The L.A. City Council approved today a $5.9 million settlement to officers alleging they had been punished by their superiors for not fulfilling ticket quotas.
The City Council settled the lawsuit with 10 LAPD officers of a motorcycle unit who filed it back in 2010, according to the Los Angeles Times. The officers claimed they were forced by Capt. Nancy Lauer to meet ticket quotas—which would break state law. Reportedly, they were required to write at least 18 tickets per shift. They alleged that in retaliation, their supervisors would give them bad performance reviews, reassignment, and [harassment], reported Los Angeles Daily News.
However, the settlement agreement was discussed behind closed doors, and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck denies a ticket-quota system was put in place. “We will continue to have measures of productivity,” Beck told City News Service. “Not quotas. Measures of productivity. They’re different.”
This settlement comes on the heels of a similar 2011 ticket quotas lawsuit where two LAPD officers were awarded $2 million by the L.A. Superior Court.
So these tax-leech bullies are given orders from their tax-leech bosses to reach a minimum amount of harassment against mostly peaceful people - ticket quotas that are against the law (but these tax-leeches are above the law, so why would that matter?). They fail to reach this minimum and are subsequently “punished” (lol). Then, these tax-leech bullies sue the city in response to the treatment by their tax-leech bosses. The tax-leech meddlers in the city council, in turn, settled with the tax-leech bullies to the tune of $5.9 million. And this was paid for, of course, by taxpayers.
So we pay for all these tax-leeches to harass us, we pay them to set minimum amounts of harassment which in turn we pay fees on, and now we pay for the consequences of their wrong-doing.
Aren’t government monopolies delightful?
politicallyaffiliatedurl asked: Could you explain (in brief, if you'd like) why the 17th amendment is problematic?
Constitutional checks on government power are mostly a charade. States will forever and always do exactly what people are willing to acquiesce to, irrespective of whatever ostensible limitations some antique piece of parchment says to the contrary.
That said, it’s always better that there be checks on power than otherwise.
Before the 17th Amendment, the United States were structured in such a way that there was what may be referred to as a divided triumvirate of sovereignty: the people (by way of the House of Representatives), the states (by way of the Senate), and the federal government (by way of the executive). Decisions were made by these entities (and “interpreted” by the judicial), with the highest power going to the people (which is why the House of Representatives controls the budget). Senators were selected by the governments of their respective states. Because the federal government (before the 16th Amendment created the income tax) only had what was collected by and allotted to them by the individual states, and because states were unable to simply create their own currencies with which to amass debt, Senators with their state’s best interests in mind helped prevent overspending and keep a balanced budget. It was their job to ensure that their state wasn’t taken advantage of by the others, and because they weren’t necessarily democratically elected to “terms,” they could face immediate repercussions if they voted counter to the interests of their state and its people. The 17th Amendment changed how Senators were selected and removed them from the nexus of decision-makers who were responsible for making sound financial decisions for their state.
In short, Senators are less concerned with their specific state’s interests - particularly its financial obligations - when they are no longer selected by and accountable to the state legislators and executives who are in turn responsible to state residents for managing such matters. The 17th Amendment greatly diminishes state autonomy in favor of a more centralized federal government. It, along with the 16th Amendment, essentially neutered an important check on government power.
It is no coincidence that it was after the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, and the federal reserve came into being, that we saw the meteoric rise in government spending and control. There were no more impediments to its growth and centralization of power, and we naturally entered an age of total war.
Supporters of the 17th claim that it makes for a more democratic governance. This is, in a sense, true; but that does not mean it is good, as people, in turn, are able to exert less control over the minutiae of their own lives. Too many people don’t realize that political democracy is illegitimate.
Repealing the 17th would not be a panacea, but it would be a sensible step in the right direction. And, far more importantly, it would mean that people have rebuked the centralization of power and the loss of autonomy enough to agitate for that very change. And that would be worth celebrating.
The latest from Matt Wuerker
I try really hard not to be cynical but sometimes I feel like society is just getting dumber.
You see, Nate, that without minimum wages and regulatory stipulations and mandatory benefits, employers would use actual whips on us as motivation, pay us in actual peanuts (hope you’re not allergic!), and might occasionally stab us with actual pitchforks when we underperform. Without the state helping us, we’d be powerless saps - at least according to the ‘progressive’ belief in the monopsony model of employment in which there is effectively no competition for labor.
Of course, if these progressives truly believed in what they profess - that employees are grossly underpaid, including health benefits offered, relative to their productivity - then why don’t they start their own competing businesses? They claim that there is more than enough room for profit while still paying a “proper” wage, and such higher pay would produce an increase in productivity that would prima facie offset that pay. So what’s stopping them? According to their own logic, it would be a boon to employees, a boon to consumers (who would naturally gravitate toward these probably more expensive but more “fair” products), and they could make a few bucks on top of it all. That’s a win-win-win, folks! So show us you mean what you claim to be true, progressives, and put your own money on the line.
Medical Marijuana and Cerebral Palsy
Jacqueline Patterson was born with cerebral palsy, a congenital disorder that affects her motor functions. As a result of her condition, she suffers from a severe stutter and major pain and weakness on her right side. This video showcases the amazing effect of cannabis on her condition.
I will never understand those who use their religious beliefs to fulminate against marijuana use. Forget the hypocrisy with regards to not only “allowing” alcohol, a far more addictive and dangerous substance related to millions of deaths per year, but actually partaking in it as part of religious services. The bigger cognitive dissonance to me is how they can feign to be agents of their God’s love, grace, and compassion when they deny those who suffer from finding relief in a completely natural plant. Do they believe that their God would prefer that they imprison the sick who use marijuana instead of showing a bit of sympathy and tolerance with regards to the non-violent consumption of a natural herb?
Is quite compelling, according to Sally Satel:
On Oct. 2, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would…[designate] a specific form of bone marrow — circulating bone-marrow stem cells derived from blood — as a kind of donation that, under the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, cannot be compensated. If this rule goes into effect (the public comment period ends today), anyone who pays another person for donating these cells would be subject to as much as five years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Here’s why it’s a bad thing:
altruism has proven insufficient to motivate enough people to give marrow and, as a result, people die… Each year, 2,000 to 3,000 Americans in need of marrow transplants die waiting for a match. Altruism is a virtue, but clearly it is not a dependable motive for marrow donation.
Satel notes earlier in the article:
Locating a marrow donor is often a needle-in-a-haystack affair. The odds that two random individuals will have the same tissue type are less than 1 in 10,000, and the chances are much lower for blacks. Among the precious few potential donors who are matched, nearly half don’t follow through with the actual donation. Too often, patients don’t survive the time it takes to hunt for another donor.
Allowing compensation for donations could enlarge the pool of potential donors and increase the likelihood that compatible donors will follow through. So the [recent] ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [authorizing compensation for donors] was promising news for the 12,000 people with cancer and blood diseases currently looking for a marrow donor.
I can see two potential problems: the first is that people might donate bone marrow out of economic desperation, and this feels wrong to us at first glance. But is it really? Particularly when both parties benefit so readily from it? Indeed, given the risks of bone marrow donation, don’t donors deserve to be compensated? This is an objection which could be readily met by setting a threshold for compensated donations, to ensure that donors are compensation fairly for their donation.
The second problem is a more difficult one. There is potential that for-profit donations may eventually crowd out uncompensated donations, since why would any stranger do for free what they can get paid to do instead? Particularly when they’re making such an essential sacrifice—their own body?
At the end of the day though, I think the balance of equities weighs in favor of allowing for-profit donations. I have enough faith in the goodness of people that crowding out will be minimal. If someone walked up to me tomorrow and said I could save someone’s life with a bone marrow transplant, but that they couldn’t afford to pay me, I like to think that my decision would not be based on the lack of compensation. Meanwhile, some people may be more likely to donate if they know their risks will be well compensated. Allowing for-profit donations seems to be the better side of the argument, from my point of view.
I of course agree with your conclusion, but you overstate the concerns.
To your first “potential problem”: “people might donate bone marrow out of economic desperation.” Your solution is government (ostensibly; you don’t specify but the implication is there) “setting a threshold for compensated donations” to ensure “fairness.” As in pretty much every other instance of “fairness” being set from without, whatever is decided would be completely arbitrary. If two people negotiate on a price and willfully agree, then the price is fair. Either one owns oneself and thus controls his or her body, or he/she doesn’t.
Some may conclude that “economic desperation” would lead people to accept prices that seem unreasonable. You do not want people to be taken advantage of, and I grant that is a noble concern. But if organ donation is made legal - that is, if the state does not interfere in the consensual exchange of free individuals - then the market for organs will function like like all other markets. As I often note, the laws of supply and demand is immutable. Does anyone doubt that there will likely be more people in need of organs (marrow, in this instance) than those willing to endure the painful procedure to give it away? Thus, there will be competition for marrow. This drives the price up. And as the price rises, it will incentivize ever more people to enter the market and offer their marrow. This increases supply! More marrow will be available to sick people in need. As the supply increases, the price again lowers as it trends toward equilibrium. This means greater access to the sick. All good things.
Furthermore, because caring people like you would still exist, non-profits would no doubt emerge to help offset the costs for organs and offer minimum prices at what the non-profits and their sponsors seem fair - further assuaging concerns of individuals being taken advantage of.
As to your second “potential problem”: “for-profit donations may eventually crowd out uncompensated donations.” To address this, we must look at the matter in a different way.
Would you agree that, while very helpful and important, organ donation is not the most essential factor for our survival, yes? After all, only a small percentage of the overall population needs an organ transplant, whereas every human requires food, clean water, shelter, medicine, other forms of healthcare, etc. But we can acknowledge that it would be foolish to think in terms of the for-profit farmer “crowding out” the one who donates his labor with only the thanks of strangers as his reward. And most would agree that it would be irresponsible to suggest that doctors not be compensated for their years of dedication and sacrifice and training and expertise and labor and risks, yes? Thankfully, slavery has mostly been outlawed in this country. So why would the selling of organs - a much more painful and dangerous process than plucking a carrot from the ground - be different?
As illustrated above, selling organs would create incentive for people to offer theirs. The greater the need and the smaller the supply, the greater the price offered. The greater the price offered, the more people willing to exchange. Then, as now, most people with compatible family members will still receive donations from them. But those unfortunate souls without compatible family members will have more life-saving options available to them.
Allowing free people to buy and sell bone marrow is the only humane option. Not only does it represent a more just and civilized society (no state introducing threats of violence into the consensual decisions of free people), but it also means that no longer will so many people die every year hopelessly waiting for a matching donor.
And in that, I am very glad we can agree.
The NFL is a private company and can do whatever they want.
Indeed. That much was already noted in the original post. Of course they can choose who to associate with. The point is that there is an incongruity with its paeans to militarism that involves individuals using guns overseas to make us less safe while denying an ad that is about a father owning a gun at home to keep his wife and child safe.
This is dumb.
What is? Is it dumb to note the hypocrisy in the NFL’s stance? Is it dumb to note how outrageously anti-gun media voices must be to avoid public relations backlash from the ignorant and naive masses who would doubtlessly cry fowl at a commercial that has a man state “I am responsible for [my family’s] protection” and further imply that he can use a certain tool to do so?
I love DD but they can’t force another company to do what they want.
Of course they can’t. And not a single word in that post even suggested otherwise. Again, it was explicitly noted in the original post: “I support the NFL being allowed to choose to run whatever they want (or not) during their games, assuming that such decision-making is part of its contracts with the network airing the game.”
Finally, drones being put to good use.
This is simply brilliant. Just think of the ingenuity involved here, all to please consumers without putting taxpayers on the hook for “research.”
And what does Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, note as the “hardest challenge”? FAA approval. He creates a network of flying robots that use GPS coordinates to deliver myriad products created and assembled around the world to a consumer’s doorstep within 30 minutes, and the most difficult obstacle to this enterprise is getting approval from government.
Chew on that for a bit.
Edit: To address some concerns, I’d like to note that drones in and of themselves are not some force for evil. They are merely a tool. There is no cognitive dissonance with my being impressed by their use here.
In addition to the fact that - when used by the state - their actual purchase/creation is funded by taxes, I object to government utilization of drones because of how they are used. Spying and the bombing of innocents are unacceptable actions no matter what technology is used.
On the other hand: if I want a package delivered quickly, what difference does it make to me - except concerns for speed and price - if it is driven to me by a man in a truck or dropped off by a flying robot? Opposition to industrialization and the advancement of technology is only opposition to greater human efficiency and human progress.
The drone - like the wheel and the cotton gin and the automobile and the gun - is here. It - like the wheel and the cotton gin and the automobile and the gun - may be put to good use or bad. I will of course denounce whenever such technology is used for bad (whether by the state or otherwise). And I applaud when it is used for good.
Your shopping guide to stores that won’t ruin their workers’ Thanksgivings.
Not everybody celebrates Thanksgiving.
Not everybody cares about Thanksgiving.
Not everybody has family. Some people get depressed around the holidays and like to work to keep themselves busy.
Some people like to pick up a shift so that they can make some extra money and still celebrate before or after (because, surprise surprise, minimum wage retail workers don’t work 24 hour shifts)
Some people want or need the money they make on Thanksgiving, and that is why they choose to work. Alternately, some people want or need the extremely great price cuts which those stores offer on ‘black friday’ and now, (thank god) on thanksgiving as well.
Besides, why the selective outrage just at retailers? Are not other institutions open (And thus asking employees to work) on Thanksgiving? My brother works in a hospital. Guess what, he has work today. When my dad worked at a gas station, he had work on Thanksgiving. When my other brother worked at a grocery store, he had work on Thanksgiving. And if I still had my job at Target, I would gladly take the extra pay a thanksgiving shift would give me, just as I gladly accepted their offer to work on black friday in years past.
Many people take in a movie before dinner with their families. Are the movie theaters evil for providing these services on ‘Thanksgiving’? Should we boycott them? Or only retailers? It seems as though the selective outrage has nothing to do with the invented idea of ‘ruining people’s thanksgivings’ by allowing them to work, but more with just a general dislike of big box stores, and a clamoring for any non-issue that can be drummed up against them.
What about charities? What about non-profits? Should they be closed today? What about the plight of the poor volunteers working in soup kitchens and homeless shelters today? Are they not having their thanksgiving ‘ruined’ because they are essentially at work and thus not at ‘home’ with their ‘family’ (which is apparently a sacred and universal good)? And they aren’t even getting paid to boot! Should we shutter the soup kitchens for Thanksgiving?
Where does this nonsense end?
Must every business and institution which requires human effort be boarded up for 24 hours just so the rich, self-righteous turds of the world can feel good that nobody anywhere isn’t with their ‘family’ on this ‘holiday’?
Not everybody has a cushy job at some bullshit left-wing propaganda ‘think’ tank, and not everybody has the luxury of sitting around all day doing nothing on Thanksgiving. Besides, not everybody wants to. Get off your fucking high horse you ignorant, elitist fucks.
I needed gas on my drive home last night or my family would have been stranded miles from our warm beds. Good thing think-progress doesn’t determine whether or not gas station attendees could work yesterday and they were able to decide for themselves what’s best for them.
These employees are not indentured servants. The only entity that claims the power to imprison someone (or worse) for quitting their job is the military, or the state. Employment at Walmart or Target, on the other hand, is completely voluntary. If a person’s employment situation becomes intolerable, he or she is always free to find a better job with better terms. But if no better opportunity is available, then working on a holiday is literally the person’s best option. And they are probably among those in most need of the money.
Anonymous asked: did you spell your daughter's name Evey instead of Evie because of V for Vendetta? never seen it spelled that way anywhere else...
As a matter of fact, yes. Thought it would be a fun nickname.
We were very mindful about how we named our kids.
My wife and I wanted names that we liked both in English and in Spanish. We also wanted to make sure that either the first or middle name honored a deceased relative.
If baby #3 (due in a few weeks) is a girl, she will be (partially) named after Lysander Spooner. If baby #3 is a boy, he will be (partially) named after either Étienne de La Boétie or Hazlitt/Mencken/Thoreau.
(Incidentally, my wife wasn’t down with a Spanish-variation of Murray.)
“Look at the difference: In 1977 I bought a small house in Portland Oregon for $24,000. At the time I was earning $5 per hour working at a large auto parts store. I owned a 4 year old Chevy Nova that cost $1,500. Now, 36 years later that same job pays $8 an hour, that same house costs $185,000 and a 4 year old Chevy costs $10,000. Wages haven’t kept up with expenses at all. And, I should point out that that $5 an hour job in 1977 was union and included heath benefits.”
an anonymous online commenter on the current economy. (via alchemy)
LTMC: When I was working at a gas station, I had an old-timer come in and tell that he used to make $2/hour at a factory job when he was in his late 20’s. He said he could feed his whole family for the night by buying a 24-cut pizza for $2. Fast forward to my gas station job, where I was making $8/hour, but a 24-cut pizza in my town costs closer to $20—2.5 times more on a dollar-for-dollar basis. He said he had no idea how I even survived on what I was making (I was insured through college at the time, but had no savings, and relied on family for large expenses).
This is what people mean when they talk about income inequality. The reason wages have not kept pace with expenses is because the nation’s previous method of wage redistribution—union representation—has declined substantially. Wage increases have subsequently been absorbed on an increasingly larger basis by corporate entities and the top 1% of earners. Strong unions used to serve as a soft redistribution mechanism to help ensure that increases in prosperity were shared equally. A critical mass of union representation in the labor force has always had derivative wage benefits in the non-union labor market. That critical mass no longer exists, however. Consequently, the decline of union labor has led to a concurrent decline in wages relative to expenses, because there’s no longer an institutional mechanism for redistribution of earnings increases in the economy. The critical mass of union representation is gone, and nothing has taken its place.
First, income inequality has nothing to do with poverty or well-being. People in, say, Beverly Hills may have large discrepancies (“inequalities”) in income but they are all fairly wealthy. And people in, say, some slum in Bolivia may have no income inequality but they are all equally poor. Indeed, the poor in the United States are wealthy compared to the poor in Africa. Relative wealth is absolutely meaningless. It falsely presumes that wealth cannot be created and that trade is zero sum. How wealthy my neighbor may be does not necessarily affect me unless I, frankly, allow envy to interfere with my happiness.
Second, the most relevant manner in which union representation has anything to do with “income inequality” is insofar as unions price out marginal workers from jobs through their government protections against “scabs” and their support for minimum wages. Unions have not been the great protector of the worker that the left makes them out to be.
There are many reasons why someone might conclude that most were better off in 1977 than today.
Regulations - ostensibly required for matters of safety and protecting the environment - have increased the costs of automobiles dramatically. Cars cannot simply be made as cheaply as they once were, and those that might be more affordable elsewhere are made more expensive due to protectionist import tariffs or outright bans. Furthermore, advances in technology have equipped cars in ways unthinkable years ago. That used mid-70’s Chevy Nova had none of the safety and luxury and comfort features standard in cars today. Those airbags, radios, and power windows aren’t free to produce, after all. Ergo, comparing the price of a cheap car in 1977 and a cheap car in 2013 is not comparing like goods. Instead, the 1977 Nova may have more in common with a brand new, barebones Tata from India which, if not for government/EPA interference prohibiting its import into the United States, would cost the American consumer about $3,000. And, adjusted for inflation, that $3000 today is much less than than the $1500 spent on the used Nova in 1977.
Housing is made more expensive mostly because of goosed demand facilitated by easy credit from government agencies and lowered lending standards facilitated by government decree. The housing bubble is decades in the making (though it really began its meteoric climb in the 1990s), and the recent correction didn’t come anywhere near correcting since the same activities that led to the bubble are mostly still in effect. A dramatic decrease in lending standards put people into homes that they could not afford, creating an increase in demand that drove the costs of owning a home upward.
Russ Roberts, in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money,” details the entire process of perverted incentives in the housing market that incentivized buyers to purchase more and bigger homes while protecting investors from the risks of making such loans - all which led to dramatic increases in housing prices, most of which are still artificially overvalued today. (Also relevant are Woods’ Meltdown, Sowell’s Housing Boom and Bust, and Norberg’s Financial Fiasco)
Furthermore, government involvement in education has steadily pushed prices of education upward while simultaneously devaluing the marketability of said education. Graduates, thus, begin their careers with a large amount of debt which affects their ability to save. The attempts to make education as market agnostic as possible has also led people into majors with little practical utility (while diminishing the prevalence of trade schools), further harming their employability in the marketplace.
And with minimum wages pushing individuals to enter the workforce much later than they once did, said individuals are thus that much behind in their ability to advance in their careers and move past the point in which a minimum wage would be relevant to them. (See here, here, here, here, and here for more on why the minimum wage is terrible for the economy in general, and marginal workers specifically.)
But the true culprit in devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar is the Federal Reserve.
This is why comparisons of prices and wages must always be “inflation-adjusted.” The minimum wage today ($7.25) is over three times what it was in 1977 ($2.30). Adjusted for inflation, however, it is actually 18% less. In other words, it is inflation that makes the income less valuable. But most people don’t understand what inflation is, and they just take it as a given.
On the contrary, economy-wide price inflation is a product of monetary inflation - that is, an expansion of the money supply.
At the start of 1977, M1 (total stock of monetary assets in the economy) was $306.9 billion. Today, M1 is $2.6 trillion. That’s an increase of 847%. Every dollar added, thus, makes every dollar in existence that much less valuable.
Strictly speaking, inflation is what happens when a government central bank — in our case the Fed — increases the supply of money and credit out of thin air. When these increase and the supply of goods does not, prices will generally rise — that is, the value of the dollar will fall — and it will take more money to buy things than previously. That’s common sense. If people have more money to spend, not because they produced and sold more goods, but only because the central bank printed it, prices will rise with the rising demand. Generally, a rise in prices is called (price) inflation, but it’s actually just the consequence of (monetary) inflation.
When the value of the dollar falls, our incomes fall, even if wages are nominally unchanged. With price inflation, one hundred dollars buys less today than it did last year. Or, to put our monetary history in perspective, what five dollars bought in 1914, when the Fed first opened its doors, today costs about one hundred dollars. A wage increase might make up some lost ground, but people on fixed incomes don’t get wage increases, so they’re out of luck. Also, prices typically rise faster than wages during an inflationary period. …
Because Fed-created money enters the economy at particular points (through banks and bond dealers), a select few people get it sooner than the rest of us. Those who are thus privileged are able to buy at the old, lower prices, while the rest of us don’t see the money until prices have risen. That is an implicit tax and transfer.
And the problem isn’t simply a rising price level. Relative prices are what provide entrepreneurs and investors the information required for rational economic calculation and service to consumers. Inflation changes relative prices. Thus, it distorts the price system and, in turn, the multidimensional economic structure. That means any stimulus is unsustainable because the inflationary policy will eventually end and unemployment must follow as the inflation-induced errors are revealed.
Inflation serves the governing class. Honest, hardworking people should abhor it.
On top of everything, the state keeps about half of what every person earns through social security, medicare, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Which brings us to the common thread amongst all these impediments: the state.
The state is what makes goods artificially expensive. The state makes employees much more expensive for an employer to hire than what the employee will ultimately be paid (I’ll have a post on this soon). The state devalues the purchasing power of every dollar we hold.
Now, I absolutely grant that many rich have gotten richer at a higher pace than the rest of us for some years now. While not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it is the truth - and a symptom of a larger issue: this is precisely because of the generous benefits afforded them by the leviathan state the left views as the savior of the common man.
And, again, the Federal Reserve is the biggest facilitator of this massive theft from the common man to the wealthy and connected: that’s the state’s true redistribution of wealth. Expecting the state to be otherwise is pure naiveté.
So long as there are centers of power, those with means will aim to wield that power or work it in their favor. And there’s no greater power than the state’s monopoly on force. The state, therefore, will always serve the interests of the connected few above the masses.
As I’ve noted:
If government cannot impose taxes or offer tax breaks, impose tariffs or offer subsidies, impose regulations or offer liability protections, impose fees and licensing or offer interest-free loans, impose wage and price controls or offer bailouts - then what good is it for a corporation [or the rich] to control the government?
It is the state that is zero-sum. What it gives it must first take, and the givers and takers are usually decided by the connected.
The state is no friend to the poor, nor - as I’ve hopefully shown - no friend to the common man. Turning to monopolized authority to centrally plan people out of poverty and hardship only leads to more poverty and hardship.
As much as I hate that this happened, and I recognize police brutality is a huge problem, the fact remains that all the facts are not know AND America has something y’all seem to remember for people like the Boston Bomber but forget when it comes to policemen: innocent until PROVEN guilty. He has not been proven guilty and the investigation by the police department has not finished. You cannot abandon this principle.
- "all the facts are not know (sic)"
Cop tasered boy with his hands up and walking away, causing boy to hit his head on the ground when he fell which lead to brain damage and a coma. What more need be known?
- "innocent until PROVEN guilty."
Such a principle is an important element in a properly functioning criminal justice system, but the point is that one need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be fired. If this were private security in a private school, the security guard would have been - at the very least - suspended immediately and the school would have dealt with the private security firm swiftly so as to please the parents and students. After all, unlike cops and public schools, private security and private schools are dependent on the voluntary patronage of willing customers. Parents concerned that their children might be killed by over-zealous security would no doubt find a new place to send their kids.
- "the investigation by the police department has not finished."
Considering the overwhelming majority of such investigations tends to absolve officers of wrong-doing, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a just outcome.
It’s not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It’s our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless.
L. R. Knost (via thinksquad)
Edit: I think it’s important to be realistic about the nature of the world with your kids, and prepare them for the obstacles and hardships and, yes, cruelty they will inevitably face. But that doesn’t mean that fostering honesty and kindness cannot be made a priority, which in turn makes the world that much less cruel.
Cops in New Mexico repeatedly sprayed a woman’s vagina with mace after she was arrested for drugs. They allegedly did this to “punish” her.
God damn the state of New Mexico. It has really gone to hell after Governor Johnson left office.
This is the same New Mexico police recently in the news for anally probing men and women against their will.
When an organization claims a monopoly on force, grants itself the “authority” to harass innocents for even the most minor victimless offenses, and - through the unholy partnership of unions and government - mostly inoculate the members of that organization from retribution for their misdeeds, then it follows that said organization would be attractive to the kind of sick bullies who would enjoy such power.
Proving that idiocy truly has no bounds, Spain issued a “royal decree” taxing sunlight gatherers. The state threatens fines as much as 30 million euros for those who illegally gather sunlight without paying a tax.
The tax is just enough to make sure that homeowners cannot gather and store solar energy cheaper than state-sponsored providers.
Via Mish-modified Google Translate from Energias Renovables, please consider Photovoltaic Sector, StunnedThe Secretary of State for Energy, Alberto Nadal, signed a draft royal decree in which consumption taxes are levied on those who want to start solar power systems on their rooftops. The tax, labeled a “backup toll” is high enough to ensure that it will be cheaper to keep buying energy from current providers.
Spain Privatizes the Sun…
The state’s thirst for control again exceeds any pretense of limit.
N.B.: I think C4SS’s assessment incorrectly referring to this state action against private individuals as “privatizing" may stem from their typically Marxian/Proudhonian interpretations of property.
Of course, sunlight cannot be privatized. Resources like sunlight, oxygen, and gravity, are referred to as “background conditions” or “non-economic goods” because, as the name implies, they are not (typically) economic goods. There is no inherent rivalrous, perishable scarcity as there would be with economic goods such as iPads, gold, labor, or coconuts.
As Carl Menger explained in his Principles of Economics:
[A]ll the various forms in which human economic activity expresses itself are absent in the case of goods whose available quantities are larger than the requirements for them, just as naturally as they will necessarily be present in the case of goods subject to the opposite quantitative relationship. Hence they are not objects of human economy, and for this reason we call them non-economic goods.
Using the term “privatize” in this case, with regards to the sun - or, more appropriately, sunlight - only serves to sully the concept of privatization. I am afraid, considering the source, that may have been the point.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden debate Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the filibuster. Who won? (Read more here)
It’s almost as if it were all about control, and politicians only care about checks on power when their party is not in the majority.
It’s difficult for the common partisan to acknowledge that he or she has been played this whole time, even when it is so obvious. To make such an acknowledgement would mean to undermine the very theology of the state that they have created. Too much of their dogmatic values are tied up in such beliefs, and their faith is unshakable in the face of truth and logic.