Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Are Pot-Tolerant Californians More Candid When They Talk to Robots?
Six surveys have asked California voters
about Proposition 19 since the marijuana legalization initiative
officially qualified for the ballot in March. Three of them show
the measure losing narrowly, while the other three (including the
most recent one) show it winning by at least 10 points. Poll
maven Nate Silver
notes that the former three surveys were conducted by humans,
while the latter three were conducted by "robopoll" machines. Two
recent national surveys show a similar pattern. Silver speculates
that reluctance to endorse a controversial position in a
conversation with a live person, especially when that position may
be seen as reflecting one's own stigmatized habits, may explain the
discrepancy between the two types of polls. If so, that's good news
for the proposition's supporters, since voters will be dealing with
machines at the polls this fall.
I discussed Prop. 19 in my column this week.
[via the Drug War Chronicle]
New at Reason: Ronald Bailey's First Dispatch from the Open Science Summit
Two hundred participants are gathering this
weekend at the University of California, Berkeley at the Open
Science Summit to "update the social contract for science." Among
other things, they hope to untether scientific research from the
stranglehold of the government-academic-corporate research complex
and empower citizen scientists. Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey sends a first dispatch from the
Summit.
This Whole Congress Is Out of Order!
I suppose someone should post this video of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) in full meltdown mode, lighting into Republicans and Blue Dogs opposing the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. He’s already being praised from the usual quarters (what calculated passion!), though it seems to me that the Right Honorable Gentleman from Brooklyn might want a refill of his Thorazine.
The
editors at RealClearPolitics make the inevitable And
Justice For All comparison:
The Latest on the War Between Public & Private Sectors, or Even Buckeyes Get The Blues When Contemplating Budgetary Red Ink
When we last checked in with
the Buckeye Institute, the excellent Ohio think tank, we called
your attention to how state workers in the land of presidents (the
last being Warren G. Harding) were raking it in compared to
their counterparts in the private sector:
"Ohio," writes Matt Mayer, president of the Buckeye Institute, "is facing an estimated $8 billion deficit for fiscal years 2012-2013. As our State of the State report found, state workers today are paid much more than their private-sector neighbors in 85 out of 88 counties."
How much more? About 34 percent more in total compensation (wages, benefits, retirement). Which is cheap: Similar figures for Michigan found public sector workers pulling about 47 percent more than private sector ones. And federal workers earn about 45 percent more than their private sector analogues in total comp.
Buckeye estimated that bringing public-sector compensation into line with the private sector would save "over $2.1 billion in the next two years, which is nearly 28 percent of the $8 billion budget deficit" currently casting a shadow over LeBron James' former stamping grounds.
Now Buckeye is back with a poll of 1,800 registered voters in Ohio. Among the results:
· 50% think government leaders should first reduce government worker compensation to eliminate the $8 billion budget state deficit;
· Only 16% think taxes should be increased to eliminate the Ohio deficit;
· 52% think Ohio's state and local taxes are too high;
· 56% think Ohio's regulatory environment makes it harder for businesses to create jobs and grow;
· 85% think workers should be free to choose whether to join a labor union to get a job; and
· 67% think we should stick with coal or add nuclear and natural gas energy.Other than for government workers who think cutting compensation and cutting services are equally appealing, every other demographic group chose cutting government compensation as the top choice to cut the deficit. Except for one group, every demographic group thinks Ohio's taxes are too high by a majority or plurality.
I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of Ohio voters (I speak as one), since they have consistently voted in favor of all sorts of incredibly stupid and self-evident bullshit. The most recent indicator was this spring's 2 to 1 vote in favor of $700 million for a hi-tech bond boondoggle that went by the name of Third Frontier and a legislative vote in favor of restoring money-losing passenger rail service betwixt and between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland for the first time since about 1950.
However, as the Reason.tv video of a recent protest of municipal salaries gone amok in Bell, California below shows, miracles do happen and if you cannibalize taxpayers long enough, they just might rise up to throw the bums out. Here's hoping that Ohioans find expression in the ballot box of ways to cut the pay of public-sector workers and to bring some sanity to a budget that's out of control. If it can happen in Ohio, the self-declared "Heart of It All," then it can happen anywhere, even a state like yours.
The Economic Growth Illusion
Over at National Review's The Corner, Reason Foundation's Samuel Staley writes:
The problem with the way we count economic growth is that it focuses on spending, not investment, efficiency, entrepreneurship, or technological innovation. Anything that boosts spending is automatically assumed to produce growth. Spending, no matter what the source, is the lever government pulls to produce jobs and income.
This is the growth illusion embedded in economic forecasts and in the way we calculate gross domestic product, and we are seeing its negative effects in the anemic numbers posted by the general economy. Increases in nondefense spending are almost exclusively redistributions of revenue from one group (working individuals, or future generations through debt) to current non-earners or non–wealth producers. Even the business spending may be illusory, particularly if the increases in inventory built by domestic manufacturers were based on distortions from gimmicks — cash-for-clunkers, housing tax credits, or stimulus infrastructure projects that literally involved digging holes and then filling them back in again. That’s hardly a recipe for growth, but the GDP estimates and economic models forecasting future growth don’t take this into account; they report these expenditures as spending and therefore economic growth.
Donate Your Rights to A Rasta
Can the city of L.A. shut down a church if it sells pot, or shut down a pot store if it's a church, or....? Details on a new lawsuit challenging L.A.'s attempted shutdown of most of its medical pot dispensaries from the L.A. Weekly:
The City Attorney's office sent letters to most of the dispensaries in town warning them they'd have to close down under a stricter city ordinance. Apparently Liberty Bell Temple II was targeted as a pot shop and some of its leaders were subsequently arrested when the city determined it had not shut down as ordered.
R. Edward Forchion, Charquant Leyou, and the Liberty Bell Temple II itself filed suit in Superior Court alleging that the city has infringed on their right, without due process under the law, to practice their religion.
"Liberty Bell II operated as a Rastafarian temple where marijuana was used as a sacrament,'' the suit states.
The suit asserts that Rastafarians consider marijuana a sacrament. Plaintiffs asked for a court order to prevent the city from interfering in this higher calling.
These kinds of silly messes are inherent in a system whereby you will or won't get tossed in the pokey for an action based on status and motive, a world where some things are maybe OK if you are doing it for a religious or medical reason, and if not, not. For more on that point and the weird history of L.A.'s attempts to manage the non-problem of storefront pot, see my May Reason magazine cover story.
Reality and history indicate that this religious defense for pot use will surely fail in court, but bless the Liberty Bell Temple II folk for trying. For much, much more on the history of religious defenses for drug law exemptions, including one sort of promising but probably not dispositive for these guys 9th Circuit case from 2002, see Jacob Sullum's great May 2007 Reason magazine feature.
California Roundup: In Space No-One Can Hear You Inhale
Jerry Brown's got the Latin beat: Union group
"Working Californians"
puts out a Spanish-language ad comparing Meg Whitman to the
hated former Gov. Pete Wilson.
...Or maybe he hasn't got the Latin beat: Immigrant rights groups threaten to stop supporting Brown over his enforcement of the federal Secure Communities (S-Comm) program.
Can Arnold terminate the great CalPERS giveaway? Dan Walters on the governor's drive to roll back SB 400, the 1999 law that drastically increased the state's pension commitments to public employees.
Spirit, we hardly knew ye: Mars rover operated from La Cañada/Flintridge's own Jet Propulsion Laboraty has not been heard of since the onset of Martian winter.
Put down that joint! Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske says his office opposes legalization of all illegal drugs that are illegal because of their illegality, urges Californians to reject Prop 19, brags about arresting people.
Putting the Brakes on Red Light Cameras
Traffic cameras—those pesky devices that take pictures of vehicles running red lights and mail tickets to the registered owners a month later—are currently in use in over 450 communities in the U.S. But with evidence mounting that the cameras don't necessarily increase safety, raise expected revenue, or meet legal requirements, many local governments are finally getting rid of them.
Earlier this month, after enduring complaints from various activists, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer allowed the state's two-year-old contract for speed cameras to lapse, effectively shutting down the system of fixed and van-mounted camera speed traps.
The 76 cameras in Arizona didn't produce the revenue stream politicians had anticipated. According to the state, less than a third of the 1.2 million tickets mailed out were ever paid, which meant the government received just $78 million in fine payments -- not the $120 million it projected.
Anti-camera activists are also winning in South Carolina and Indiana. And while it may still be a long time before the tide turns completely against traffic camera tickets, some motorists have found ways to beat them in court. From the July/August issue of the National Motorists Association's Driving Freedoms newsletter:
In fighting a red-light camera ticket in Seattle (WA) Municipal Court, Mr. Eros laid out 55 distinct issues in challenging the constitutionality of photo tickets. (His case was dismissed on a technicality, allowing the judge to dodge the need to rule on his motion.).
Among the points made by Eros were a) the denial of the right to confront and cross-examine adversarial witnesses, b) the presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle is guilty, regardless of who was actually driving, thereby destroying the presumption of innocence, c) an unverified chain of control of the alleged (photograhpic) evidence, and d) the lack of scientific reliability of the cameras to warrant unquestioned acceptance into evidence.
The article goes on to cite examples of other motorists winning on similar grounds. Of these, the case of Gant Bloom may be the most applicable:
Bloom's defense was startling in it's simplicity. The photo evidence from the city provided an image of his car, but not of the driver. He testified that both he and his girlfriend drove his car at various times, and since the ticket came in the mail a month after the actual incident, Bloom could not remember which of the two was driving when the car went through the red light.
Casting doubt on the identity of the driver was sufficient for Bloom to win his case. Driving Freedoms suggests that because the cameras hardly ever capture a shot of the driver, this argument is one of the best ways to beat a camera ticket.
Read more from Reason on red light cameras here.
Reason.tv: Experimental Economist Bart Wilson on the Meaning of "Fair"
Politicians and pundits often use the word “fair” to describe policies they favor. But what does “fair” really mean?
Chapman University experimental economist Bart Wilson argues that fairness should not be construed as equality of outcome, but as a process in which everyone plays by the rules and honors agreements. When lawmakers obscure the definition of this word, it may result in policy that is ineffective, arbitrary, and fundamentally unfair.
Approximately 8:52. Interview by Zach Weissmueller and shot by Austin Bragg. Edited by Weissmueller.
Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
Paul Volcker: “It's clear Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to go.”
SmartMoney just published an interesting interview with former Federal Reserve chairman and recent Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker. I wonder if the White House will take this piece of advice seriously:
Q. What's missing?
[Volcker]: People talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's a challenge for next year and year following. We are going to have to reconstruct the whole mortgage market and you can't do that overnight. The mortgage market now is almost a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States government. Almost all the mortgages made now are insured by the government, bought by the government, and the guys at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the market.
Not much exists without the government running it. I don't think that's what we want. A lot of problems surround the whole mortgage market. It's clear Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need to go. We don't need these hybrid institutions. You don't know whether they should be responsible to the government or to stockholders. It's an unfortunate invention.
Read the whole interview here. Back in March, Reason Foundation Director of Economic Research Anthony Randazzo explained why it’s time to kick Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of the housing market.
We Want to Clarify That Our Authority Is Vague
The Obama administration wants Congress to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act so that the FBI can obtain "electronic communication transactional records" without a court order, simply by issuing a "national security letter." It's not exactly clear what "electronic communication transactional records" are, since the phrase is not defined in the statute. But according to The Washington Post, "Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history." The admistration's lawyers emphasize that the FBI would still need a court order to obtain the content of messages, and they argue that the information involved is equivalent to the phone records that already can be obtained with an NSL, which show the dates and times of calls as well as the numbers dialed.
That's not really true, however. For one thing, an email address is person-specific, while a phone number does not necessarily tell you who was on the other end of the call. Furthermore, phone records do not contain anything like a Web browsing history, which can be highly revealing. "Our biggest concern," Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kevin Bankston tells the Post, "is that an expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file downloaded." Michael Sussman, a Justice Department attorney in the Clinton administration, says "you're bringing a big category of data—records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information—outside of judicial review." An attorney who represents Internet companies wonders whether a Facebook friend request counts as a "transactional record."
A Justice Department spokesman insists "this clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993." To the contrary, the statute's requirements were already clarified by a 2008 opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which said the information that can be obtained from a phone company or ISP without a court order is limited to a customer's name, address, length of service, and toll billing records. What the Obama administration wants is not a "clarification"; it is a government-friendly fuzzification.
The New York Times sees a broken promise, noting that a 2008 Obama position paper (PDF) declared:
There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties....As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.
But since the FBI is so punctilious about obeying the current NSL rules, why worry?
Addendum: I just noticed that the same position paper promised to "eliminate warrantless wiretaps." Obama not only did not eliminate them; as a senator he voted to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that it explictly authorized them, while shielding companies that helped the Bush administration break the law from liability.
[Thanks to Tricky Vic for the tip.]
Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse, Unless You're in Law Enforcement
Part of a recurring theme. In addition to my prior post today, here's a roundup of other photography/video stories in the news of late:
- Earlier this month, Carlos Miller—who runs the Photography Is Not a Crime blog—was "banned" from Miami's Metrorail system after guards from the firm hired to provide security for the system, and then Miami police officers, wrongly told him he wasn't permitted to shoot video at the train station. Miller returned this week with his camera and a crew from HDNet TV. Things got violent.
- The Washington Post catalogs a number of incidents in which police have arrested, harassed or detained photographers and cell phone videographers in jurisdictions where the law is quite clear on their right to record and photograph in public.
- The New York Times photography blogger David Dunlap documents another incident.
- Also from the Times, an incident in which a photographer was wrongly stopped by police from taking pictures at an Amtrak station. He was shooting for a photography contest sponsored by Amtrak.
The common thread in all of these stories is that the police were wrong on the law, and the photographers were right. If the photographers had been mistaken, they could be arrested and charged. Not knowing the law isn't an excuse for breaking it. But when law enforcement officials don't know the law, and wrongly prevent someone from photographing or recording, or even illegally detain and arrest someone, it's a shrug and a sigh and we all move on.
I'm Pretty Sure There Isn't an Ap for That
Another arrest for shooting video of an on-duty cop, this time in Ohio.
When a deputy sheriff began questioning Melissa Greenfield's boyfriend at a Delaware County truck stop, she began recording video with her cell phone.
She never thought that she, or her phone, could be viewed as a danger as she documented the activities of public employees in a public place.
"I'm a 115-pound, 20-year-old girl wearing a cervical collar with nothing but a cell phone. I was not going to harm any officer," Greenfield said yesterday.
However, a sheriff's sergeant saw the situation differently after Greenfield announced that she was recording video "for legal purposes and our own safety."
Sgt. Jonathan Burke wrote that he repeatedly ordered Greenfield to place the "unknown" object in her pocket and keep her hands free. When Greenfield refused, she was arrested and charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest.
Burke wrote in his report that he feared that Greenfield could have been holding a dangerous object such as a "cell-phone gun"...
"Not knowing what the item in her hand was and having prior knowledge of all types of hidden weapons, including a cell-phone gun, I asked her several times to place it in her pocket and to keep her hands free," Burke wrote.
Greenfield said that, while driving her to the jail, Burke said that it was "unacceptable for me to be filming his activities."
"I wish I could be surprised," she said, "but I've heard so many stories of incidents like this happening before. ... There's no law against videotaping police encounters."
Emphasis mine, to draw attention to the utter inanity of Dep. Burke's report.
Greenfield is right. There's no law in Ohio against videotaping police encounters. Unfortunately, there's also no punishment for cops who violate the rights of Ohioans who try to do it. Delaware County Sheriff Walter L. Davis III is defending Dep. Burke and his cell-phone gun fears.
Greenfield says when she got the phone back, the video had been erased. Davis denies any of his deputies erased the video. Must have been a glitch.
Greenfield spent three days in jail. She pled no contest to the obstructing official business charge and was fined $20.
New at Reason: Peter Suderman on Why ObamaCare Won’t Stop Rising Health Care Costs
Just days after President Obama
first took office, Peter Orszag, in his new role as director of the
Office of Management and Budget, held a fiscal summit in which he
urged Washington policymakers to commit themselves to an agenda of
fiscal responsibility. And for Orszag, the path to fiscal
responsibility was through the nation’s rapidly growing entitlement
programs—in particular, Medicare and Medicaid. Following up on an
argument he’d made frequently as the director of the Congressional
Budget Office, the nation’s top budgeteer declared that “the single
most important thing we can do to improve the long-term fiscal
health of our nation is slow the growth rate in health care costs.”
Reversing course on those projected costs, he said, “is the
key to our fiscal future.”
If that’s so, writes Associate Editor Peter Suderman, then the door remains locked. There is now growing agreement that even under the rosiest assumptions, health care costs will continue to expand beyond the bounds of the budget, and that despite—or perhaps because of—the new health care law, the long-term fiscal problem remains.
North Korean Coach Forced to Become Construction Worker After World Cup Defeat
Oh, the joys of communism. From The Daily Telegraph:
North Korea's football team has been shamed in a six-hour public inquisition and the team's coach has been accused of "betraying" the reclusive leader's heir apparent following their failure at the World Cup, according to reports.…
The team's coach, Kim Jong-hun, was reportedly forced to become a builder and has been expelled from the Workers' Party of Korea.…
The country, in its first World Cup since 1966, lost all three group games — including a 7-0 defeat to Portugal.
The broadcast of live games had been banned to avoid national embarrassment, but after the spirited 2-1 defeat to Brazil, state television made the Portugal game its first live sports broadcast ever.
Following ideological criticism, the players were then allegedly forced to blame the coach for their defeats.…
However, media in South Korea said the players got off lightly by North Korean standards.
"In the past, North Korean athletes and coaches who performed badly were sent to prison camps," a South Korean intelligence source told the Chosun Ilbo newspaper.
Despite all the problems we have here, just remember that it could always be worse. You could live in North Korea.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245