Chanticleer

For when I see the beauty of your face,
The scarlet red you have about your eyes,
It makes my dread all wither and it dies,
As certainly as In principio,
Mulier est hominis confusio--
Madam, the meaning of this Latin is
'A woman is man's joy and all his bliss.'

The FBI and Justice Department prosecutors recommend felony charges for General Petraeus.

Dog House Boogie

A little music for a Friday night.

Why Not Free? Well, "Free."

ThinkProgress proposes that the President's free lunch 'free two years of community college' plan is taking the wrong way 'round. We could just as readily make college free for the whole four years, at all public colleges, without spending more than we're already spending:

If President Obama truly wants to transform the cost of higher education, however, he could make college free for all students without having to lay out more money to pay for it. That’s because the federal government could take the $69 billion it currently spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds and instead cover tuition at all public colleges, which came to $62.6 billion in 2012, the most recent data. (The government spends another $197.4 billion on student loans.) That would give all students who want to get a college degree a free option to do so. It could also put pressure on private universities to compete with the free option by reducing their costs, which have risen 13 percent over the last five years.

I have a sense that we're going to have to extend the "free" (meaning publicly subsidized) education we pay for in this country. We already provide publicly-funded education through high school. The expansion will need to come because the continual transformation of the economy by technology means that (a) whole industries are dying -- see travel agencies, secretarial pools -- and (b) the only thing like an answer to that problem is to retrain people for whatever new sectors of work are emerging from the constant technological change. But the people being forced out of dying industries are low on the list of those likely to be able to afford the cost of advanced education.

Thus, our options as a country are:

1) Allow our fellow citizens to fall out of the productive/employable classes, which means that they will not be providing tax revenues (and, most probably, will be consuming expensive public welfare programs -- but even if we were to manage to restrain those, they still will not be adding to the common fund),

2) Spend some of our public stores to help make sure people can retrain in productive ways.

The best way to do this would be to establish some right/left limits on what kinds of programs we consider productive enough to merit public funding, probably based on some rolling estimate of which industries are coming-to-be or passing-away due to current changes in technology. We would need to make sure money didn't go to waste, but was directed at programs designed to help people retrain for current careers. This is something that we're just going to have to expect people to do more and more as time goes along, and the poorest most often, so we probably need to think about a solution that doesn't require them to have either money or credit if we want them to succeed. We should want them to succeed, if only for selfish reasons of keeping them off welfare rolls and helping with the taxpaying duties for a larger percentage of their lives.

Public colleges are a good start, but we should really expand especially to vocational schools. A travel agent put out of work by Expedia may not have the chops for a degree in engineering, but might benefit from getting a CDL so she could move to Texas and drive trucks to and from the oil fields. That's something we could do pretty cheaply and relatively quickly, compared to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and it would get her back on her feet and into the taxpaying class as quickly as possible. We'd save money, even if it is not in any sense "free," and it would be good for the moral health of our citizenry as a whole if more of them were able to work and fewer were on welfare of any kind.

Risk and blame

Examples in another context of the confusion between ignoring risk and excusing wrongdoing:  there's a new book out, drawing attention once again to the government policies that contributed to the 2008 housing crisis.  The book is drawing the predictable criticism that it's a mistake to attribute the housing crisis to government regulatory initiatives, when it's so obvious that many bankers were greedy and incompetent.  That's a confusing criticism, considering that we're not likely to start inhabiting a world in which bankers are drawn exclusively from the ranks of the saintly and skilled.  We have systems for restraining the more unpleasant results of bankers who go wild.  They start with making it highly likely that the bankers will lose money if they keep it up, and go on to criminal penalties if, in addition to responding to a natural impulse to make money, they drift into outright fraud.  But none of that explains very well what went so dramatically wrong with our housing market in 2008.

What does explain it quite handily is a look at the impact of a government-sponsored entity that sends out a strong signal, "We'll buy the craziest mortgages you can sign up.  Lend money to people with bad credit.  Not only will you get credit of various sorts from people (on both sides of the political aisle) who want to see homeownership expand in our society, but you won't even pay a financial price for writing loans you ought to know perfectly well are going to default in above-average numbers.  We'll subsidize your losses."  What exactly did we expect to happen, especially considering that banks make money on processing fees and therefore are highly motivated, all other factors being equal, to maximize loan volume?  The force that normally puts a brake on this motivation is fear of failure.  We took fear of failure almost completely away.

Does that mean no banks behaved badly?  Obviously not.  But, as voters, we're not in control of bankers' consciences.  We are in control of the laws we pass.  We don't have to pass laws that fuel the very behavior we claim to be outraged by.  I don't know why we can't learn the lesson that you get more of whatever you subsidize.

As usual, I think the basic underlying mistake here is to imagine we can escape the price tag of a charitable impulse.  Both Democrats and Republicans had a natural, even laudable, goal to improve the lives of Americans by extending the benefits of home ownership to greater numbers of people.  We went wrong by fantasizing about a world in which such a thing would not have a cost, a real cost that real people would have to pay.  We're like people who want to feed the homeless, and place an order for restaurants to deliver hot meals to 10,000 people, then settle back in our armchairs feeling compassionate.  But when the bill comes in the mail, we throw up our hands and refuse to pay it.  "I thought it wouldn't cost anything!  I thought someone else was going to pay it!  If you don't keep delivering the hot meals without waiting for my check, you're just mean!  You must be in favor of hunger!  Restaurant owners are greedy!"

I Think It's The Other Way Around

InstaPundit:

LIVE BLOG — PARIS UNDER SIEGE: Charlie Hebdo Attackers Cornered, Hostage Situation in Kosher Store in East Paris.

The right way to apologize

The humiliated Maryland city council member noted by Grim earlier this week has thought it over and decided he was completely wrong in his eccentric view that newspapers needed his permission to use his name.  Not that some people might have thought he was wrong and been inexplicably offended, but just that he thoughtlessly blew it, plain and simple.  His apology is completely appropriate, a refreshing example of the genre:

"Of course, as I am an elected official, the Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county — that comes with the job," he said. "So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong."

I liked Volokh's take:

Uh, Council Member: In our country, newspapers are actually allowed to write about elected officials (and others) without their permission. It’s an avantgarde experiment, to be sure, but we’ve had some success with it.

Speaking of Questionable Judgment in Public Office...

A gift from Lindsey Graham to incoming Senator Joni Ernst.

A Fair Point

Also in September 2012, as the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway recalls, the president of the United States addressed the United Nations General Assembly. He declared (in a speech that, as she puts it, “includes some good commentary and more indefensible commentary”): “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Ouch.

"People Know The Consequences"

And if they don't, they should by now.

Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike....

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.

Normally I would argue that we don't need a law, since the mores are so strong: although the quantity of mockery is not none, in America it's really very close to none without the bother and expense of legal actions.

This in a culture that produces regular, ongoing mockery and testing of its own core belief system. We invented Heavy Metal music, which was little more than an exercise in blasphemy. We make movies and television shows that mock the religion shared by the vast majority of Americans both living today and historically. So this sensitivity isn't part of a general commitment to anti-blasphemy, it's part of a general commitment to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims.

Apparently this is not enough, however. And you know the consequences for not submitting.

Don't rush us!

We've only had six years to think about Keystone.

Inside the Minds of the Shooters' Supporters

The Counter Extremism Project collects supporters' statements from today's Paris attack.

One Came Calling

I don't really find the form of humor especially enlightening, but that's the point of free expression. We protect the bad ideas, too.

Of course, "protect" in this case would have better been done by having a couple of rifles in the office and some guys who knew how to use them. If I were running a satirical magazine -- or a think tank -- I'd look into making sure that there was a weapons locker and some training days on the corporate calendar.

Climb To Glory, Commando

WTF Army Moments reported this, but I checked it myself and it's for real.  

Well, we rode on Black roads in Iraq.  There it meant probable IEDs.  What's a little snow?

Paul Revere Time Capsule Opened

Here's the story. And here's the video:

'A Sufficient Number of Psychologists'

I don't have a problem with this idea, as long as we can agree that the sufficient number of psychologists in a riot is always zero.

The Missouri Democrat who told MSNBC the riots of Ferguson and the tremors of racial outrage that spread nationwide from the Missouri community were “our race war” unleashed a Twitter tirade Jan. 3 that foreshadowed a stormy legislative session ahead for her white colleagues in the Missouri Legislature....

Her legislation also includes what Chappelle-Nadal described as citizen protections and officer professional standards:

• The bill scales back the current “use of deadly force” laws in Missouri, allowing officers to use deadly force only in instances where a suspect poses a clear danger to the officer or the public.

• If a police officer shoots an unarmed citizen, or a police officer kills an unarmed citizen by any other means, a special prosecutor will automatically be appointed.

• When law enforcement is deployed to a protest situation or a scene of civil unrest, all officers will be required to wear accurate and visible identification with their full names clearly displayed.

• Law enforcement officers shall not be allowed to “hog-tie” citizens or verbally degrade or make derogatory comments toward any peaceful protestors.

• If the governor declares a state of emergency due to civil unrest, the governor shall immediately reassign and mobilize a sufficient number of state social workers, counselors, and psychologists to the area.

• The deployment of tear gas shall not be allowed unless the governor has declared a state of emergency and a neutral third-party agency (such as Amnesty International) is on the scene to certify that the tear gas will be deployed in a humanitarian manner.

• If the governor declares a state of emergency due to civil unrest, the governor shall concurrently contract with a neutral third-party agency (such as Amnesty International) to immediately report any abuses of human, civil, and constitutional rights to the Missouri and United States attorney generals.

• All law enforcement agencies in Missouri must be accredited by July 1, 2016.

Most of these sound like sensible ideas. "Use of deadly force" laws in Georgia hold the police to the same standard as anyone else -- only to stop an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm -- which is a pretty reasonable standard. A special prosecutor standard may well be warranted in cases of unarmed persons being killed by police, at least for a while given the serious degradation in public trust in the system's ability to hold the police to account. The use of third party validators is not a bad idea in such an environment either: the US military used embedded media to great effect in tamping down the worst of the irresponsible accusations of excessive force. (In fairness, the embeds sometimes caught some actual excessive force on camera -- but that can be valuable too, especially in a policing environment where the goal really is to train so that excessive force will not be used.) Visible identification aids public accountability too, especially in an age of easy access to cameras and video recording equipment.

Not being allowed to "verbally degrade or make derogatory comments" sounds silly to me, though. I assume most departments have standards governing that anyway, so perhaps there's no harm in it, but still.

But 'social workers, counselors, and psychologists'? We'd be well off without them.

Symmetry

Another snowflake, next to the last one.  Funny, I was trying to do something similar.

Update:  on top, a third variation on a theme, more what I was aiming at.  I'm on the last round of this iteration; the completed part is on the bottom left.  You can see how big it is by the fact that it's sitting within the earpieces of the glasses I have to use when I'm working with thread this fine.

The Black Church Loses... in Atlanta

It's one thing when this happens in California, but to lose one in Atlanta has to hurt.

Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran — the subject of recent controversy over remarks made in a self-published religious book — has been terminated from the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, Mayor Kasim Reed announced today.

Cochran returned to work today following a month-long suspension for comments in his 2013 book “Who Told You That You Are Naked?” Many criticized the book as promoting discriminatory and anti-gay views, while Cochran’s suspension — and now termination — has since become the focus of a fight over “religious liberty.”...

Among what city leaders said were troubling remarks in the fire chief’s book was a description of homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty. Reed said in November that such writings were inconsistent with the city’s employment policies and opened an investigation into potential discrimination within the fire department. The findings of that investigation have not yet been released.

Of course you can have private religious views. In private. They're certainly not to be published in a book, even a religious book for religious audiences -- not if you want to hold a job.

The mayor says the real reason he's firing the Fire Chief is that he questions his judgment, and had told him not to speak to the matter in public while a national controversy raged about his good name. The Chief says that isn't what happened, and that part is one of those 'he/she said' controversies.

But the mayor gives the game away when he says that "he believes Cochran opened up the city to the potential for litigation over future discrimination claims," and that "such writings were inconsistent with the city's employment policies[.]" What that means is that he believes that it is against the law for a government official in Atlanta to publish a book making these kinds of claims, both in the sense that it would constitute a tort and that it is a violation of the laws governing employment policy.

If true, that would mean that the religious views of the Chief's church are illegal for a public official in Atlanta to profess. That sounds suspiciously like a religious test for public office -- a kind of negative test, so to speak.

News from the Land of Cassandra

I thought you had these Marylanders under control, Cass.

Red Phone

You can secure calls from your cell phone by encrypting them, which you might consider since the FBI apparently thinks they have free reign to listen to you talk without a warrant.

Writing in Ars Technica, David Kravets is unimpressed with the FBI’s regard for Americans’ expectation of privacy.

The bureau’s position on Americans’ privacy isn’t surprising. The Obama Administration has repeatedly maintained that the public has no privacy in public places. It began making that argument as early as 2010...

Of course, there's always a chance that the tech firms offering the encryption have partnerships with the government. That's certainly been the pattern in the past.

Al Sisi's Speech

The man seems to be showing some spine.

Now President Sisi is in a position similar to ours in Iraq after the defeat of Al Qaeda and Iran. He has defeated the Muslim Brotherhood, and he is pressing his advantage, liquidating the leaders the Brothers had elevated over the course of eighty-odd years, and in the last week he delivered the blockbuster speech and became the first president in Egyptian history to attend Coptic Christmas celebrations in Cairo.

It’s a very big deal.