by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
The police have a PR problem and a culture of cover up and it’s finally being talked about. On the one hand, the police have millions of contacts with the public over a given year and the vast majority of interactions are fine, even dull. But sometimes you have bad police and sometimes you have a bad interaction (including, though not limited to, a shooting). However, almost never do you see the police admit that they messed up.
George Floyd’s situation was unique in that they admitted the wrongdoing right away, though this was likely because the horrific actions were immediately all over the internet. But police have this culture of lying and doing nothing about terrible tragedies in which they do the wrong thing. For instance, the police typically want to see body cams first before the public gets a chance to so they can see what the cams show and then figure out how to spin it. The proper way to conduct an investigation would be to actually investigate first and then look at the body cams to see what they can corroborate or dispute. Maybe this attitude is symptomatic of the public service culture, because typically in the private sector you don’t have the same attitude. If, for example, a Walmart employee, through an improper action ,hurts a customer, Walmart will get rid of the employee because they don’t tolerate the abuse of a member of the public. Not necessarily so with the police, and this attitude needs reform if there is going to be meaningful change.
Police in this country need to remember that they are public servants but they are also responsible for their own behavior and police departments need to hold accountable the bad cops if they are going to maintain public trust.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM
Martin Luther King’s vision was of a colorblind society. Slowly but steadily, in the years since his death, we have worked to make that legacy a reality, culminating in the election of an African American as President of the United States. Yet what should have been a high point for race relations in this country was instead undermined by the very person who could have embodied MLK’s vision.
The Obama administration from top to bottom started looking for race in everything, from Dodd-Frank to college admissions to discrimination in auto loans. . He was a huge proponent of disparate impact theory. This theory states that if a group is not proportionately represented, the reason is automatically bias. This theory would hold that if white people are underrepresented in professional football, the reason is racial prejudice. No need to look at other non-bias reasons that could account for the numbers. For instance, when disparate impact theory was applied to auto loans, it created lawsuits against dealerships for discriminating against black buyers even though in reality the dealers were never given any information related to race on applications when processing loan applications. Obama ultimately had all of his policy departments, especially employment and housing, hyper-sensitive about race. In this way, it made people into victims and those accused of being discriminatory angry because they weren’t actually discriminating. As a result, this type of identity politics was incredibly destructive. In 2009, shortly after Obama took office, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed two-thirds of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. At the end of his presidency, 69% of Americans considered race relations as generally bad.
The seeds of heightened racial division that were sown with Obama continue today because of the overemphasis on race even in scenarios that have nothing to do with it. We have abandoned the vision of a colorblind society. None of this is more apparent than the recent days of violence in the wake of the George Floyd tragedy. Though this was a tragic clear case of police wrongdoing, it is not clear that there was any racial motivation; that argument is tenuous. Is the killing of a black individual by a white policeman (creating a cascade of protests costing millions of dollars) as significant or more significant than the numbers of black deaths at the hands of other black perpetrators? According to the FBI crime database for 2016, the most recent year for which statistics are available, out of 2870 murders of blacks, 2570 of them were committed by other blacks, and only 243 were committed by whites, only a small percentage of whom were police. Thus, is this one (possibly) race-related death that much more important than other black-on-black deaths that occur daily? The looters and vandals, instead of bringing attention to the issue, dishonor the legacy of MLK with their behavior. He adamantly believed that:
“riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve.”
Colorblindness should continue to be a goal. We need the gentle wisdom of Martin Luther King now more than ever if we wish to get past this current era of racial divide.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW
The world is going nuts. Between May 29-May 31, “Chicago saw its deadliest weekend of gun violence this year as protests, riots, and looting continued to rock the city after the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer. A total of 24 people were killed and at least 61 injured by gun violence…. Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said that 17 of the gun deaths occurred on Sunday alone.”
Yet according to the Washington Post police database that has tracked the number of people shot and killed by police since 2015 there were 9 unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites were killed by law enforcement in the entire country in 2019. In other words, more people were killed by rioters and looters in one weekend in Chicago than the total number of unarmed black men in all of 2019. And over Father’s Day weekend, 104 people were shot, 15 fatally, in Chicago. Where is the outrage? What is the REAL problem?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Last week, Nick Gillespie of Reason moderated a webinar on policing and protests with Jacob Sullivan and C.J. Ciaramella. Gillespie is a thoughtful libertarian whose discussions I generally enjoy. Thus, I was appalled to hear Gillespie –no less than five times during the hour-long segment–refer to the 2014 Ferguson incident with Michael Brown as the beginning of the focus on police abuse and brutality. That is completely fictional. It was very clearly established that the police did nothing wrong in that case, a determination subsequently confirmed by the DOJ report — under Eric Holder no less!
It’s bad enough that this particular lie continues to be propagated by the left and progressives and repeated again and again, but for Reason to do so? For Nick Gillespie to do so? This is shameful. There are certainly well known cases of very wrongful and egregious cases of police misconduct that inform society’s dealing with the problem. But the Michael Brown incident – with its now famous though absolutely false “hands up, don’t shoot” – is actually a potent example of a mantra of a movement built on a lie.
To present Michael Brown’s case in the same sentence as George Floyd or Breonna Taylor is both damaging and reckless and it undermines the credibility of any meaningful conversation on a very important topic.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
For years I have been following the candidates that have been supported by the Club for Growth, contributing to both their campaigns and to the Club. Although overall they do a decent job finding and supporting candidates , there are two areas in which they are weak.
The Club For Growth has always been an advocate of the free market, limited government, and low taxes — the same thing that the Tea Party originally intended to be. However, within this realm, there are four things that the Club For Growth does not focus on, but they need to. These are: immigration, tariffs, the Jones Act, and ethanol. So you can have a good libertarian, free market candidate, but if that person turns out to also have unfavorable stances in one or more of those areas, they weaken their position. The Club For Growth needs to expand their vetting to include these four areas in their overall approach.
Additionally, the Club For Growth needs to continue to monitor those who have taken office. While it is understandable that with somewhat limited resources, they want to use most of those resources to find new candidates, it does no one any good if the people they have recommended end up going off the rails. There has to be some sort of follow up. For instance, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley are all examples of people elected in no small part by the Club, but for which we now have serious buyers remorse. These three have taken inexcusable positions on tariffs, free markets, big government, etc.
It is disappointing and unacceptable to see Club For Growth focus only on getting new people elected while neglecting to hold these and other candidates accountable for their changed positions. It would be wise for the Club For Growth to practice better vetting and consistent follow up if they want to maintain being a trusted voice in the political landscape.
