The War on Drugs. What's Next?

David:
The current strategies to wean the populace from illegal drugs has not made a dent in the use of these drugs, and may have actually made things worse. Where should we go from here?

Doug:
Wow, I'm surprised to hear you say that the so-called "war" on drugs failed.

I'd like to replace that whole effort with a "war" on poverty. Except, can we drop the war metaphors? Who are we at war with? Ourselves?

David:
I'm actually surprised that you don't know that the progressive establishment has had a war on poverty for much longer than there has been a war on drugs. By the success standard set up by that war, the war on drugs has been a smashing success. The lesson to be learned is that government never identifies the causes of the problems they want to fix, and then spends billions of taxpayer dollars promoting the wrong solutions. Government should stick to the well-defined goals established for it in the Constitution.

Doug:
I know that some people have wanted to get rid of poverty, but I'd like it to be a national focus. I'd like all of us to battle poverty. Oops; another war metaphor.

I agree about those well-defined goals, like the reason for the existence of the country in the first place:

"We the People of the United States, in order to

1. form a more perfect union, 
2. establish justice, 
3. insure domestic tranquility, 
4. provide for the common defence, 
5. promote the general welfare, and 
6. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Poverty prevents 2, 3, 5, and 6 from being attainable for all, don't you think?

David:
You have the right to "Life, Liberty, And the pursuit of Happiness".  Number 5 is where the government may step in to fight poverty. Providing for the general welfare of the citizens. But how to accomplish this task? So far, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and in many cases, it can be shown the government programs have made things worse, much like the War on Drugs, where it sounded like a good idea to make minor infractions into felonies to discourage drug use. It didn't work, and the efforts now are to reverse the damage done by that idea. But when discussing poverty, bad  government programs just keep moving along, wreaking havoc in their paths. And rather than repealing these wayward programs, they are often duplicated across multiple government agencies.

You just can't kill a bad idea once it's in the hands of politicians. And they can take good ideas and ruin them through bad implementation.

Doug:
Whoa, you are really down on politicians. Maybe you need to hang out with a different group of people? There are some very thoughtful politicians you might like in our area.

In any event, you asked, "what's next?" How about a war on war? I think diplomacy got a real boost in the arm with this Iran proposal, don't you think?

David:
There are politicians, and then there are party politics. They are not the same, and good politicians will often vote for or against things that are beneficial to the party, whether they like it or not. Trust me here.

Remember when we were kids, and I'd trade you 3 Hot Wheels cars for a GI Joe Apollo astronaut suit? That was diplomacy and negotiation. The president gave the Iranians money, eliminated all sanctions (even the ones that had nothing to do with nuclear arms), agreed that they determine when and where inspections will take place (if at all), and said we have made a great deal and avoided war. If you think that's diplomacy, then I want you to agree that everything I say is correct, start going to church on Sundays, join the Republican party, and do all of that without expecting anything from me in return.

Hey, you're right! I feel better about our arrangement already! Diplomacy does work! Excuse me while I go celebrate out in the streets!

Doug:
Diplomacy is hard because it is a compromise with one's enemy. But if we can all work toward better relations, then we can begin to see where we humans have commonalities. That is the endgame, not any particular temporary agreement. So, I'm glad to see communication with Iran, and Cuba for that matter. It may not work, but it is worth a try.

If you want more war, vote for Scott Walker. He has said he would abandon the treaty on the first day of his presidency. But, dear Mr. Future President Walker, what if the treaty is working? Wouldn't that be foolish to throw it away? Oh, unless you don't want peace.

David:
I believe that you are naively believing that leaders in a country act in a way that benefits the citizens in that particular country. The people of North Korea are likely to have many of the same goals and needs of Americans. But the Communist leaders of that country are currently starving their own people to death. The goal of the US should be to ensure the civil liberties and humanitarian treatment of the regimes we deal with. The deal with Iran and the dealings with Cuba accomplish none of that.

Doug:
I think that being able to have regular populace in the two countries (USA and Cuba, and USA and Iron) carry on regular conversations is a great way to show what a great country we have.

David:
Scott Walker, and most of the Democrats in Congress, understand this deal with Iran doesn't accomplish anything the administration laid out as their original goals. Perhaps all of those Democrats don't want peace, either?

Doug:
I think that the Military Industrial Complex drives a lot of politics.

David:
It seems once again we agree on something. The goals of diplomacy should be to help the common people of other countries recognize the same rights as Americans, while ensuring the security of the US. Unfortunately, giving in to murderous dictators, without acquiring those rights for their people or maintaining our safety, doesn't seem to be the smartest way to accomplish that goal.

Wait, weren't we talking about drug wars?

Doug:
And what comes next. 

LGB…T. One of these things is not like the others….

David:
I've always found it interesting that the LGBT community is made up of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people. The first three groups in this community are all made up of people who have an attraction to people of their own gender (or in the case of bisexuals, any gender.) But transexuals actually believe they are a different gender. This is not the same, by a long shot.

Doug:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe this is a conversation that you should have with a transgendered person. I'll let you tell them why you believe that they don't belong with LGB's.

David:
The only way you can't understand what I'm saying is to choose to not understand. Let me dumb down the argument (even though I believe you are just trying to stay safe in your politically-correct peer group, and do understand). Saying that I like dogs as a pet is not the same as saying that I am a dog. See how those two are different?

Doug:
Those two things seem pretty different.

David:
So, let's try an experiment. Suppose I sincerely believed that I was the Jackie Kennedy-Onassis. I dressed like her, and I insist that I am her. I would be found to be suffering from a delusional thought disorder, and could be forced into psychiatric treatment if I was found to be unable to recognize that I am not really Jackie O.  However, If I believe that I am not the Jackie O, but still a woman named Jaqkuie Kennedy-Onassis, then I'm protected by law from discrimination.   How would you rectify this?

Doug:
Oh, I see where you get lost. It is sorta like: if you are a boy and you like boys, then we might call you gay. If you are a man, but you like being a woman, then we might call you transgender. Those sound pretty similar to me. Every psychologist, sociologist, and psychiatrist that I know tells me that gender is a social construct. It seems reasonable to me that one's biology might not match their social construct.

But even if you didn't want to let transgendered people into the group for that reason, it seems that they could still warrant a membership card because society treats them all very similarly. But then they would have to let in atheists (as a similarly hated group by society).

David:
Every biologist, chemist, and geneticist I know would tell you that gender is, well, genetic. Psychology, sociology, and even psychiatry deal with how you feel about the world around you, and how you deal with your feelings. As mentioned in an earlier blog, this is why these are "soft" sciences. The rules can change based on societal influences. "Hard" sciences, like biology, physics, chemistry, and genetics have laws that are constants. So, if you are male, and have a preference for sex with men, we would call you gay. If you are a male, and wish you were a female, that does not make it so. You are still a male. (It's this whole complicated chromosome thing. X's and Y's and all this DNA science stuff that is found in every cell of your body. Apparently you skipped those classes in school.)

Atheist are a hated group? Hmm, if you feel that's true, then you should probably have an introspective chat with yourself to understand why you are generating that feeling. Maybe you should talk to a psychologist to help you understand yourself better. Perhaps you are a Christian trapped in an atheist's body….

Doug:
One doesn't have to look too far to find evidence that atheists are not well regarded in the US. For example, most Americans would vote for a gay person, or a muslim before they would vote for an atheist. Maybe "hated" is too strong a word. In any event, I don't feel persecuted. Even better, my kids (who also are either atheist or agnostic) hardly think about it. For example, no one in their schools make a big deal about it. I think the younger generation is much more accepting of different kinds of people than our generation, and older, were.

Most scientists that I know make a distinction between "sex" and "gender". Sex is genetic and biological, whereas gender is psychological and behavioral, which can of course be genetic. But even the biology of sex is not purely binary. As a medical doctor, you may have seen cases of "ambiguous genitalia."

You may well be right that gender is genetic, but not because of the expression of sex organs, but because of the expression of behaviors. So, I find the T in LGBT to make a perfectly fine grouping.

David:
Perhaps you are arguing that "gender roles" are societal constructs? I can believe that is the case. Women should have no barriers to achieving their goals, whether staying at home, or becoming the bread winner. Men should also have the ability to choose their role in society, or within the home. But surely you are not arguing that a woman who becomes a CEO looses her identity as a woman?

With transgenders, you have been using the term "gender" to also refer to their sexual composition. It can only be one or the other, as "gender roles" are distinct from "gender". You need to decide which terms you are going to use to describe each topic. And whether it makes any sense or not, I agree with you that the T is likely to stay where it is. And depending on the antics of the Decathlete-formerly-known-as-Bruce, having Ms. Jenner as their spokesperson will likely hurt the entire grouping's public standing.

I think we both want these people to find happiness in their lives, and I think we both feel they need outside help to make that happen. We disagree, however, on what it means to get them to the point they are happy with who they are. Because the question is "who are they...really". You never did answer the question asked earlier about why some are considered delusional, and some are protected, for essentially the same condition. Society has not answered that question either, but we need to.

Doug:
No wonder your answers are often confused; you are asking the wrong questions!

David:
As for Atheists, and their intolerant streak,  I'll start working on that blog right now.

Managing Our Southern Border

David:
It's about time that the federal government take some serious efforts to prevent people from crossing our shared border with Mexico. And it's high time we made sure that deportees, especially convicted felons,  don't bounce right back to commit more crimes.

Doug:
I don't think you mean to just prevent people from crossing, right? You mean that you want to make sure that only USA Grade-A approved people are crossing, right? Ok, that sounds reasonable, and probably pretty close to what we currently have.

But if you're are going to spend billions of dollars of tax money on this plan, I guess I'd like to see how we prioritize it with our other national goals, such as education, healthcare, etc.

David:
So, you believe that the only people who are crossing our Southern border are all "USA Grade-A approved"? You don't believe that there are any people crossing the border without going through the legal immigration pathway?

I believe the President himself has discussed the mass influx of unaccompanied children causing a "humanitarian crisis".

http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children

Controlling the flow of immigrants through the immigration system allows us to prioritize our spending for things like education, healthcare, etc.   When you have an uncontrolled flow, it creates a crisis that swallows up dollars to provide emergency shelter and boarding.

Doug:
I'm trying to understand your goal for the federal government to prevent people from crossing our borders, but yet an insistence that the federal government only do what is in the constitution. Unless you consider people crossing the border an "invasion" then the constitution doesn't talk about borders at all. How do you square that?

David:
The Constitution provides for the Federal Government to provide for our security. I assume you lock your doors at home and your car when you are out. Why? Security. You control who has access to your computer. Why? Security. The government controls who comes into the country. Why? (you get the idea…)  The Constitution also provides Federal control for paths to naturalization, which includes immigration laws, as written by the Congress, and reviewed by the Supreme Court, and enacted by the President. ( Article I, Section 8 creates the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus, from a Constitutional stand point, it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.)

Doug:
"Provide for our security" is a pretty vague phrase. That could be used to defend of all kinds of 1984-like activities. Are you sure that is the basis you want to use to stop people from coming into the country?

David:
Yes. 

The government is tasked to screen those who wish to come in to the country to make sure they are not bringing in dangerous infections, weapons, or any thing else that may be a threat to the country. These people are not US citizens. We want to be welcoming to those who wish to immigrate to our country, but we have the right, and the federal government has the duty,  to make sure this process is orderly. The president created a "humanitarian crisis" by his words and actions, leading to a chaotic and dangerous Southern border. As mentioned in an earlier blog, Congress would be foolish to send immigration reform to this president, because we both know he'd enforce parts he likes, and toss the parts he doesn't. 

Doug:
Sounds like a "war on immigrants" to me. Count me out. I'd rather focus on getting those "dangerous weapons" out of the hands of the people that are here legally. Count me in for the oxymoronic "war on violence" or the "war on guns." 

David:
If you refer back to our initial blog post "Ground Rules",  I believe you will find you requested we screen all of the comments before we post them. Why? So that we can manage the comments for content and language. I would not consider that a "War on our readers" or a "War on internet commenters".  Managing the border is not a war.

Doug:
I didn't suggest that we needed "some serious efforts to prevent people from [commenting]" (as you did for border control. Comment screening is free and effortless. I am in favor of managing our borders. But I am also in favor of putting that into perspective with our other goals.

David:
And a "War on guns" means that you wish to change the Constitution. Go for it. But for someone who has repeatedly claimed that the police in this country are dangerous racists, it seems strange that you would like for them to be the only armed people in the community.

Doug:
One can do a lot inside what the constitution allows. A little gun safety surely couldn't hurt. I would also like to get the guns out of the hands of the dangerous racist cops, too. So, at least I am consistent.

David: It seems we agree we should address the violence in our current culture. This is a multifactorial problem that deserves it's own series of blogs. It also will require you to examine many governmental policies that have led to the destruction of the family unit, single-parent households, a disastrous public-school system that favors unions over education, poor care of the mentally ill, and failed programs for the poor. All of these things encourage crime and violence.

Should make for some interesting reading. I can't wait!!

In the News: Court Cases

Doug:
Wow, some interesting court rulings and state legislature activities in the past few weeks:

1. Gay marriage is the law of the land
2. Obamacare is the law of the land
3. The Confederate flag was removed from government offices in South Carolina (not by the court, but state congress) [Other states are moving to remove the confederate flag from other places.]

Those are all great results, yes? 

David:

I'm not so sure you were this giddy when the same Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "people", and that no limits can be placed on the cash they spend in elections, or when they decided the Constitution indicates that all people have the right to carry handguns whenever they want.

Doug:
When you are required to salute President Trump, you may have some second thoughts on money in politics, too. Regarding guns: I am absolutely ecstatic about the US being number 1 in something: "The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found."

David:
Certainly makes sense that countries that ban guns have fewer gun deaths. If you don't like it, though, you need to change the Constitution, because it is the law.

It's interesting to note that now that the Supreme Court has established marriage as a "right", no one should be required to obtain a marriage license. This may invalidate all of the governing rules previously established by the state. But a lot of Libertarians would argue that the government should never have been in the marriage business in the first place.

Doug:
I would think that anyone that believes in the constitution would be happy that the government is getting out of the marriage business.

David:
On the contrary, the government is more involved with policing marriage than ever before, and now they'll be policing everything that goes along with marriage (cakes, flowers, ministers, etc.).

Obamacare has been the law of the land since the Democrats forced it through Congress. This ruling would likely have crippled a key component, but didn't change the law itself. It is interesting to note that Justice Roberts has twice, now, re-interpreted the wording in order to save the bill from its own authors. I find it curious that he claimed that the "ACA was passed (by Congress)  to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."  In fact, it was the Democrats in Congress that expressly started the conversation to establish a single-payer system that would eliminate the private insurance industry.

Doug:
I see you are coming to grips with the reality of Obamacare as a permanent part of the American dream. I hope you keep calling it "Obamacare." I like calling it that, too. Obamacare.

David:
Obamacare is the best thing that ever happened in this country…..for Republicans. Without it, they would have had a much tougher time taking over the Congress. And it's a gift that keeps giving: higher insurance premiums, narrower networks, fewer options for patients, higher deductibles, and increasing healthcare costs. What's not to love? Even the Supreme Court justices that ruled in favor of the subsidies describe the bill as having "more than a few examples of inartful drafting," a consequence of rushed work behind closed doors that "does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation."

Doug:
Well, we can agree that Obamacare is one of the best things that ever happened in this country---no need to qualify that. You have to admit that more people have insurance now, right? And health costs are slowing down? In 20 years, you'll be claiming it as a Republican victory, somehow.

But even you have to admit that "...and it wasn't even written very well..." sounds a bit like sour grapes.

David: As to the flag, Governor Nikki Haley and the Republican-controlled Congress did a wonderful job of providing a climate that allowed for the state to remove the flag. While it has sparked tremendous controversy in the past, she deftly handled the issue and allowed a smooth transition. This event could likely propel her to a VP  nomination.

Doug:
Don't forget to give some credit to Dylann Roof, too. He did a wonderful job creating a climate for the flag to be removed. You may be right about VP Haley. Trump-Haley 2016!

I'm surprised to hear that you think it was a good idea to remove the confederate flag. But does it do anything to fight systemic racism?

David:
The flag has been a symbol of being a "rebel" for years (remember Bo and Luke Duke and their car, The General Lee?), but that's because it was the flag of the rebellious folks who tried to dissolve the Union. It was a state's rights issue for sure…….about slavery. So, I never really found a compelling interest for any state to fly it over their capitol. Governor Haley found a way to make everyone understand and agree with her efforts. That's statesmanship at it's finest.

Here's a curious poll you might find interesting:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

The question for you is which group is most likely to promote racism? Most blacks would say it is the black community. But there is a lot of interesting information in this poll. Nothing supports a claim that racism is systemic, however.

Doug:
Hey, I'm here celebrating the removal of a symbol of institutionalized racism! I'll even give Haley (as well as the NAACP) some of the credit. We'll have to discuss your "curious poll" from the right-leaning Rasmussen Reports another day.

David:
So, it seems we can agree that the Republicans of South Carolina get cudo's for taking care of business in a manner that left everyone on the same page. Perhaps the Democrats of Baltimore can take some notes…

I'll add the Rasmussen poll to our list of topics for the future.

Transgender, Transracial, Trans….species?

David:
I find it a bit ironic that many of the same people who have celebrated the change that has come over Bruce Jenner are now attacking the racial identity of Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who claimed to be black. This strikes me as hypocritical.

Doug:
I agree. Although her name is Caitlyn now, and that has to be a hard path for anyone to take. Gender and racial identity are both fluid, and can change over time.

David:
So, to be clear, you're saying that anyone can choose both their gender and their race at any time it suits them, and the choice is "fluid", meaning they can go back and forth whenever they feel differently. If applying for a job or applying for college, a white male can "identify" as a black woman when checking boxes on the application, and the interviewer/application committee must act on that information, rather than their own eyes and the candidate's genetic code? That is your stance?

Doug:
Almost. But it has to be a decision that a person has made some commitment to. It is fluid in that it can change over times (perhaps over years) and would of course have a person living their choice. So, absolutely a person born a white male could identify, and live, as a back woman. But this is not an easy path. The chances of being murdered are much greater for a transgendered person than they are for a person fighting the most deadly war the earth has ever seen.

Of course, race and gender are social constructs. Even sex, which is a biological distinction, is also a continuum.

David:
Race and Gender are genetic. They are not social constructs. Every single cell in your body carries your genetic code. Believing something you are not does not change that. Surgery does not change that. The way you behave is a social construct, and you can behave in a way that defies that construct, but that  does not change your genetic code. Ms. Jenner can have all types of surgery done, and still, any tissue sample you send to the lab will come back with the same result: white male.

I find it interesting that you believe that someone can only say they are transgender or transracial if they make a "commitment".  Based on whose standards? If you don't feel they have made enough of a commitment, then they are a fraud? And who's to say that they must "live their choice" for it to be real to them?  And why couldn't someone change their gender or racial identity on a daily basis? Why should time have to be a factor, and why do you claim that the path must be difficult?

You are certainly placing a lot of societal restrictions on a person. Or, are you saying that there is a "proper" way to become transgender or transracial, and if you don't do it "correctly", then you aren't really transgender or transracial?

Doug:
If race is not a social construct what is it? If a person has a white parent and a black parent, what "race" are they? No, race does not exist except in your mind. Gender is similar, and is completely a social construct. Believing that you are a woman does indeed make you a woman. That, in fact, defines how trans people live.

The trans people I know have struggled with identifying with a gender, and have made a commitment to the other. This is often a horrible struggle, and not one that they would want to repeat.

But, I could see that one might be able to slide from one gender to another more easily, if one were in a supportive environment. You convinced me!

David:
Your politically correct psycho-babble confuses me. While a blending of racial backgrounds certainly provides people with an ability to define themselves as mixed, or to lean in one or the other direction, your gender is your gender. You can surgically alter yourself, but you cannot change your genetics. In the same way, believing you are another species does not make it so.

But, back to the original question. Since there is no "rule" as to how you decide to self-identify, and you can "slide" back and forth, you would say that an entire corporation of white men could decide to identify as black women in order to qualify for federal funding as a diverse, minority-owned business, right?

Doug:
I think so. But I also believe in the spirit of special support for those groups that are under-represented. So, I think the criteria would have to change for what is needed to get such help. It is not enough that one is a now a "black woman," but that one has lived a life as a "black woman." A lifetime (or more) of lost opportunity, and to make sure that it stops in this generation, is what we hope to correct for with such special programs.

David:
This is how bad ideas and government over reach get started. Now the programs that were intended to help poor minorities will have to be modified and overseen by a bureaucrat who will determine the quality of their blackness, or their woman-ness. Are you really black enough to qualify for our program? Have you suffered enough to be eligible. Have you been (fill-in-the-blank) long enough that we feel you are deserving.

How about this instead: everybody is equal. No favoritism should be shown by the government to any individual over another. Poor people need temporary assistance, regardless of other variables. No other favoritism allowed. Now, go and convince young people to stay in school, avoid unwanted pregnancies, make smarter decisions, and take responsibilities for your own actions. That happens through education - and better education happens through charters, vouchers, and parental choice.

If you agree that your race and gender are "fluid", then all race-based or gender-based assistance is mute. 

Hey, you may have just hit on the plan to eliminate racism in this country, and start putting a dent in the debt at the same time. Any one can be any race or gender,  so there there really are no races or genders (which you have already argued is true), so we can eliminate all of the programs and agencies that deal with these issues.  Bravo!!

Doug:
Remember, you just convinced me that it isn't your blackness, redness, or whiteness that one would measure, but one's need. That may be impossible to measure perfectly, but we have to try. Otherwise, we won't be able to make the country a just place to live.

You can't just proclaim everyone equal, and it would be so. We still have hundreds of years of institutionalized racism, let alone wealth that gets handed down on racial lines, to overcome. And we know that we all have implicit biases.

So, back to the general issue: I have no problem with anyone self-identifying with a specific race or gender. If that person tried to take advantage of an undeserved need, then I would have an issue with that. But I only have heard about Rachel Dolezal doing good. And Caitlyn Jenner doesn't seem to be doing anyone any harm.

David:
You're still on a collision course with yourself. Now, you're making a judgement that the person can change their race or gender only if they do good. Who is going to be the judge of that standard?

Don't you see that if there is no race and no gender (or if you can change either at a whim), then you cannot have benefits based on race or gender?

At least we agree that one's needs should be the basis of aid. Whatever the past held,  the future of governmental programs should be based on quantifiable measures of need, and your color or gender shouldn't matter.

How Should We Pick a President?

David:
The Republicans have so many candidates for the 2016 presidential election, that they are only going to allow the top 10 highest-polling candidates to participate in the debates.

The Democrats are desperately searching for someone other than Hillary Clinton, but their field is so weak, that most of them will overlook all of her ethical flaws and vote for her while holding their noses.

Is there a better way?

Doug:
I don't think you are qualified to speak for all of the Democrats. Nor all of the Republicans, for that matter. You may be right that there are many Democrats that are resisting Hillary Clinton. We have already explored the implicit bias against women. But the Democrats have a wide selection of candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb. These candidates cover quite a spectrum of political views for people to chose from.

David:
Who? I think they have all been instructed to run so that Hillary can say she had a race. They are all failed, former politicians that no one has heard of. Except for you.

Doug:
But I'm sure there are better ways to elect a person that would be more fair to each voting person in the U.S.

Perhaps you are upset that Fox is picking the Republican candidates based on their national polling? That will surely bias crazy people like Donald Trump.

Or perhaps you are upset that the Electoral College actually picks the president. I'd be in favor of one-person, one-vote.

David:
I'm not upset at all. But in this world of social media, the movie "Idiocracy" seems more like real life everyday. Or perhaps we're becoming "1984" or "Brave New World", where the big-money holders will just pick the winners, and promote them through social media where the masses get the news.

Doug:
Better way? How about a better educated electorate, with high expectations? How about getting all of the money out of the process? Those two things are about all that I would like to change.

David:
Wow! I don't think we've been in total agreement about anything so fast ever before!

Ah, but how to achieve that goal? Republican governors, and some Democratic governors have made great leaps in improving the education of the electorate by giving parents the choices they need to send their children to schools of their choice. And the benefits are starting to be seen. But young people still lack a basic understanding of important principles, like economics. We are making progress, however.

Getting Congress to eliminate big money may be dang-near impossible, though. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." ― Alexis de Tocqueville

Doug:
Well, that time has passed. But, we can agree on at least what to focus on, even if we don't agree on how to get there.

David:
I'm not sure what other ideas you have to educate the populace, but I might suggest individual states  restrict how much money is involved in campaigns. As long as everyone has the same rules applied, it might work. The problem comes with the unlimited money other groups pour in to destroy a candidate.

I'm not really sure how to get the money out, but it's refreshing to see that we both find the same issues and problems with the election process.

The Police Benefit Neighborhoods

David:
Police departments across the country have come under fire this year as an abusive force in neighborhoods. I contend that they are instead the single force preventing many of those neighborhoods from destroying themselves.

Doug:
That sounds like a hypothesis that could be tested. How could you test this idea? But there are so many variables, you would have to work hard to eliminate them.

But why are so many unarmed, young, black men being killed by police? I don't see how having more cops helps that issue.

David:
Statistics confirm that the primary killers of young black men are other young black men. And, even though African-Americans represent around 12% of the population, they account for half of all violent crime. So the question is, why are so many young black men killing each other?

Whenever crime goes up in any city, the response from the folks in charge is to increase efforts to hire more police officers. Why? Because more patrols in dangerous neighborhoods leads to a decrease in crime. This is how to test the hypothesis:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/TerrorAlertProofs.pdf

"We found that the additional police had a pretty big effect on crime," Klick said. "Our local and federal governments spend tons of money on policing, and it looks like we may be justified in spending much more."

Doug:
Welcome to science! This is what we would call a "data point". You need many data points, and they need to be reproducible. 

David:
So, does that mean you discredit the findings of the study? It seems to provide a good testing mechanism for answering the question: Do more cops deter crime? The answer is yes.

Doug:
I don't discredit the results, but there are lots of reasons that those particular results might not be indicative of a larger pattern and meaningful correlation. This study shows "terror alert + more police = less crime." That is an interesting finding, but does not imply "more police = less crime." For example, I could imagine that those crimes (whatever it might be, from jay-walking to murder) might be disrupted by a terror alert. One could also imagine that "terror alert + more police = less sleep" but also does not imply "more police = less sleep."

David:
The point of this study was that the terror alert caused more police to be out on the streets without a precipitating event. Therefore, it did show that increasing the number of police directly decreased the number of crimes, without any other affecting variables.

But back to your assertion that black young men are being gunned down by police. I might direct you to this site:

http://killedbypolice.net

The data is incomplete, but indicates that many more whites are killed by police each year than blacks. You might say that's obviously how it should be, because there are more whites in the population. But let's break down the stats a bit.

Blacks represent 12% of the population, but represent 30% of people killed by police. This is certainly evidence they are being targeted, right? No. Since blacks account for 50% of violent crime in this country, and you would be more likely to be killed by police while committing violent crimes, it appears that they are less likely to be killed by police. 


Doug:
Not just gunned down, but also choked to death. 

No, you can't claim a relationship between violent crime and deaths. You'd need data that showed what the each person being killed by police were actually doing. You can't just claim a relationship between killings and crime. But I do believe that people of color are being disproportionately killed by police. That we can agree on.


David:
The data is lacking in one key detail, however. Was the person armed when they were killed by police? Without that number (which is unrecorded, even by the FBI) you cannot claim that unarmed men are being slaughtered. Multiple reports have certified that in only a very minuscule number of these cases was the death unjustified. In other words, if you attack a police officer with intent to do bodily harm, they just might shoot you, and would be justified in doing so.

Doug:
It seems that even a "minuscule number of" unjustified police killings of black people are too many, right? We can argue about how wide spread it is, but first let's just agree that it does happen, and probably happens more times than we know, based on citizen video. Now we can ask, why does unjustified killing of blacks happen? And then come to the conclusion that a blanket statement that "more police = less crime" is fraught with some troubling possible results. It seems it would depend on who are these police officers and who make up the community.

David:
So, you expect the police to be 100% accurate at all times? Infallible?

There is no data that shows police are targeting blacks, and no data that they are unjustly killing blacks en mass. Assuming that it "must happen more than we know" because you saw a video of one man murdered by an officer does not equal data.

But the data does indicate that in some areas blacks are actually safer than whites with a larger police force.
How could the police be favoring the black population?


Doug:
I don't know where that reality-bending question comes from, but continue.


David:
Two theories have been suggested by Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. 

He listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.” This is certainly true in today's media frenzy.

Doug:

So media frenzy helps keep down unjustified killings of blacks? Ok, I'm always looking for a silver lining for media frenzy.

David:
Sorry, my paparazzi kept me from seeing your last comment.

Number two, police assigned to communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force. Blacks tend to reside in high-crime districts, but that's a discussion for another blog. In a more affluent area, where officers do not experience violent crime on a regular basis, they may be more apt to use lethal force early.

Doug:
Police are more likely to kill people there.

David:
Police are more likely to kill violent subjects, and violent subjects are more likely to be in violent areas. But the argument is police who routinely work in high-crime areas are better trained to deal with the people in those areas, and are able to diffuse tense situations better. So, better training equals better outcomes. On that, I think we can agree.

Doug:
"Blacks tend to reside in high-crime districts..." I think you mean that poor people are often left with no options to move, and people of color are more likely to be poor.

But I do agree that there is police training (and thinking) that could help prevent needless deaths. But without that, no way would I agree that more police is always better.