odd and Mad Saint Jack!