Archive for 2016

PAUL MIRENGOFF: Our Under-Incarceration Problem, Charlotte Edition:

Nearly lost in the controversy over the events leading to the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott by a black police officer in Charlotte is the killing of another black man during the ensuing protests. The victim was Justin Carr. Mr. Carr had wanted to tell his grandmother, who marched with Martin Luther King, that he took part in the protest.

Who shot Carr? Relying on video evidence, the police have arrested Rayquan Borum,

Who is Rayquan Borum? According to the Charlotte Observer, he’s a 21 year-old Charlotte resident with a criminal past. . . .

Finally, why did Borum shoot Carr? We don’t know. However, there is speculation that the intended target (or targets) was a rival gang member in the crowd of protesters.

As I argued here, the Charlotte protests/riots provide a revealing glimpse into the challenges of patrolling crime-ridden neighborhoods. Officers who patrol them must deal regularly with the people who, among other acts of vicious lawlessness, hurled stones at cars driving along the interstate; tried to throw a reporter into a fire they had set; and assaulted en masse a bystander in a parking garage.

They must also deal with the likes of Rayquan Borum and the gang members whom, if the speculation is correct, he wanted to kill.

I think we have both an under- and an over-incarceration problem. We’re imprisoning too many people for the wrong things, and not locking really dangerous people up enough.

ANN ALTHOUSE CORRECTS PRESIDENT OBAMA on African-American history.

It would, in fact, be a good idea for Trump to visit the museum, but I’ve got to say that Obama distorted Trump’s statement. Trump did not say “there’s never been a worse time to be a black person.” That’s Obama’s paraphrase. Trump said:

“We’re going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever… You take a look at the inner cities, you get no education, you get no jobs, you get shot walking down the street. They’re worse — I mean, honestly, places like Afghanistan are safer than some of our inner cities.”

It’s a statement about “African-American communities.” A slave was not living in an “African-American community.” And Jim Crow was an evil system of exclusion, but to say that is not to understand what life was like in the communities where black people did live. I understand the political motivation for paraphrasing Trump’s remark the way Obama did, but that paraphrase pretends not to see what Trump was saying. It’s much harder — and much more important — to try to refute Trump’s inflammatory statement if you’re precise about what he said. And even if you did amass the historical and present-day journalistic record to refute it, why would you be smug?

Well, smugness is the defining characteristic of our political class.

And what’s interesting is that neither Obama nor Trump has roots going back to slavery and Jim Crow. Obama is the son of an African, not of an African-American descendant of slaves, nor was he raised in an “African-American community,” unless a private school in Hawaii counts. And Trump is the descendant of 20th century immigrants (his father came from Germany, his mother from Scotland), not people descended from slave-holders. This stuff says a lot of things about American history, mostly good ones.

But taking account of that would complicate the narrative, and interfere with the smugness.

IT’S COME TO THIS: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs. “Happiness has gone up for this group, despite employment percentages having fallen, and the percentage living with parents going up. And that’s different than for any other group.”

Two thoughts: (1) Games get better and more enjoyable every year. Jobs do not. Sooner or later the lines were going to cross. (2) Well, you know. As the article says, “That’s a big chunk of labor that could be used for something, and we’re not using it.”

ARNOLD PALMER HAS DIED.

DRIVING THE 2017 Mazda CX-3. I’ve liked all the Mazdas I’ve owned. I had a 1980 RX-7, a 1993 MX-6, and, of course, my 2004 RX-8. All were great cars.

I’M SURE IT WAS IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPLETE AND HONEST TESTIMONY: Why Did the Obama Justice Department Grant Cheryl Mills Immunity?

In normal cases, the Justice Department does not grant immunity in exchange for evidence when it has lawful power to compel production of that evidence. Mills is not alone. Apparently her subordinate, longtime Clinton aide Heather Samuelson, was given the same deal.

Unbelievably, Mills and Samuelson, who are lawyers, were also permitted to represent Hillary Clinton in the very same investigation in which, we now learn, they were personally granted immunity from prosecution.

That’s apart from the fact that both of them were involved as government officials at the time they engaged in some of the conduct under investigation – a circumstance that, by itself, should have disqualified them from later serving as lawyers for other subjects in the same the investigation.

Gangster government, as Michael Barone says.

THE WORLD’S LIGHTEST FOLDING BIKE.

WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, I LEARNED TO PROGRAM IN FORTRAN AND COBOL ON AN ALREADY-ELDERLY UNIVAC 494 THAT WAS PROUDLY LABELED “SOLID STATE.” ITS INNARDS WERE A BIT LIKE THIS. The Megaprocessor Laughs at Your Puny Integrated Circuits: The wondrous insanity of a 42,300-transistor CPU the size of a room. The Univac had tape drives and magnetic-drum storage. But it was huge, and whirred loudly in its own special glassed-in room, and thus seemed very impressive.

SO I MENTIONED I WAS READING KURT SCHLICHTER’S THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC, and I finished that a few nights ago. It was good enough that I’m hoping for a sequel.

I also finished Greg Bear’s War Dogs recently. It’s the first of a trilogy of hard-SF that starts out looking a bit like something by Heinlein or Haldeman, but then goes off in a different direction. It’s quite good, and I’m reading the second book, Killing Titan, now.

I also pulled down an actual paperback copy of Randall Garrett’s Lord Darcy mysteries a while back, and have been dipping into it from time to time. They hold up pretty well.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF Home-Based Healthcare.

Remember when doctors made house calls?

While only a relative handful of doctors still offer them, there is growing evidence that comprehensive home medical care could be a viable alternative to the attendant woes and soaring expenses of institutional health services, particularly for those in late retirement.

It will take some important legislative changes before focused, less intrusive care in a dignified, comfortable setting can become more widely available. The polarizing politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act makes any reform to the health care system particularly challenging. Still, given the overall popularity of Medicare — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both say they support it — getting a new home medical care benefit through Congress looks more promising.

At the heart of the home care renaissance is a combination of high-tech, portable medical equipment and the age-old practice of doctors coming into the home to personally examine and treat their patients.

“We can do X-rays, EKGs, medical records and other applications in the home,” said Dr. Thomas Cornwell, who has made more than 32,000 house calls in his Chicago-based practice and wants to see Medicare support more home-based medical care.

“I had a 92-year-old patient with a very high temperature,” Dr. Cornwell said, citing an example. “I brought in a portable X-ray and diagnosed pneumonia; she didn’t have to go to the hospital, and lived four more years.”

One advantage of care at home: You’re not exposed to hospital-based drug-resistant germs.

ONLY “CIVIL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES” ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO IMPEACHMENT. YOU’RE NOT ONE OF THOSE UNTIL YOU’RE SWORN IN. Law professor: Trump can be impeached for fraud and racketeering before he even takes office.

I think this is bad reporting — really, a bad headline — by Raw Story, though. Prof. Peterson seems to be saying that Trump can be impeached for conduct that took place before he took office, which is a very different thing from saying that Trump can be impeached before he takes office. The article (aside from the headline) says this: “Professor Christopher L. Peterson has found that should Trump win the election in November, he would be vulnerable to impeachment even before he takes office, thanks to fraud and racketeering lawsuits related to the Trump University case.”

That can be read two ways: (1) Trump can be impeached as soon as he’s elected and before he takes office, which is pretty clearly wrong; (2) Trump’s pre-election conduct makes him vulnerable to impeachment, regardless of anything he does in office. I think Peterson’s actually arguing the second, but the headline makes it seem like he’s arguing the first. My guess is that the headline was written by someone other than the reporter, and the headline-writer didn’t quite grasp the story. Or, you know, they were just out for clicks.

Of course, Trump’s not the only nominee vulnerable to impeachment (after being sworn in) for conduct that took place before the election. . . .