Pax Hammericana

A Reasonable Proposal for College Sports

A good article from Gene Wojciechowski as ESPN.com that points at the elephant in the room: college sports are basically minor league training for the pros.

"The NBA isn't kidding when it says its league is where Amazing Happens. Amazing because the NBA forces the very best high school players to wait until they're 19 (or one year removed from their high school graduation) before they can declare for the NBA draft.

That's the only reason why Love spent a season at Westwood, Mayo at L.A., Beasley at Manhattan, Rose at Memphis, Gordon at Bloomington. What a deal. The NBA gets a free minor league system, and the college programs rent a star player for nothing more than the price of room, tuition and books."

Sounds a bit like what some other guy said about this issue...Milton something-or-other....

Anyway, Gene's solution is different than what Prof. Friedman's would have been, but very reasonable and actionable nonetheless.

Forward Thinking Plan of the Day

I had heard about this one a while back but had forgotten.  The vote is next week:

Oklahoma County voters will have an opportunity next month to take a step into the future for themselves and for Tinker Air Force Base. On May 13, voters will decide through a bond election whether the county will spend $55 million to buy the former General Motors plant, now vacant, then lease it to Tinker.

Though the Air Force's three Air Logistics Center depots, including Tinker, are expected to see a decline in work by 2020, U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, said buying the GM plant for Tinker makes sense. He said it would help attract work to replace what's projected to be lost.  ...

Proponents of buying the GM plant pitch it as a golden opportunity for Tinker to improve its efficiency by consolidating most operations at the plant, which would mean dozens of base buildings could be demolished because they wouldn't be needed anymore."

That's right: Oklahoma County voters are asked to burden themselves with more debt to have a buddy-buddy deal with the local Air Force Base.  I do not remember a statement from officials as to why the AFB does not simply buy the facility itself.  Based on the expected decline in work, I would have to say that Tinker AFB realizes it doesn't make financial sense for them to purchase the building.  So they convince the county (or the county sees the opportunity) to buy some property, let Tinker have what it wants, and make "profit" off of the rest.  Just a guess.

I also went to the Oklahoma County Commissioners' webpage on the bond issue and found that there is, of course, no cost benefit analysis on what voters would actually stand to gain from this.  But there's a really neat jet graphic!

Some More Lawful Authority

Just another reason why we seriously need to reconsider the purpose and structure of juvenile detention centers:

"On Sunday, I got a phone call from the hospital, and they told me my son was in intensive care,” Colbert said. "His sinus bone was crushed. He has a crack in his skull, and it is allowing in air. He's fighting for his life.”

In a tort notice given to the defendants in the case, Colbert's attorneys claim Oklahoma County detention officers "knowingly and recklessly” caused the boy's injuries. They claim they failed to provide protection for Smith, even though they were aware that he was at risk."

I know that there is innocence until guilt is proven, although this is more of a courtesy than most suspects in the United States are granted.  Apparently, Oklahoma County Commissioners have oversight of this facility.  It will be interesting to see how much local officials press ahead with the police investigation.  There is also an ongoing lawsuit against the state for alleged wrong doings in another facility. 

The comments section of the full article is interesting.  Several posters seem to have first-hand experience of the place.

Extension, Not Compliance

Courtesy of the Ada Evening News:

"Ada — March 31 marked the original final date for states to request a compliance extension for the largely unknown REAL ID Act of 2005. According to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, states that failed to file an extension by the end of March would be subject to rigorous security checks at commercial airports and federal buildings as of May 11, and residents of those states would no longer be allowed to use drivers licenses to board domestic flights. A complaince extension would push that deadline back to November 2009. The act has drawn criticism from more than two dozen states, and has led a handful of states, including Oklahoma, to pass legislation that forbids state compliance with the current REAL ID Act. While Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry did request an extension for Oklahoma, he made it clear the request for an extension did not mean a promise of compliance."

As it turns out, this was not as spineless a distinction as it might have first appeared:

"While Oklahoma was granted an extension without promising to comply, New Hampshire was denied extension when it attempted to follow suit. New Hampshire asked for a compliance extension, but it was not granted because the state said that it would not comply to the mandates. “An extension request is not an extension simply for more time, it’s an extension to move toward compliance,” said Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa. “So it needs to be a good-faith request for extension.”

Unacceptable Authority

Original account here: http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/13/so-about-that-tree-of-liberty/

Update here: http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/15/jefferson-dance-party-article-at-the-american-spectator/

So how does a mild-mannered young woman get arrested at the Jefferson Memorial dancing with friends to the sound of their own iPods playing in their own ears?  No disruption, no political point, no trespassing, no public intoxication.  Merely National Park officers ordering a crowd to dismiss

Anyone who has even so much as been pulled over for speeding understands what it is to be at the mercy and discretion of one particular representative of the law.  Sometimes this is a good thing, as it allows an officer to exercise compassion.  Many times, however, this leaves citizens in the hands of a fellow human being who is flawed, subject to emotion, and, in the current legal environment, not subject to the same constraints as the individual in question.  In video of this incident, for example, an officer is recorded using expletives directed at the group, but one individual in the group who directs an expletive at the officer is told that if he does it again he will be arrested.

The young woman in this incident was arrested for apparently no other crime than to ask why the crowd was being dispersed.  She was eventually booked and released on a suspiciously vague charge of "interfering with agency activities."  Fortunately, she is well connected.  The same attorney who is currently arguing the landmark gun rights case, D.C. v. Heller, has offered to represent her in court.

But for others, the use of police discretion does not go so well.  There is the now infamous "Don't tase me, bro" incident and the (in my opinion) more horrible and graphic incident of a student being tasered by campus police in a library for refusing to show ID, believing himself to be a victim of racial profiling.  The latter is particularly terrible for the fact that the student was simply sitting and reading until campus security arrived; there was no intent to provoke an incident like in the other case.  There are, of course, other, more recent incidents of officers choosing to use "non-lethal" tasers on non-violent suspects, resulting in fatalities.

But what does this have to do with the average, law-abiding citizen?  Nothing, until you want to question the person questioning you.  Nothing, unless you are repulsed by the idea of random roadblocks or random profiling or overzelous officers who choose to enforce "laws" that don't actually exist (such as in the Jefferson Memorial incident, where no known laws or regulations were being violated).  Nothing, unless you would like the right to record the actions of those who are recording your actions.   

Perhaps the real key is: it has nothing to do with you if you don't mind, when your time comes, spending thousands of dollars in court to clear your name of a wrongful or non-existent charge and having the case come down to your word against the officer's.   

Major revisions are needed in police codes of conduct.  Legislators need to lay down strong laws to protect the rights of citizens in relation to local police.  Citizens' review boards and other mechanisms should be implemented so as to enforce these standards and laws.  Someone must watch the watchers, and anyone who does not feel this way should simply wait until it's their turn in the hotseat.    

Real ID Updates

I am woefully behind on getting this information posted, but in my defense it hasn't been that easy to find out what's going on in relation to the Department of Homeland Security's generous offer to extend the deadline for implementing Real ID.  From the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

"In the showdown between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a handful of states ready to defy REAL ID, the grassroots has won - for now. DHS originally set a deadline of March 31 for states to register to implement REAL ID, or to apply for extensions. Though several states have said they will not comply with REAL ID, DHS granted extensions anyway, meaning the showdown is now postponed until December 31, 2009. Previously, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff threatened that residents of states refusing REAL ID would not be allowed to board airplanes without a passport. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 2, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized DHS for insisting on implementing a program that has been widely rejected throughout the US. "Bullying the states is not the answer," he said, "nor is threatening their residents' right to travel. From Maine to Montana, states have said no."

Grassroots organizing to resist the national identification system has resulted in at least five states bucking the federal government - Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Maine was the last state to get a federal extension, because it is one of six states that do not require proof of citizenship to obtain a driver's license.

On April 1, Idaho's legislature passed a bill rejecting REAL ID driver's licenses. Lawmakers are concerned about the cost of the program and potential for invasion of privacy. The bill now goes to Governor Butch Otter for signature.

Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina also refused to comply with REAL ID, but DHS has offered those states extensions until 2010, even though each of those states wrote letters stating their refusal to accept REAL ID.

Last year, the following 17 states rejected REAL ID in their legislative sessions: the six states named above, and Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington."