Stop-and-Frisk: How Government Creates Problems, Then Makes Them Worse

We should be concerned whenever the executive branch unilaterally declares it will write its own law.

Two recent law-enforcement decisions illustrate yet again that when government sets out to solve a problem it created, things get much worse.

This week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department will keep nonviolent small-scale drug sellers who have no links to criminal organizations from getting caught in the mandatory-minimum-sentence trap. Under current law, judges must impose a mandatory minimum prison term for defendants convicted of selling more than a specified quantity of illegal drugs.

With prison populations and costs mushrooming — America has more people behind bars than any other country in the world — Holder has instructed U.S. attorneys to evade the mandatory-minimum law by not specifying drug quantities when they charge qualifying suspects. He also wants alternatives to prison pursued where possible. While it’s good news that some people who would have faced long prison sentences now will not, we nevertheless should be concerned whenever the executive branch unilaterally declares it will write its own law.

The other decision, this one from a court, criticized New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy, under which the police can stop, pat down, and question anyone on the street who arouses suspicion, a highly subjective criterion indeed. Federal District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department carries out the policy in a manner that violates the Fourth Amendment rights of blacks and Hispanics. The judge specified the ways that the city could fix the policy and appointed a monitor to keep an eye on the police.

In both matters, horrendous policies are to be tweaked to make them less egregious. But this won’t be satisfactory. New York police will still have the arbitrary power to stop people walking down the street, and the federal judges will still put some people away with long mandatory prison terms regardless of the particulars of their cases.

In other words, deeply flawed policies can’t be tweaked enough to make them acceptable. Stop-and-frisk and mandatory minimums should be abolished.

Yet even this would fall short of what’s needed. The problems purportedly addressed by stop-and-frisk and mandatory minimums are of the government’s own making. Thus, if we got to the root, the “need” for these bad policies would disappear.

Stop-and-frisk is largely aimed at finding youths who are carrying guns and drugs. Mandatory minimums are directed at drug sellers. It’s not hard to see what is at the root: drug prohibition. When government declares (certain) drugs illegal, those drugs don’t disappear; instead they move to the black market, which tends to be dominated by people skilled in the use of violence. Because the trade is illegal and the courts are off-limits for dispute resolution, contracts and turf will be protected by force. Those who operate on the street will find it wise to be armed.

So, as a result of prohibition and its attendant violence-prone black market, in some parts of town a percentage of young men will likely be walking around with guns and drugs. Seeing this, politicians and law-enforcement bureaucrats turn to stop-and-frisk and mandatory minimum sentences. But the only real solution is to repeal prohibition. There’s no need for intrusive police tactics or prison terms.

In a free society, government has no business telling us what we can and can’t ingest or inject. Before drug prohibition, America had no drug problem. It’s prohibition that created the problem, just as alcohol prohibition gave America organized crime on a large scale. As we’ve seen, when government tries to ban drugs, it creates bigger problems by putting drugs in the streets and gangs in control.

Ask yourself why after so many decades of apparent failure — drugs are plentiful, accessible, and inexpensive — prohibition persists, as if spending more taxpayer dollars or coming up with some new law-enforcement gimmick will bring success. Maybe prohibition has not failed at all. Maybe the purpose is simply to spend the money and expand law enforcement. Maybe all the moralizing is simply a ruse.

And maybe what Thomas Paine said about wars also applies to the war on drugs: “a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.”

This column originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Why does Sheldon want out children to become addicted to drugs?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Because then it would be easier to enslave them to work in his underground mushroom mines.

  • Ted S.||

    "Our" children, of course. I don't think Sheldon, being a cosmotarian, would want closeted children to be discriminated against.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Maybe the purpose is simply to spend the money and expand law enforcement. Maybe all the moralizing is simply a ruse.

    How. DARE. You.

    For a man named Richman, you sure are anti other people making money.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's all stimulus baby!

  • ||

    Think of all the jobs for donut makers that will be created!

  • Trollificus||

    "And maybe what Thomas Paine said about wars also applies to the war on drugs: “a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.”

    Mmm-mmm! That there's some fine Late Enlightenment morning cynicism, innit? Just the way I like it-unadulterated by sentiment or optimism.

    A cynical view should be judged by its explanatory and predictive power, which in this case, is very great. Enough to drop that hedging "maybe"...

  • RBS||

    Sort of OT. I just finished a DUI CLE and the most memorable part was the cop bitching to a room of defense attorneys about how hard they make his job since he has to actually follow the right procedures etc. or he might lose in court.

  • Ted S.||

    Please please please tell us you were secretly recording this.

  • ||

    Following procedures? First world problems, amirite?

  • John C. Randolph||

    You should inform that cop's superiors that he doesn't want to follow the law.

    -jcr

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Hahaha good one

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You fucking shysters! Making this poor member of the Warrior Caste actually do what he is legally obligated to do! Have you no shame?

  • ||

    Giant Redwoods Growth Spurt Tied to Climate Change: Study

    The ancient trees have produced more wood over the past century than they have during any other time in their lives, according to findings by the Save the Redwoods League and a team of renowned scientists.

    One researcher, Humboldt State forestry professor Stephen Sillett, said it's unclear what's prompted the growth spurts.

    It could be that rising temperatures have lengthened the growing season or that the redwoods are getting more sun. Or it could be something more mundane, such as a reduction in air pollution.

    OR it could simply be the predator prey cycle. More plant food (CO2)= more plant growth. Natures way of regulating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    I wonder if this was taken into consideration in the climate models? (sarc)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Enviros are willing to sacrifice a few old trees to stop AGW.

  • ||

    You know they are going to discover that the growth spurt makes the trees trunks weaker so they will fall down faster, right?

    I mean, they are GOING to find some reason why the growth spurt is bad, okay.

    I'm calling it now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've heard plenty about increased CO2 being good for plants and the plants acting as carbon sinks.

    If it were more than adequate to absorb all the extra CO2, though, then we'd expect to see that accounted for in the temperatures.

    One of the other things they had hoped would mitigate for higher temperatures was increased cloud cover, which, I understand, has happened, too. If there's more cloud cover than there used to be, then that should mitigate for higher temperatures, too.

    But if it doesn't mitigate enough for increased temperatures to make the temperatures stop increasing, then it doesn't mitigate enough.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Temperature aren't 'increasing' in any way that matches AGW computer models.

  • ||

    And what have we observed? No significant increase in global temperature in over 15 years.

    BTW, I actually doubt my theory is correct as we haven't seen an actual reduction in CO2 levels as would be expected if plants were regulating CO2. My point was more...they have no grasp of all the variables involved.

    I suspect the "stall" is because all their predicted "negative feedback loops" failed to materialize, calling their entire theory into question.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And what have we observed? No significant increase in global temperature in over 15 years."

    If that's so, is that the end of the argument?

    All I'm saying is that if the temperatures haven't increased, then there's no reason to measure tree rings to defend the lack of increased temperatures.

    ...and if temperatures have continued to increase despite the extra plant growth, then that extra plant growth has been inadequate to compensate for the problem.

    Personally? I don't have a dog in this fight. I reject the socialist solutions that have been offered up to address the problems associated with global warming--even IF IF IF the alarmists' worst predictions are absolutely correct.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Honestly, if any of these global warming enthusiasts were really interested in reducing CO2 emissions, they would have found the solution: reduce regulatory burdens on the nuclear industry. If you can build a nuke plant for less than a coal or gas plant, nuclear plants will proliferate without any help from carbon taxes or anything. Free market at work. And not only that, I would guess that respiratory illnesses and other diseases from polluted air would decrease as less coal is burned.

    It is the ONLY solution to reduce CO2 levels from electricity production and not cause mass energy poverty.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Your final sentence contains the environmentals objective: "mass energy poverty".

    They really want to de-populate the planet, and such poverty is the means to that end.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The whole idea of mandatory minimums was to ensure that people who sold certain quantities of drugs would get certain sentences.

    In practice, of course, these minimums only bind the judges - federal prosecutors don't feel themselves bound at all, and they have literally* a million ways to avoid these so-called "mandatory" minimums.

    What exactly is the point of limiting judicial discretion when the discretion is simply moved to another part of the system, like the toothpaste moving to another part of the tube?

    *No, not literally, that's just an expression.

  • Ebriosa||

    Oh, not THAT literally, the other one.

    I swear, all this 'literally' talk is going to ruin Parks and Rec for me.

  • Ebriosa||

    But on topic, yes, this is just giving the discretionary power to the prosecutors, rather than judges or juries. Again, only the Feds are allowed to have power.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "This raises the more general question as to the propriety of extracting information and guilty pleas through the threat of mandatory minimums. Such practices impose a “trial tax” on defendants who exercise their constitutional rights to trial by jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and other trial-related guarantees - the tax being the mandatory minimum sentence that otherwise would not have been imposed."

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....ederal-law

  • Number 2||

    Eduard,

    I read the Cato article and noted this passage:

    "Moreover, the mechanical nature of mandatory minimums can entangle all criminal justice actors in an oxymoronic process where facts are bargainable, from the amount of drugs to the existence of a gun. The participants will figuratively “swallow the gun” to avoid a factual record that would require a mandatory sentence."

    So Holder's "new policy" is nothing more than what federal prosecutors have been doing for years.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Good catch, I didn't notice that.

  • Number 2||

    Get a copy of Holder's actual memorandum & read the fine print.

    http://big.assets.huffingtonpo.....msMemo.pdf

    After listing the factors that prosecutors should consider to decide whether the defendant is sufficiently "low level" to avoid mandatory minimums, Holder notes that the prosecutor may not have sufficient information at the complaint stage to know whether these factors are met. In that case, the prosecutor is supposed to seek the mandatory minimum penalty as in the past. If the prosecutor later discovers facts that show the offender to be low level, Holder offers two options: either have the grand jury issue a superseding complaint or -- wait for it -- offer the offender the opportunity to plead guilty to a non-mandatory minimum offense.

    Finally, read the top paragraph on page three, dealing with sentencing: "In determining the appropriate sentence to recommend to the Court, prosecutors should consider whether the defendant truthfully and in a timely way provided to the Government all information that the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct, common scheme, or plan."

    In other words, you avoid mandatory minimums if you plead guilty and turn stool pigeon. Otherwise, off to prison.

    My prediction: the Holder Memorandum on mandatory minimums will have the same effect on drug prosecutions that the 2009 Ogden Memorandum had on medical marijuana prosecutions. Fool me once...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John called this one right away.

    It's just bullshit propaganda to dupe democrat supporters.

    And it will work.

    I've talked to hundreds of young adult's that absolutely refuse to believe that Obama is cracking down harder on Marijuana, medical and otherwise, than Bush did.

    Their ignorance, on an issue that they passionately care about, is stunning.

    And these are college graduates, which doesn't mean what it should, but still demonstrates some level of intelligence and awareness.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It demonstrates that they're invested in a certain view of themselves based on their support for Obama. If they criticize Obama - especially if they call him worse than Bush - then they become non-special and of course they look like suckers for voting the guy twice.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, and the same can be said of people that reflexively defend Bush.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I generally don't hang out in these circles. Even my Republican friend focuses on defending modern Reps, not Bush.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I see it on right wing blogs like red state, nro and the like. Usually as a response to some progtard attacking some Bush policy.

    Which is funny because Obama doubled and tripled down on the activities in question.

  • LiberTarHeel||

    Number 2 in name, Number 1 in critical thought! (I am Number Six!)

  • Number 2||

    Questions are a burden to others, answers a prison for oneself.

  • Slammer||

    +1 Powerslave

  • ||

    Laws should either be enforced uniformly or repealed. Keeping laws on the books and selectively not enforcing them is the same as selectively enforcing them. What is to stop prosecutors, politicians, and cops from selectively enforcing them only against people they don't like?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You mean like they already are?

  • SweatingGin||

    Maybe they could just unilaterally delay enforcement of mandatory minimums for a bit.

  • Spartacus||

    I've said it before and will probably say it again (old age, dementia, etc): publicly announcing one's intent to selectively enforce a law should be immediate grounds for impeachment.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Which is the generic weekend thread? Anyway, here's this:

    "My Two Husbands

    "...By Angi Becker Stevens

    "...The right has spent years warning that we are the travesty waiting down the slippery slope of same-sex marriage. With every stride forward for marriage equality, I can count on turning on the TV to find conservative talking heads lumping families like mine in with pedophilia and bestiality. But liberals, for the most part, don’t treat us much better. They’re quick to insist that same-sex marriage would never, ever lead to such awful things — failing to point out how multi-partner relationships between consenting adults do not exactly belong in the same category as “relationships” with children or goats."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/05/my_two_husbands/

  • bmp1701||

    That's a travesty. Not because it's "polyamorous", per se, but because I never, ever, ever want to visualize those people in anything resembling a sexual situation. The woman looks like Fat Gollum.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    Good grief. I wouldn't fuck her with a stolen dick.

  • Dweebston||

    Stolen Dick is the name of my 90s alt rock cover band, and no, we're not available to sexually pleasure this polyamorous woman.

  • AuH20||

    "And, in a rare double-whammy decision, the Supreme Court also declares polygamy legal."

  • sgs||

    BOO!

  • Virginian||

    Yeah I was having a discussion on marriage with people, mostly lefty Obama fans. It was one of those periodic times when I agree with this group of people, yet they keep arguing with me for some reason. Except then a real argument started because I stated that any relationship among consenting adults should be legal. Which caused all these "equal sign sticker next to the ObamBiden on the bumper of the Prius" urban lefties to begin arguing with me that polyamory was "different" and that marriage should be between two people, not more.

    Very interesting. It's almost like they're not coming at it from a principled point of view at all, but rather from a faddish or partisan angle.

  • AuH20||

    Yeah. It is always weird for me when people totally in favor of gay marriage suddenly insist that the only possible romantic relationship that people can be in is a dualistic one.

    I fully support legal, polyamorous marriage, and it is just really weird to me that these people can't logic it out. Then again, these are the same people who are adamantly pro-abortion, and are appalled at my argument that men therefore should be allowed to perform a "financial abortion" (ugh, hate the term, but it is becoming the default it seems) and not pay 18 years of child support, so logical thought may just be beyond their abilities.

  • Virginian||

    Well those people just want the women elevated over the man. That's a perfectly logical stance from their YOU GO GIRL! bullshit. If she wants to keep the bikini body and abort, or if she wants have a bundle of joy paid for by Mr. One Night Stand, that's all HER CHOICE HATERS. Now make sure that child support check comes every month. Make it out to cash.

  • Number 2||

    You assume they think. They have simply been conditioned to respond "yes" to certain issues and "no" to others.

  • General Butt Naked||

    First of all, I love the fact that they're self-proclaimed leftists, but just want to be left alone. Nope, that's not how your ideology works. You've spent decades promoting democracy over limited government and a majority of voters think you're freaks, oh well. I've heard that elections have consequences.

    And please don't try to pretend to be some new sort of protected victim class. You want to keep Mr. HumDrum around to cook, pay the bills and take care of the kids while you bring a new guy in to have fun with. A lot of people would like to have that sort of situation, but they just could never be attracted to a person that would put up with it.

  • Brett L||

    This is pretty bitchin. Dolly Parton's Jolene on 45 is perhaps even better at 33. Weird, but cool.

  • ||

    I'm calling bullshit.

  • BakedPenguin||

    That is pretty good.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm sure you'll all be surprised to hear Peter King is a totalitarian psychopath who says Rand Paul doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to the Total Surveillance State. Also, he wants to fund a military dictatorship in Egypt.

    Who will rid us...

  • bmp1701||

    Also, he wants to fund a military dictatorship in Egypt.

    Also, he wants to fund terrorists, so long as they're micks.

  • AuH20||

    Something about the Northeast turns people into douchebags.

    Think about it: The state of Connecticut alone produced Epi, myself, AND Nicole.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Peter King would be a douchebag no matter where he hatched.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hey! Fuck y...wait...

    Carry on.

  • Robert||

    I'll take the corrupt torturer over the unbribable one, thanks.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Dolly Parton's Jolene on 45 is perhaps even better at 33. Weird, but cool.

    Now do Patty Smith's version of Gloria at 45rpm. It's fucking hilarious.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Nice.

    Kucinich: I voted against the Patriot Act, because I read it.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    So he was the one

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    OT:

    Internationally recognized radiation engineer Ted Rockwell raised more than a few eyebrows when he maintained, in the aftermath of the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan, that the fear of radiation does more harm than the radiation itself. Responsible health experts know that outside the plant boundaries, radiation levels are detectable but low, and that many towns still off-limits are safe for people to return to.

    Rockwell placed the blame for panic squarely on politicians – not only those in Japan but also in the U. S. who rejected the advice of scientists and instead listened to alarmists.

    As Rockwell liked to point out, “Few, if any, people decide where to live, or how to live, on the basis of radiation levels. There is no reason to live any differently now. Let the people of Fukushima return home and get on with their lives.”

    It is inhumane that Japan is still forcing residents of the surrounding area around Fukushima to stay away from their homes. Anti-nuclear types are squarely to blame for this.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen, Bro! From my website, see this... See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2477708/ , from Government Almighty itself! Even GAWD admits that lose-dose radiation is actually GOOD for you! So much for all the ridiculous over-reactions around all but the innermost cores or areas that have had nuclear accidents! Japan’s recent over-reaction doubtlessly harmed and killed more people… Some evacuees committed suicide due to the stresses of forced re-locations… Than would have been harmed by far less over-reactions. The link I have cited here, shows low-level radiation (in an “accidental human experiment” if you will, in Taiwan) actually reduced cancers to a mere 3% of that of the general population there! This is “radiation hormesis” and media and Government Almighty need to do more to publicize this! … In the meantime… Please help me out here… Where as a Scienfoologist, do I buy radioactive elements, with which to irradiate my effigy? Without angering the Home-Land Security types?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Every fire alarm has a small piece of californium-252 which emits alpha particles. If you open one up you will see the radiation symbol and the dose from it.

    I mean really, granite rocks contain trace amounts of uranium and thorium and a larger amount of radium. Basically everything has a small amount of radioactive material. Water has a small percentage of tritium, banana's have K-40, your body contains carbon-14.

    Old exit signs contain quite a bit of tritium actually.

    Basically, our DNA evolved in a world with much higher radiation levels. We have evolved to be able to fend of low dose radiation as a species.

  • SweatingGin||

    At United Nuclear, of course.

    They also have parts for a death ray.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So, I guess the NSA "inadvertently" and by "mistake" obliterated the Constitutional limits on the scope of its surveillance powers. That means they won't be passing any of that erroneously acquired information along to any other government agencies, right?

    RIGHT?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    wrong

  • Number 2||

    Hmmm....the NSA makes 2,000+ "mistakes" every year? That's reassuring.

    You know that you are in trouble when you have to rely on the "Hey, we're not dishonest, just incompetent!" defense.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    I hate the Drug War as much as The Next Guy, but I don't think this opinion piece will convert anyone to believing that Prohibition must end. Here's my attempt at arguing for legalization in 90 seconds.

    Whatever the harms of the class of prohibited drugs, the harms of leaving them to the Black Market exacerbate rather than fix the problems. Why should trades in this area of life be forfeited to a black market where all participants are criminals? Instead of being regulated by the proven, time-tested laws of market exchange and legal liability, these trades are unregulated and ceded to criminals who decide their disputes with killings and kidnappings rather than lawsuits and lawyers.

    In order to vastly reduce the violence associated with illegal drugs (Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman once calculated 10,000 excess per murders per year in the U.S. owing to drug prohibition), drugs must be brought into the sunlight of regulated market exchange, courts of law, and modern medicine. Allowing the criminal underground to continue to fight over control of the illicit market may be good business for the prison-industrial complex, but for the public at large, it is blood-soaked lunacy.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Ontario teachers' union votes to ban cell phones in classrooms

    The federation also voted to label Wi-Fi access points in school, and to continue to study the effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, the potentially harmful radiation emitted by cell phones. They are looking to have the use of cell phones recognized as a potential workplace hazard for teachers.

    Health Canada has said that the majority of research to date does not support a link between exposure and poor health.
  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Wow. Just wow. A workplace hazard for teachers.. I'm speechless.

  • Number 2||

    The students' cell phones are hazards for the teachers, mind you. Not the teachers' own phones!

    I wonder how many of these teachers have surrendered their own cell phones. Pending further research into their health effects.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Having their shenanigans recorded by students would be dangerous to their mental health, lol

    ohgodwhenwillistopwiththeanonbotspoofsalready.com

  • Virginian||

    So something has sparked a recent wave of teacher martyrdom bullshit on my Facebook. All my friends who are "educators" have been indulging in a pity party with memes, and videos, and constant holier than thou bullshit.

    Is there a job with more of a collective urge to climb up on a cross and sigh loudly to attract attention? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

  • Virginian||

    Oh I just figured out what sparked it. The end of summer vacation. I'd forgotten about it because I'm a goddamn adult whose job doesn't stop for three months in the summer.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "OMG I'm going to have to go back to work at the job I love, people the teabagger won't pay me to sit on may ass all year. And I do the job for the kids, not for money anyway."

    Fuck teachers.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hey! Fuck y....wait.

    Carry on.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You're the exception HM, or you would be if you were a unionized public school teacher.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hell, I don't even belong to the AAUP.

  • Number 2||

    PLEASE tell me that the teacher who wrote that ungrammatical drivel doesn't teach English.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, come on! The comma splice is perfectly acceptable in Canadian English.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I fucking love the comma splice, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    Sometimes two short sentences don't carry enough info to be split up and a semicolon is aesthetically unpleasant.

  • AuH20||

    Yeah. I, who want to be a high school history teacher, realize that I am really going to fucking hate most of my peers (Hey, it was this or lawyer. And the law world is doing worse for new hires than the educational world, amazingly. And yes, you people always try to warn me away, but then I always see people on here talking about their commie-hating ____ teacher who got them started towards libertarianism. I wanna corrupt the youth, motherfuckers)

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    I would like to be a teacher for no reason more than seeding the idea's of libertarianism into the youth. And that low dose radiation is not going to hurt you haha but that is more my hobbyhorse.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They'de fire your ass for that shit.

    Seriously, you can diddle the kiddies and the system will protect you but violate PC thought codes and your gonna be gone in a heartbeat.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    You can't win.

  • AuH20||

    Two words: Private school. You work in a pub-school to get experience for a little while, and then find a nice private school in, like, New Hampshire or something.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Unless you're working for Phillips Exeter, private schools pay less than public. And if you do work for Phillips Exeter, you're working for the husband of New Hampshire's most leftist filthy used douchebag of a governor in history.

  • Spartacus||

    Well, I know a couple of people who work at Phillips Exeter, and they are actually very competent and pretty nice people. We don't discuss politics, though. It's safer that way.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Get your advanced degree and go for higher ed., bro.

  • AuH20||

    Isn't that even shittier, in terms of finding a job?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes and no.

    If you're brilliant and/or make connections during grad school* then doors will open.

    If not, then you'll have to slog through adjuncting for a few years until you find an opening.

    *One of the most important aspects of grad school, imo.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If not, then you'll have to slog through adjuncting for a few years until you find an opening. find a few suckers to vote you into the presidency.

  • SweatingGin||

    Well, of course they're persecuted. The archduke just pointed out above that they're constantly being subjected to wireless radiation and cell phones.

    I mean, really. How can you expect them to be around radio waves all the time?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Health Canada has said that the majority of research to date does not support a link between exposure and poor health.

    Science only matters when it advances the narrative.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Obviously science can't be right when you feel that it is wrong. See, you just don't feel enough to know!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I wanna corrupt the youth, motherfuckers

    Remember: 2+2=4, everywhere and in all cases.

    However much you might want it to be 6, it ain't.

    If you can get them to understand that, you've made a difference.

  • Sevo||

    I'm with the government. I'm here to help!:

    "State about to send out 2,200 health law educators"
    ""What we're trying to do is get 5.3 million uninsured and underinsured Californians insured,"
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....740891.php

  • SweatingGin||

    When it turns out the health law educators weren't enough, they can send out re-educators. Although it's probably more efficient to centralize those needing re-education together, with the re-educators there to help.

    Wonder if we'll see a return to "too much rugged individualism"? Although I guess "you didn't build that" fits into that.

  • Sevo||

    "When it turns out the health law educators weren't enough, they can send out re-educators."

    Yeah, and they'll be armed.

  • Virginian||

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/g.....d=19936940

    Looks like they put him back on the list after the media shitshow. Just like that girl a while back. So now instead of a somewhat objective standard, it's going to be who can sob the hardest on camera.

    SLD applies here of course. Allowing people to sell the rights to their organs on death would create a huge uptick in available organs. Who here wouldn't take 20,000 now in return for being stripped clean upon death?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Who here wouldn't take 20,000 now in return for being stripped clean upon death?

    Observant Muslims or Jews who believe the body must be buried intact as a prerequisite for resurrection?

    I dunno, jus' sayin'

  • Virginian||

    Well there you go. So no kosher or halal organs.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    MotoGP at the Speedway. Looks like I won't get much done, today.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    that's not for like 2 and a half hours from now

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Moto3 is on, right now. Moto2 after.

    The Moto2 races can be better than the big bikes, sometimes. Lighter bikes, smaller tires, more sliding and daylight under the rear wheel in the braking zones.

  • MappRapp||

    Sounds like some pretty serious smack to me dude. Wow.

    www.Prime-Anon.tk

  • Jayce||

    "Holder has instructed U.S. attorneys to evade the mandatory-minimum law by not specifying drug quantities when they charge qualifying suspects. He also wants alternatives to prison pursued where possible."

    Given Holder's record of honesty and integrity, I will give this the exact weight it deserves.

    None.

  • Dan||

    Again with the drug crap. Drugs are not the cause of these things, they're just the current trade they are trafficking in. If drugs were legal they'd be doing something else that would involve just as much violence. Organized crime and gangs have been around far longer than illegal drugs, and they'll be around long after drugs are legalized.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement