Brooklyn police held Takesha Griffin for five days after she we struck in the leg by a stray bullet, because they wanted her to say that her friend who drove her to the hospital was the shooter. There was an outstanding warrant for Griffin, but it was due to a clerical error, something the police may have found out if they had bothered to take her before a judge.
The NYPD’s chief spokesman, Paul Browne, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
The FCC is getting ready to decide a new system for handing out the $8 billion Universal Service Fund, which is funded from contributions by telecommunications companies, which means you and I fund it through our phone bills.
Walter McCormick, the president and CEO of U.S. Telecom, said the Federal Communications Commission should ignore the lobbying of the wireless industry, the cable industry and media reform groups as the agency looks to overhaul its Universal Service Fund. Instead, the FCC should adopt the telecom industry’s proposal to restructure the fund, he said. (Full article)
When the government has billions of taxpayers dollars to play with, you can bet that the special interests will tear each other apart to get the biggest slice for themselves.
The FCC has issued a warning that it will vigorously prosecute those who sell or use devices that jam cell phone communications. Hopefully they will remember their objections the next time some nanny-stater comes up with a brilliant idea like mandating such devices in cars.
Which is good, since he’s failed to make good on most of his own.
I’m very happy to see that U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Everyone’s going to have a different angle on this news and it is true that it’s hardly the end of our involvement there. There’s still Obama’s adventures in Libya and Uganda, as well as the never-ending Afghanistan war. All fine and well to discuss all of that, but the bottom line is more men and women of our military will be home. For now, I’m just going to be happy about that.
This summer, PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai submitted a bill that would end the state run monopoly of wine and liquor sales. House Bill 11, proposes to auction off 1250 retail licenses and close the 621 state run liquor stores. It is step in the right direction, but not an ideal solution.
To begin with, it does nothing to improve the state’s ridiculous regulation of beer sales. Currently, beer can be purchased in six-packs from bars or by the case or keg from beer distributors. In the last few years, select grocery stores have managed to skirt these restrictions, but most PA residents still have meager choices when it comes to beer purchases. This is particularly frustrating for craft beer enthusiasts. Most bars don’t carry a wide selection of beer for takeout and purchasing craft beer by the case is an expensive proposition. So many travel out of state to one of the many beer retailers that line the PA border where they can find a greater selection and better choices in regards to quantity.
The bill has some other flaws as well. The restrictions placed on who may obtain a license are foolish. Grocery and convenience stores which have gas pumps can not obtain a license. I assume this is based on the notion that drunk driving will be discouraged by making intoxicated people make two stops for gas and booze. This bill is still based on the belief that government control over alcohol sales will decrease drunk driving and binge drinking, but that argument isn’t supported by evidence. Despite being one of the most restrictive states in the country in terms of alcohol sales:
I understand that Rep. Turzai needed to write a bill that could pass, but if he thought that leaving such restrictions in place would appease opponents, he is mistaken. The only significant constituency that will oppose this bill are the unions, because the state run stores are staffed by union workers. It doesn’t matter what the details of the bill are, so long as those unions workers are going to be out of a job, you aren’t getting their support.
The President of the union, Wendell Young argues that privatizing the liquor stores will be dangerous. Of course, you don’t hear this same concern over the danger of alcohol in the never ending radio ads for state liquor stores. Why a state run monopoly needs to advertise, I don’t know. Perhaps there is no risk if you buy your booze from highly skilled union clerks in a state store as opposed to “minimum-wage clerks at corner convenience stores”.
Even as currently written, the bill would be an improvement over the status quo. Hopefully, the problems in this proposal will be addressed either in this bill or subsequent legislation.
Yesterday, I posted a pretty optimistic appraisal of the Occupy Wall Street protests and it is still my hope that the movement can have a positive effect on the United States.
It is a half hour of footage from Oct. 15 in Denver and shows a tense standoff between protesters and police. Now, conflict like this between protesters and police is nothing new, and this incident wasn’t particularly bad. It does highlight, however, the problem with protests of this sort.
Confrontation with the police is nearly inevitable when a large group of protesters move in to, shall we say occupy, a public space. Many activists seem to feel that it is their duty to confront police or to get arrested. Governments add unneeded fuel to the fire by using heavily armed paramilitary personnel when attempting to contain or disband protests. It’s a recipe for conflict, but is it the way to create change? Occupy Wall Street claims the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, among others, as a source of inspiration. Those movements were successful in removing from power oppressive regimes. Does that mean the same methods will work in America?
I’m doubtful.
Civil disobedience as a means of shining a light on injustice can be highly effective, as history has shown. However, when conflict with the police is the primary means of expression, the movement is easily marginalized and the message, no matter how noble or prescient, is lost in a cloud of tear gas. This is especially true when, as in the video above, the conflict is over an ancillary issue like the use of public land. The Occupy movement may not have issued a formal declaration of beliefs or demands, but certainly they’re concerned with larger issues than that. Why allow your movement to be defined so narrowly?
The 23 protesters who entered a branch of Citi Bank, ostensibly to close their accounts, is a better example of effective civil disobedience. At least it relates to the larger issue. If true that some of the activists were wearing masks, well that was pretty dumb.
The Occupy movement has been very adept at using technology to organize and facilitate large gatherings of people, certainly they can use those skills to advance their cause while minimizing unnecessary conflict with the police. The movement was conceived and born using all the tools of the digital age, only to revert to 20th century methods of political activism.
The movement is still in its infancy and is still fueled primarily by anger so, at this stage, the need to scream and shout and raise a little hell is understandable. To move beyond infancy will require more. I don’t know that the Tea Party ever got past that stage and their effectiveness was limited as a result. If there is any hope of ending the cabal of government and the monetary elite, it is going to require ingenuity and novel approaches to activism. Not slogans shouted through a bullhorn, but honest efforts at persuasion. Let’s see what happens in month two.
The Occupy Wall Street protest has been ongoing for a month now and I’m still trying to get a handle on it. Here are some random thoughts.
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
There’s much in common between these two movements, though they are commonly painted asopposites. The general thrust of their anger is the recognition that the system is broken, that those that have been given power have used it for personal gain. The government bailouts of political connected companies were a flagrant slap in the face to the majority of Americans from across the ideological spectrum who opposed them.
While the Tea Party focused on the government side of the crony capitalism coin, the Occupiers have focused on the corporations. Both have been maligned by the press who love to focus on the outlandish fringe.
Since the Occupy movement has yet to announce any formal positions, it’s difficult to make an honest judgement on how realistic any forthcoming proposal might be. Though I must say, the ideas that have floated up out of the sea of sparkle fingers, such as eliminating all debt or maximum salaries aren’t encouraging.
The Protesters
If you watch enough footage and interviews from the protests, you will see some amazing things. The complexity of the tiny society that has sprung up in Zucotti Park is simply incredible. Even the decision making process, an easy target for ridicule, is in it’s own way admirable if for no other reason than they’ve managed to get hundreds of opinionated young people to abide by it.
This video filmed by the American Enterprise Institute gives you a good look at what I’m talking about.
The Police
While recognizing that the shaky videos filmed under chaotic conditions mostly by the protesters (or those sympathetic to them) are not necessarily giving us a complete picture of the actions of the NYPD, what they do show is damning. There is far too much violence from the police for what has thus far been a fairly passive protest.
Looking ahead
I hope that the protesters realize that their audience is not Barack Obama, it is not Congress, it is the American people. A thousand or even ten thousand people in the streets is an impressive visual, but it will not mean a thing if they are unable to win over a large percentage of Americans. They need to be aware of how they are being perceived and counfound the agenda driven dismissals of the MSM.
I expect that when Occupy WallStreet announces their one demand, or whatever comes out of this, I won’t agree with much of it, but I hold out hope that I’m wrong. Regardless, like the Tea Party, the Occupy movement is good for America. We have been complacent too long. A real debate over the direction we are heading, our problems and their possible solutions is long overdue.
This morning, Steve Chapman at Reason defends Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke from the attacks of GOP Presidential candidates. While I don’t agree with Chapman’s argument in this article, right now I’m not going to argue about the merits of his case. What I find interesting is who’s name isn’t mentioned in the article.
In Tuesday’s debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich pronounced him “disastrous.” Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges that he has “over-inflated the amount of currency.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry warned Bernanke against pursuing a monetary policy that would be “treasonous.”
Gingrich, Romney, and Perry. Hmmm…are those the first names you think of when it comes to criticizing the Federal Reserve. Or, how about this guy.
Ron Paul supporters are quick to point out that their candidate seems to be overlooked by the MSM in this campaign, but I think even MSNBC would manage to work in his name in an article about the candidates positions on the Federal Reserve. I suppose Chapman only wanted to include A-list candidates, like Newt Gingrich.
Now, to completely reverse direction.
The comments on Facebook for this article are largely negative. Understandable, since defending the Fed is a rather unorthodox position for libertarians. However, I have to take issue with those who question why Reason Magazine would allow Steve Chapman to spew such heresy on their pages.
Come on Reason…Stop publishing big government non-libertarian viewpoints from Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune. I mean are you going to be a Libertarian source for opinion or not? The FED has no place in a free market and neither does forced vaccinations( which Mr. Chapman wrote an article praising), so this man’s opinion flies in the face of your mission statement.(emphasis added)
The magazine’s mantra “Free Minds and Free Markets” doesn’t conjure up images of lock step adherence to any particular set of opinions.
I happen to think Chapman is wrong on this one, but is it really so terrible to read an article with a point of view contrary to your own?
Yesterday afternoon, I decided to stop by at the OccupyLancaster site in Lancaster, PA to see for myself what was happening. To begin with, I recognize that Lancaster is a small city and that it’s dangerous to draw conclusions of the worldwide Occupy movement from what I saw there. However, most of the themes that we’ve seen from OccupyWallStreet and other cities were present at Art Park in Lancaster yesterday.
There was a march earlier in the day with a larger crowd than the 50 or so that I found in the late afternoon. There were a dozen or so protesters holding signs up to cars passing by on Prince St, two guys banging on drums, a girl with a hula hoop, and a guy conscientiously walking around picking up trash and cigarette butts. The general atmosphere was what you would find on a fall afternoon on a college campus. I stood around for 25 minutes or so, took a brief video with my phone to capture the scene (posted below), gave a guy directions who was trying to remember where he parked, and I left. No one ever approached me, or spoke to me. I’m not very adept at walking up to strangers and starting conversations, so I didn’t initiate any interactions either.
As I was driving home, I began to think about the movement and what they appear to stand for, of course it is all very nebulous right now. Corporations appear to be the main villian, and two of the more common complaints from the protesters are about corporate bailouts along with corporate personhood and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, in short crony capitalism. This angle is the movement’s best tool for mass appeal. Across the political spectrum, the American public despise the bailouts and the corruption of politics. What the Occupiers (is that what we’re calling them?) fail to understand is that the evil at the root of these problems is government. We have allowed government to accumulate an astonishing amount of power, and that power creates the current environment of corruption, it is not a solution for it. It is self-defeating to argue for less corporate influence in politics while simultaneously advocating more regulatory power for the federal government.
Like the Tea Party, it looks like the Occupy movement has legitimate grievances shared by many Americans, but they haven’t yet developed any practical proposals to address those grievances. Until they recognize the real cause of the corruption, they won’t have a prayer of effecting the kind of change they seek.
