I have followed the hearings on Judge Kavanaugh. Though there is not solid evidence to prove his guilt in the alleged assault in a court of law, there would seem to be enough to call into question his suitability for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. At the very least, his outburst in which he blamed 'the left', Democrats, the Clintons, and the media and threatened reprisals, makes him no longer even remotely an impartial arbiter of the law.
What amazes me is the women who feel compelled to talk about false rape allegations. Obviously those do exist, and there are false criminal allegations for all manner of crimes, not just rape. Several studies have found that roughly 5% of all rape allegations are false. Other studies show that only about 1/3 of all sexual assaults are ever reported. There is no epidemic of false rape allegations.
Given how few men are tried, convicted, and punished for actual rape, one wonders just how many men are truly locked up on bogus rape charges. Some are and have been proven to be, but those seem to be exceptions. Meanwhile so many genuine rapists are either never brought to trial, or receive minimal punishment for their crime.
Now I understand men rushing to question any accusations. Far too many of those (but certainly not all) feel some guilt for their own questionable activities, which they would rather see ignored or dismissed. I cannot for the life of me understand the women who rush to undercut any allegations before there is any evidence one way or the other.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Sunday, July 15, 2018
White Privilege
Found myself arguing with people the other day. I guess that should be no surprise. It was two white women over the age of sixty. One, I know voted for Trump, and the other I suspect may have.
The first woman made some comment about how black people should not be running away from the police. First off, running from the police does not justify the police shooting and killing that person. Police should shoot only when there is a clear and obvious immediate danger to the life of the police officer or some other person, other than the person being shot.
Running away from a police officer does not endanger the life of anyone other than the runner, and seldom then. Walter Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light, which honestly calls for a warning or at worst a traffic ticket. He was unarmed and ran from the officer who shot and killed him.
Stephon Clark was not even running. He was standing in the backyard of his grandparents’ home holding a cell phone. Police said they thought it was a gun, so they shot and killed him. Tamir Rice was a twelve year old plying in a park with a toy gun, when police arrived and with no warning shot and killed him.
Philando Castile was pulled over by police, not for anything he had done, but because he was black and they were looking for a black robbery suspect. He told the officer he had a concealed carry license and a gun in the car. Now seriously, you don’t tell a cop you have a gun if you’re planning on shooting him.He was reaching for his wallet when he was shot and killed. His girlfriend and her four year old daughter were also in the car when the officer shot him seven times.
John Crawford was in a store, talking on a cell phone, holding a BB gun when police shot and killed him. Eric Garner was suspected of selling individual cigarettes, when he was choked to death by police trying to arrest him. Freddie Gray was arrested for possession of an illegal knife, then died of spinal injuries that occurred when he was transported.
Arthur Green was pulled over for driving erratically, which turned out to be because he was suffering the effects of diabetes. Rather than figuring out the issue, police pulled him from his vehicle, threw him to the ground and cuffed and shackled him. He subsequently died from a diabetic seizure while in police custody.
Sandra Bland was pulled over for failure to signal a lane change. The police officer escalated the situation, eventually arresting her, claiming she tried to kick him after he dragged her from her car. She died in jail from what the police said was a suicide.
Overall in this country, there are almost five times as many white people as black people. Yet nearly as many black people are killed by police as white people when the police are NOT being attacked. Roughly the percentage of black and white kids use and sell drugs, yet the blacks are almost three times more likely to be arrested and six times more likely to be jailed for drugs.
There are clear racial disparities and they are not related to whether black people cooperate with police. Yet my female friend was quick to blame the victims of this discrimination for what happened to them, whether they were killed or merely arrested.
The other woman I argued with, took issue with the idea of white privilege. She said she never went to college, and she always had to work for a living, so she believed she was not ever the recipient of privilege by being white.
To have white privilege doesn’t mean that you were born rich, or that you never had to work for a living or struggle in your life. It just means that you have not had to face the kind of discrimination that black people in this country face every day. Some of that discrimination is documented above, but that isn’t the extent of it.
Some folks did a blind study, taking resumes, in fact the exact same resume of education and experience and submitting it for job listings. When the name on the resume was a typical white name, it got more positive responses than if it was a typical black name. Taniesha got fewer responses than Tammy, while Laquon got fewer than Larry. That indicates there is racial prejudice in employment even before the person is seen face to face.
There have been other studies using video game simulations with police officers which showed they were quicker to shoot black suspects than white ones. The fact that white people do not face the same discrimination is what is meant by white privilege, and it is all too real.
The first woman made some comment about how black people should not be running away from the police. First off, running from the police does not justify the police shooting and killing that person. Police should shoot only when there is a clear and obvious immediate danger to the life of the police officer or some other person, other than the person being shot.
Running away from a police officer does not endanger the life of anyone other than the runner, and seldom then. Walter Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light, which honestly calls for a warning or at worst a traffic ticket. He was unarmed and ran from the officer who shot and killed him.
Stephon Clark was not even running. He was standing in the backyard of his grandparents’ home holding a cell phone. Police said they thought it was a gun, so they shot and killed him. Tamir Rice was a twelve year old plying in a park with a toy gun, when police arrived and with no warning shot and killed him.
Philando Castile was pulled over by police, not for anything he had done, but because he was black and they were looking for a black robbery suspect. He told the officer he had a concealed carry license and a gun in the car. Now seriously, you don’t tell a cop you have a gun if you’re planning on shooting him.He was reaching for his wallet when he was shot and killed. His girlfriend and her four year old daughter were also in the car when the officer shot him seven times.
John Crawford was in a store, talking on a cell phone, holding a BB gun when police shot and killed him. Eric Garner was suspected of selling individual cigarettes, when he was choked to death by police trying to arrest him. Freddie Gray was arrested for possession of an illegal knife, then died of spinal injuries that occurred when he was transported.
Arthur Green was pulled over for driving erratically, which turned out to be because he was suffering the effects of diabetes. Rather than figuring out the issue, police pulled him from his vehicle, threw him to the ground and cuffed and shackled him. He subsequently died from a diabetic seizure while in police custody.
Sandra Bland was pulled over for failure to signal a lane change. The police officer escalated the situation, eventually arresting her, claiming she tried to kick him after he dragged her from her car. She died in jail from what the police said was a suicide.
Overall in this country, there are almost five times as many white people as black people. Yet nearly as many black people are killed by police as white people when the police are NOT being attacked. Roughly the percentage of black and white kids use and sell drugs, yet the blacks are almost three times more likely to be arrested and six times more likely to be jailed for drugs.
There are clear racial disparities and they are not related to whether black people cooperate with police. Yet my female friend was quick to blame the victims of this discrimination for what happened to them, whether they were killed or merely arrested.
The other woman I argued with, took issue with the idea of white privilege. She said she never went to college, and she always had to work for a living, so she believed she was not ever the recipient of privilege by being white.
To have white privilege doesn’t mean that you were born rich, or that you never had to work for a living or struggle in your life. It just means that you have not had to face the kind of discrimination that black people in this country face every day. Some of that discrimination is documented above, but that isn’t the extent of it.
Some folks did a blind study, taking resumes, in fact the exact same resume of education and experience and submitting it for job listings. When the name on the resume was a typical white name, it got more positive responses than if it was a typical black name. Taniesha got fewer responses than Tammy, while Laquon got fewer than Larry. That indicates there is racial prejudice in employment even before the person is seen face to face.
There have been other studies using video game simulations with police officers which showed they were quicker to shoot black suspects than white ones. The fact that white people do not face the same discrimination is what is meant by white privilege, and it is all too real.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Parkland Shooting, Mental Health, and Gun Control
In response to the latest mass shooting, I’ve seen a number of people posting things saying basically, ‘it’s a mental health problem, not a gun problem’. There are a lot of things wrong with that approach. First, most people with mental health problems pose no danger either to themselves or others. Second, every advanced industrial and post-industrial country has people with mental health problems, but only the United States has a mass shooting problem on this scale.
Beyond that, one wonders what exactly this person thinks should be done with regards to people with mental health problems. Few people present any cogent ideas regarding that, most just try to divert the conversation from gun control to mental health.
What efforts are currently being made to keep guns out of the hands of those with serious mental health problems? In truth, not much. Someone who has been committed can be denied the right to purchase a weapon, but not those who have never been committed. There were some additional restrictions on people with mental health problems getting weapons, but the GOP Congress repealed those rules, and the Republican president signed that repeal.
One could say that at least those with who have been committed can be denied the right to purchase a weapon. That is limited by three things: guns sold at gun shows are seldom subject to background checks; a background check which takes longer than three days can be skipped; and private gun sales are not subject to background checks. The estimates of weapons sold with no background checks range from 20% to 40%, though the upper end has been called into question.
So we can only keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems 80% of the time, and only then if the person has been committed. Many people with serious mental health problems, who are indeed a threat to themselves and others have never been committed. At best we have a system with a lot of holes, which all too easily allows someone with mental health problems to legally obtain weapons.
What about dealing with the mental health problems themselves? Well, the GOP Congress is cutting funds for various health care programs as well as specifically mental health care programs. So we are not making an effort to deal with mental health problems, nor in many cases are we keeping weapons away from people with mental health problems. That being the case, how then can we prevent people with mental health problems from engaging in mass shootings? Basically, we can’t.
The other side of the equation is access to the deadliest types of weapons. Semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines increase the death toll when used in mass shootings. Studies have found that when semi-automatic weapons are used in a mass shooting, the death toll is more than 50% higher than when they are not used.
What then is the rationale for these weapons being sold? Standard pistols, rifles, and shotguns are far more useful in hunting and personal protection than semi-automatic weapons. The people most attached to these types of weapons seem to feel that they need to protect themselves from some sort of dictatorial government. This is at best a specious argument. If indeed the government acted in that fashion, someone with a semi-automatic weapon could not match the firepower of automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, drones, tanks, bombs, and the like.
Some folks claim the fifth amendment gives them the right to own such weapons. That is patently false, since there was a prior ban on such weapons. That ban was adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court, and even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia ruled than the assault weapons ban was constitutional. No less than former President Ronald Reagan said there was no need for private ownership of assault weapons. There is a long history of bans on private ownership of military style weapons, in particular automatic weapons. The fifth amendment clearly does not give individuals the right to own any weapons they choose.
Some gun aficionados would say that assault weapon bans are just a prelude to total gun confiscation. The fact is that automatic weapon bans and the prior assault weapon ban did not lead to widespread gun confiscation.
Another argument against bans on assault weapons is that criminals will find a way to get guns if they really want them. If assault weapons are banned and taken out of circulation, then it will be very difficult to get them whether by legal or illegal means. What has fueled the rise in mass shootings and the associated death toll is the easy access to semi-automatic weapons. If they are no longer available, certainly determined people can use other means, but will do so less often and with far lower death tolls for those who use semi-automatic weapons.
There frankly is no perfect solution, but the solution which will reduce the deaths from mass shootings is to have universal background checks and ban semi-automatic weapons. I truly believe this will reduce the incidence of mass shootings and the death tolls in the ones remaining.
Beyond that, one wonders what exactly this person thinks should be done with regards to people with mental health problems. Few people present any cogent ideas regarding that, most just try to divert the conversation from gun control to mental health.
What efforts are currently being made to keep guns out of the hands of those with serious mental health problems? In truth, not much. Someone who has been committed can be denied the right to purchase a weapon, but not those who have never been committed. There were some additional restrictions on people with mental health problems getting weapons, but the GOP Congress repealed those rules, and the Republican president signed that repeal.
One could say that at least those with who have been committed can be denied the right to purchase a weapon. That is limited by three things: guns sold at gun shows are seldom subject to background checks; a background check which takes longer than three days can be skipped; and private gun sales are not subject to background checks. The estimates of weapons sold with no background checks range from 20% to 40%, though the upper end has been called into question.
So we can only keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems 80% of the time, and only then if the person has been committed. Many people with serious mental health problems, who are indeed a threat to themselves and others have never been committed. At best we have a system with a lot of holes, which all too easily allows someone with mental health problems to legally obtain weapons.
What about dealing with the mental health problems themselves? Well, the GOP Congress is cutting funds for various health care programs as well as specifically mental health care programs. So we are not making an effort to deal with mental health problems, nor in many cases are we keeping weapons away from people with mental health problems. That being the case, how then can we prevent people with mental health problems from engaging in mass shootings? Basically, we can’t.
The other side of the equation is access to the deadliest types of weapons. Semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines increase the death toll when used in mass shootings. Studies have found that when semi-automatic weapons are used in a mass shooting, the death toll is more than 50% higher than when they are not used.
What then is the rationale for these weapons being sold? Standard pistols, rifles, and shotguns are far more useful in hunting and personal protection than semi-automatic weapons. The people most attached to these types of weapons seem to feel that they need to protect themselves from some sort of dictatorial government. This is at best a specious argument. If indeed the government acted in that fashion, someone with a semi-automatic weapon could not match the firepower of automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, drones, tanks, bombs, and the like.
Some folks claim the fifth amendment gives them the right to own such weapons. That is patently false, since there was a prior ban on such weapons. That ban was adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court, and even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia ruled than the assault weapons ban was constitutional. No less than former President Ronald Reagan said there was no need for private ownership of assault weapons. There is a long history of bans on private ownership of military style weapons, in particular automatic weapons. The fifth amendment clearly does not give individuals the right to own any weapons they choose.
Some gun aficionados would say that assault weapon bans are just a prelude to total gun confiscation. The fact is that automatic weapon bans and the prior assault weapon ban did not lead to widespread gun confiscation.
Another argument against bans on assault weapons is that criminals will find a way to get guns if they really want them. If assault weapons are banned and taken out of circulation, then it will be very difficult to get them whether by legal or illegal means. What has fueled the rise in mass shootings and the associated death toll is the easy access to semi-automatic weapons. If they are no longer available, certainly determined people can use other means, but will do so less often and with far lower death tolls for those who use semi-automatic weapons.
There frankly is no perfect solution, but the solution which will reduce the deaths from mass shootings is to have universal background checks and ban semi-automatic weapons. I truly believe this will reduce the incidence of mass shootings and the death tolls in the ones remaining.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Gun Control - Yet Again
Yet another in a long string of mass murders in the United
States. Now we have 17 high school students in Florida being shot by a 19 year
old former student. A number of people reported this student as a potential
danger – some 20 times according to the latest figures I’ve seen. Yet this
person walked into a store and bought an AR15 with more than one high capacity
magazine, and obviously the associated ammunition.
A person who was banned from carrying a backpack onto school
grounds, walked in, pulled a fire alarm to get students out of their
classrooms, and began killing people. The sad thing is that this is hardly
unusual. Just last year, someone opened fire on concert goers in Nevada,
killing 58 and injuring over 800 people. A few months before that, a man opened
fire in an Orlando nightclub, killing 50, and injuring another 58 people. Just
about a month before the Florida shooting, a person opened fire at another
school shooting 16 people, though mercifully only 2 were killed.
We know that it is not in any way feasible to ban private
gun ownership in the United States. Some 42% of Americans report having a gun
in their home and voters do not want a ban on guns or on handguns. On the other
hand, upwards of 90% of people want background checks on all gun sales. Perhaps
surprisingly, some 75% would favor a 30 waiting period on gun purchases. Only about half of voters would approve of a
ban on assault weapons.
What we find when we study it, is that assault weapons are
used in about 28% of mass shootings, but when they are used, the number of
casualties is more than 50% higher. An assault weapon with multiple high
capacity magazines can effective allow the shooter to kill far more people than
they otherwise would, all other factors being equal.
One person indicated that the number of mass shootings has
skyrocketed over the last 30 years, blaming that on a breakdown in morals and
parenting. It is no coincidence that only in the last 30 years have assault weapons
been available to the general public. I would argue that the easy availability
of those weapons is what has fueled the rise in mass murders.
All many politicians seem to do is offer ‘thoughts and
prayers’ to the families of the victims. Thoughts and prayers have thus far
failed to solve the problem. What could solve the problem while still allowing
Americans reasonable access to guns?
- · Universal background checks on all gun purchases;
- · A one week waiting period on all gun purchases;
- · Limiting access to guns to people with mental problems;
- · Better reporting of individuals with mental problems related to gun sales;
- · A ban on assault weapons;
- · A ban on high capacity magazines;
This will not end mass murders by any stretch of the
imagination, but it should do two things: first reduce the number of mass
murders; and second reduce the death toll from mass murders. Law abiding
citizens could still buy most types of rifles, handguns, and shotguns. This
allows people to protect themselves and their property. But it should cut the
horrible death toll that we have seen in recent years.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Criticism of Chicago School Economics
I have an undergraduate degree in economics along with an MBA. Personally, I take my economic direction from folks like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and that ilk. The market indeed serves an important purpose in a mixed economy like the United States. It allows invention and entrepreneurship, which allow both efficiency and economic expansion.
The market is far from perfect, however. An economist would know that there are things called externalities. They are costs which are not borne by the entity which receives the benefits, or vice versa. Examples of that would be pollution, where the community as a whole might have fouled air or water, while only the owners of the company doing the polluting gain the benefits.
Government must step in when there are externalities to balance the costs and benefits. There are also instances where imbalances in negotiating power may lead to abuse of others. That's why we have things like OSHA, because companies may not "find it in their economic interest" to implement employee safety measures. That's why we had things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire where many people were killed.
Government must step in to make certain all the people are protected. Laborers may also not have enough power to insist on decent wages or benefits for the mass of employees. Government steps in with minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and the like. The market may also allow monopolies to form, which can result in great inequities for the greater mass of people, along with great profits for the monopolists.
Now the Friedman disciples would argue that the market, left to itself will resolve any problems. That only works when all parties have roughly equal negotiating power and when there are no externalities. Unfortunately all too often that is not the case. Perfect competition exists only in very limited and circumscribed cases, and not enough to influence the economy as a whole. Friedman dismissed or poo-pooed any idea of market failures, as do all of Friedman's disciples.
Most economists, unless their economics is driven by their ideology, know this all too well. Some folks speak from ideology and ignorance of economic realities, then choose to insult those who disagree, since they haven't the depth of economic knowledge to make reasoned arguments.
The market is far from perfect, however. An economist would know that there are things called externalities. They are costs which are not borne by the entity which receives the benefits, or vice versa. Examples of that would be pollution, where the community as a whole might have fouled air or water, while only the owners of the company doing the polluting gain the benefits.
Government must step in when there are externalities to balance the costs and benefits. There are also instances where imbalances in negotiating power may lead to abuse of others. That's why we have things like OSHA, because companies may not "find it in their economic interest" to implement employee safety measures. That's why we had things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire where many people were killed.
Government must step in to make certain all the people are protected. Laborers may also not have enough power to insist on decent wages or benefits for the mass of employees. Government steps in with minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and the like. The market may also allow monopolies to form, which can result in great inequities for the greater mass of people, along with great profits for the monopolists.
Now the Friedman disciples would argue that the market, left to itself will resolve any problems. That only works when all parties have roughly equal negotiating power and when there are no externalities. Unfortunately all too often that is not the case. Perfect competition exists only in very limited and circumscribed cases, and not enough to influence the economy as a whole. Friedman dismissed or poo-pooed any idea of market failures, as do all of Friedman's disciples.
Most economists, unless their economics is driven by their ideology, know this all too well. Some folks speak from ideology and ignorance of economic realities, then choose to insult those who disagree, since they haven't the depth of economic knowledge to make reasoned arguments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)