Tag Archives: law

Speed traps penalize the poor

Leave a reply

On a street corner about 1/4 mile from my house, at the intersection of the two busiest of the local streets, in the center-median of the street, is parked a police car. He’s there, about 18 hours a day, looking to give out tickets. The cross-street that this officer watches is where drivers get off the highway. In theory, they should instantly go from 65 mph on the highway to 35 mph now. Very few people do. The officer does not ticket every car, by the way, but seems to target those of poor people from outside the city limits. The only time ai was ticketed, I was driving a broken-down car while mine was in the shop. As best I can tell, he choose cars for revenue, not for safety. It’s a speed trap. It’s appalling. And our city isn’t alone in having one.

Speed traps are an annoyance to rich, local folk who sometimes get ticketed, but they’re a disaster for the poor. Poor people are targeted, and these people don’t have any savings. They don’t have the means to pay a suddenly imposed bill of $150 or more. Meanwhile, the speed-trap officer is incentivized to increase revenue and look for other violations: expired registrations or insurance, seat-belt violations, open alcohol, unpaid tickets. Double and triple fines are handed out, and sometimes the car is impounded. A poor driver is often left without any legal way to get to work, to earn money to pay the fines. Police officers behave this way because they are evaluated based on the revenue they generate, based on the number of tickets they write. It’s a horrible situation, especially for the poor

Speed traps to little and cost much.

An article on the effect of speed traps. It appears they do little good and cause much pain, especially to the poor. Here is a link to the whole article.

The article above looks at the impact of speed traps on poor people. The damage is extreme. The folks targeted are often black, barely holding it together financially. They are generally not in a position to pay $150 for “impeding traffic,” and even less in a position to deal with having their car impounded. How are they supposed to pay the bill? And yet they are told they are lucky to have been given this ticket — impeding traffic, a ticket with no “points.” But they are not lucky. They are victims. Tickets with no points is are money generators, and many poor people realize it. If they were to get a speeding ticket, they would have the opportunity to void the penalty by going to traffic school. With a ticket for impeding traffic, there is no school option. Revenue stays local, mostly in that police precinct. Poor people know it, and they don’t like it. I don’t either. After a while, poor people cease to trust the police, or to even speak to them.

In what world should you pay $150 for impeding traffic, by the way? In what world should the police be taken from their main job protecting the people and turned into a revenue arm for the city? I’d like to see this crazy cycle ended. The first steps, I think, are to end speed traps, and to limit the incentive for giving minor tickets, like impeding traffic. As it is we have too many people in jail and too many harsh penalties. 

Robert Buxbaum, April 10, 2019. I ran for water commissioner in 2016, and may run again in 2020.

C-Pap and Apnea

2 Replies

A month of so ago, I went to see a sleep doctor for my snoring. I got a take-home breathing test that gave me the worst night’s sleep in recent memory. A few days later, I got a somber diagnosis: “You are a walking zombie.” Apparently, I hold my breath for ten seconds or more every minute and a half while sleeping. Normal is supposed to be every 4 to 10 minutes. But by this standard, more than half of all middle-aged men are sub-normal (how is this possible?). As a result of my breath-holding, the wrinkled, unsmiling DO claimed I’m brain-dead now and will soon be physically dead unless I change my ways. Without spending 3 minutes with me, the sleep expert told me that I need to lose weight, and that I need a C-Pap (continuous positive airway pressure) device as soon as possible. It’s supposed to help me lose that weight and get back the energy. With that he was gone. The office staff gave me the rest of the dope: I was prescribed  a “ResMed” brand C-Pap, supplied by a distributor right across the hall from the doctor (how convenient).

I picked up the C-Pap three months later. Though I was diagnosed as needing one “as soon as possible,” no one would release the device until they were sure it was covered by my insurance company. The device when I got it, was something of a horror. The first version I tried fit over the whole face and forces air into my mouth and nose simultaneously, supposedly making it easier to inhale, but harder to exhale. I found it more than a bit uncomfortable. The next version was nose only and marginally more comfortable. I found there was a major air-flow restriction when I breath in and a similar pressure penalty when I breathed out. And it’s loud. And, if you open your mouth, there is a wind blowing through. As for what happens if the pump fails or the poor goes out, I notice that there are the tiniest of air-holes to prevent me from suffocating, barely. A far better design would have given me a 0-psi flapper valve for breathing in, and a 1/10 psi flapper for breathing out. That would also reduce the pressure restriction I was feeling every time I took a deep breath. One of my first blog essays was about engineering design aesthetics; you want your designs to improve things under normal conditions and fail safe, not like here. Using this device while awake was anything but pleasant, and I found I still hold my breath, even while awake, about every 5 minutes.

Since I have a lab, and the ability to test these things, I checked the pressure of the delivered air, and found it was 3 cm of water, about 1/20 psi. The prescription was for 5 cm or water (1/14 psi). The machine registers this, but it is wrong. I used a very simple water manometer, a column of water, similar to the one I used to check the pressure drop in furnace air filters. Is 1/20 psi enough?How did he decide on 1/14 psi by the way? I’ve no idea. !/14 psi is about 1/200 atm. Is this enough to do anything? While the C-Pap should get me to breathe more, I guess, about half of all users stop after a few tries, and my guess is that they find it as uncomfortable as I have. There is no research evidence that treatment with it reduces stroke or heart attack, or extends life, or helps with weight loss. The assumption is that, if you force middle-aged men to hold their breath less, they will be healthier, but I’ve no clear logic or evidence to back the assumption. At best, anything you gain on the ease of breathing in, you lose on the difficulty of breathing out. The majority of middle-aged men are prescribed a C-Pap, if they go for a sleep study, and it’s virtually 100% for overweight men with an apple-shaped body.

I’d have asked my doctor about alternatives or for a second opinion but he was out the door too fast. Besides, I was afraid I’d get the same answer that Rodney Dangerfield got: “You want a second opinion? OK. You’re ugly, too.” Mr. Dangerfield was not a skinny comic, by the way, but he was funny, and I assume he’d have been prescribed a C-Pap (maybe he was). He died at 82, considerably older than Jim Fixx, “the running doctor,” Adelle Davis, the “eat right for health” doctor, Euell Gibbons “in search of the wild asparagus,” or Ethan Pritkin, the diet doctor. God seems to prefer fat comedians to diet experts; I expect that most-everyone does.

Benjamin Franklin and his apple-shaped body

Benjamin Franklin and his apple-shaped body; I don’t think of him as a zombie.

What really got my goat, besides my dislike of the C-Pap, is that I object to being called a walking zombie. True, I’m not as energetic as I used to be, but I manage to run a company, and to write research papers, and I get patents (this one was approved just today). And I write these blogs — I trust that any of you who’ve read this far find them amusing. Pretty good for a zombie — and I ran for water commissioner. People who use the C-Pap self-report that they have more energy, but self-reporting is poor evidence. A significant fraction of those people who start with the C-Pap, stop, and those people, presumably were not happy. Besides, a review of the internet suggests that a similarly large fraction of those who buy a “MyPillow.com” claim they have more energy. And I’ve seen the same claims from people who take a daily run, or who pray, or smoke medical marijuana (available for sleep apnea, but not from this fellow), or Mirtazapine (study results here), or  for electro-shock therapy, a device called “Inspire.” With so many different products providing the same self-reported results, I wonder if there isn’t something more fundamental going on. I’d wish the doc had spent a minute or two to speak to this, or to the alternatives.

As for weight loss, statistical analysis of lifespan suggests that there is a health advantage to being medium weight: not obese, but not skinny. I present some of this evidence here, along with evidence that extra weight helps ward off Alzheimer’s. For all I know this protection is caused by holding your breath every few minutes. It helps to do light exercise, but not necessary for mental health. In terms of mental health, the evidence suggests that weight loss is worse than nothing.

Jared Gray, author of the Alien movies, was diagnosed with apnea, so he designed his own sleep-mask.

Jared Gray, author of the Alien movies, was diagnosed with apnea, so he designed his own sleep-mask.

Benjamin Franklin was over-weight and apple-shaped, and no zombie, The same is true of John Adams, Otto Von Bismarck, and Alfred Hitchcock. All lived long, productive lives. Hitchcock was sort of morbid, it will be admitted, but I would not want him otherwise. Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson’s side-kick, apologized to America for being overweight and smoking, bu the outlived Johnny Carson by nine years, dying at 89. Henry Kissinger is still alive and writing at 95. He was always fatter than any of the people he served. He almost certainly had sleep apnea, back in the day, and still has more on the ball, in my opinion, than most of the talking-head on TV. The claim that overweight, middle-aged men are all zombies without a breath assisting machine doesn’t make no sense to me. But then, I’m not a sleep doctor. (Do sleep doctors get commissions? Why did he choose, this supplier or this brand device? With so little care about patients, I wonder who runs the doctor’s office.)

I looked up my doctor on this list provided by the American Board of Sleep Medicine. I found my doctor was not certified in sleep medicine. I suppose certified doctors would prescribe something similar  but was disappointed that you don’t need sleep certification to operate as a sleep specialist. In terms of masks, I figure, if you’ve got to wear something, you might as well wear something cool. Author Jared Gray, shown above (not the author of the Alien) was diagnosed with Apnea 6 months ago and made his own C-Pap mask to make it look like the alien was attacking him. Very cool for an ex-zombie, but I’m waiting to see a burst of creative energy.

What do we zombies want? Brains.

When do we want them? Brains.

What do vegetarian zombies want? Grains.

Robert Buxbaum, March 15, 2019. In case real zombies should attack, here’s what to do.  An odd legal/insurance issue: in order to get the device, I had to sign that, if I didn’t use it for 20 days in the first month of 4 hours per night, and thus if the insurance did not pay, I would be stuck with the full fee. I signed. This might cost me $1000 though normally in US law, companies can only charge a reasonable restock fee, but it can’t be unreasonable, like the full  price. I also had to sign that I would go back to the same, quick-take doctor, but again there has to be limits. We’ll see how the machine pans out, but one difference I see already: unlike my pillow.com, there is no money back guarantee with the C-Pap treatment.

School violence and the prepositional subjective

1 Reply

There is a new specialty in the law, both in prosecution and defense: dealing with possible school shooters and other possible purveyors of violence. Making threats of violence has always been a felony — it’s a form of assault. But we’ve recently extended this assault charge to those student who make statements to the effect that they might like to commit violence, a conditional subjunctive statement of assault. This finer net manages to catch, in Michigan alone, about 100 per month. That’s a large number. Mostly they are male high-school age students who shot off their mouth, kids caught for saying “I’ll kill you” often in an argument, or following one. They are arrested for protection of others, but the numbers are so high and the charge so major, 15 – 20 year felonies, it’s possible that the cure is worse than the disease.

Eight students of the 100 charged in the last month in crimes of potential violence.

Putting some faces to the crime. Eight of the 100 charged in Michigan in the last month for potential violence. All or most are boys. 

Several of the cases are described in this recent Free-Press article, along with the picture at right. According to the article, many of those charged, are sentenced to lower crimes than the 15 -20 maximum, things like reckless endangerment. Many, the majority, I hope — they are not mentioned in the article — are let go with a warning. But even there, one wonder if these are the richer, white ones. In any case, it’s clear that many are not let go and have their lives ruined because they might come to commit a crime.

Let’s consider one case in-depth, outcome unknown: A top high school student, skinny, but without many friends, who gets picked on regularly. One day, one of the more popular kids in school calls him out and says, “You look like you’re one of those school shooters.” The loner responds, “If I were a school shooter, you’d be the first I’d shoot.” And that’s enough to ruin the kid’s life. Straight to the principal, and then to the police. The ACLU has not seen to get involved as there are competing rights at play: the right of the loner to have a normal education, and the rights of the other students. One thing that bothers me is that this crime hangs on the conditional subjunctive:  “If I were…., then you would be…”

What makes the threat subjective is that “I’ll kill you” or “I’d shoot you first” is something you’d like to be true at some time in the indefinite future. There is no clear time line or weapon, just a vague desire that the person should be shot. It’s a desire that more-likely than not, is a fleeting hyperbole, and not an actual threat. What makes the threat conditional on the person has yet to decide to show up with a weapon or show any sign of doing violence: “If I were to become a school shooter.”

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence is this picture.

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence of a threat is this picture.

It did not used to be that either the conditional or the subjunctive were considered threats. A person was assumed to be blowing off steam if he (or she) said “I’d like to see you dead” or even “I’ll kill you.” And we certainly never bothered folks who prefaced it with, “If I were a …” In theory, we had to extend the law to protect the weak from a shooter, but we’ve also put a weapon in the hands of the schoolyard bully. The school bully can now ruin the life of his fellow by accusing him of being a potential school scooter. We’ve weaponized the conditional subjunctive, and I don’t like it. The boy who drew the picture at right was charged with a 15 year felony for drawing something that, in earlier generations, would be called a fantasy picture.

It bothers me is that the majority of those charged — perhaps all those charged — are boys. Generally these boys are doing things that normal boys have often done. The picture of a shooting is considered a written threat of violence, but to me it looks like a normal boy picture. Girls have not been caught, so far, perhaps because their words and pictures are more “girly” so their threats are not considered threats. Sometimes is seems that it is boy-behaviors themselves are being criminalized, or at minimum diagnosed as ADHD (crazy). There is so much we don’t like about boy-behaviors, and we’ve elevated the female to such an extent, that we may have lost the positive idea of what a male should be. We want boys to be “girly” or at least “trans,” and that’s not normal in the sense that it’s not normative. We’ve come to worry about boyness, creating a cure that may be worse than the harm we are trying to prevent.

Robert Buxbaum, May 7, 2018. I’ve also noted how bizarre US sex laws are, and have written about pirates and transgender grammar.

The worst president was John Adams

10 Replies

Every now and again a magazine cites a group of historians to pick the best and worst presidents. And there, at the bottom of the scale, I typically find James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson; Warren Harding, and/or Ulysses Grant, none of whom deserve the dishonor, in my opinion. For Pierce and Buchanan, their high crime was to not solve the slavery /succession problem — as if this was a problem that any PhD historian would have been able to solve in a weekend. It was not so simple; the slavery question bedeviled the founding fathers, tormented Daniel Webster and Henry Clay; George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wrestled with it. None could solve it, and all served when the country had relative levels of good feeling. Now, in the 1850s, Pierce and Buchanan inherit this monster, and we blame them for not resolving the slave issue when the nation was at the boiling point and Kansas was burning. They did the best they could in impossible circumstance, buying us time (Pierce also bought us southern Arizona).

Similarly, with Johnson: our historians’ complaint is that he didn’t manage reconstruction well — as if any one of them could have done better. You can’t blame a person for failing in a hopeless situation. Be happy they filled their terms, avoided war with our neighbors, and left the country richer and more populous than they found it.

Moving on to Grant and Harding, their crime was to be president at a time of scandal. But the very essence of this condemnation is that it presents the scandal, a non-issue in the large sweep of America, as if it were the only issue. Both Harding and Grant drank in the white house, and played cards while members of their cabinets stole money. These are major scandals to blue noses, but not so relevant to normal people. Both presidencies were periods of prosperity, employment, and growth. Both presidents paid down the national debt. Harding paid down $2,000,000 of debt, a good chunk of the debt incurred in WWI. Grant paid down a similarly large chunk of the debts of the civil war. Both oversaw times of peace and both signed peace treaties: Harding from WWI, Grant from the civil war and the Indian wars. Both left office with the nation far more prosperous than when they came in. No, these are not bad presidents except in the eyes of puritans who require purity in everyone else, and care little for the needs of the average American.

The worst president, in my opinion, was John Adams, and I would say he set a standard for bad that’s not likely to be beat. How bad was Adams? He oversaw the worst single law ever in American history, the Sedition act. This act, a partner to the Alien act (almost as bad), was pushed though by Adams a mere 8 years after passage of the bill of rights. The act made it illegal to criticize the government in any way. In this, it made a mockery of free expression. Adams put someone in jail for calling him “his rotundancy” — that is, for calling him fat. The supreme court had to step in and undo this unbelievably horrible law, but this was only one of several horrible acts of president Adams.

Another horrible act of president Adams is his decision to pick a war with France, our ally from the revolution. Adams himself had signed the treaty of Paris guaranteeing that we would never go to war with France. So why did Adams do it? He was a puritan, literally. He didn’t like French immorality and hated French Catholicism. He was insulted that French officials had overthrown their king (not that we had done otherwise) that they wore fancy clothes, and that they wanted bribes. He leaked their request for bribes to the press (the XYZ affair) and presented this as the reason for war. So Adams, pure Adams, got us to war with our oldest ally, a war we could not win, and didn’t.

But Adams didn’t stop there. Having decided to go to war, he also decided to stop paying on US debt to the French. He was too pure to pay debt to a nation that overthrew its king and set up a more-egalitarian state than we had. One where slavery was abolished.

Adams, of course, did nothing to address slavery, though he berated others about it. And it’s not like Adams didn’t pay out bribes, just not to the despised Catholics. At the beginning of Adams’s single term a group of Moslems, the Barbary pirates, captured some American ships. Adams agreed to pay bribe after bribe to the Barbary Pirates for return of these US ships. But the more we paid, the more ships the Barbary pirates captured. So Adams, the idiot, just bribed them more. By the end of Adams’s term, 1/4 of the US budget went to pay these pirates. When Jefferson became president, he ended the war with France by the simple solution of buying Louisiana and he sent the US Marines to deal with the pirates of North Africa. Adams could have done these things but didn’t; Jefferson did, and is ranked barely above Adams as a result. So why is it that no historian calls out Addams as an awful president?.I think it’s because Adams wrote beautifully about all the right sentiments, especially to his wife. Historians like writers of high sentiment. According to 170 scholars, the top ten presidents, not counting those on Mount Rushmore are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Obama, and LBJ.

The bottom ten presidents. And there's Trump at the very bottom, with the usual suspects. Harrison was only president for a month.

The bottom ten presidents. And there’s Trump at the very bottom, with the usual suspects. Harrison was only president for a month.

And that brings us to the new poll. It includes William Henry Harrison among the worst. Harrison took office, became sick almost immediately, and died of Typhoid 31 days after taking office. The white house water supply was just down river from the sewage outlet, something you find in Detroit as well. He did nothing to deserve the dishonor except drinking the water after running a great presidential campaign. His campaign song, Tippecanoe and Tyler too is wonderful listening, even today.

And that brings us to the historian’s worst of the worst. The current president, Donald J. Trump. This is remarkable since it’s only a year into Trumps term, and since he’s done a variety of potentially good things: He ended a few trade deals and regulations that most people agree were bad. The result is that the stock market is up, employment is up, people are back at work, and historians are unhappy. What they want is another FDR, someone who’ll tell us: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” whatever that means. By historian polls FDR is the second or third best president ever.

Robert Buxbaum. April 25, 2018. Semi-irrelevant: here’s a humorous song about Harrison. 

Forced diversity of race is racist

2 Replies

Let me browse through some thoughts on efforts to address endemic racism. I’m not sure I’ll get anywhere, but you might as well enter the laboratory of my mind on the issue.

I’d like to begin with a line of the bible (why not?) “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” (Lev. 19:15). This sounds good, but in college admissions, I’ve found we try to do better by showing  favoritism to the descendants of those who’ve been historically left-out. This was called affirmative action, it’s now called “diversity”.  

In 1981, when I began teaching chemical engineering at Michigan State University, our department had race-based quotas to allow easier admission to the descendants of historically-disadvantaged groups. All major universities did this at the time. The claim was that it would be temporary; it continues to this day. In our case, the target was to get 15% or so black, Hispanics and American Indians students (7 in a class of 50). We achieved this target by accepting such students with a 2.0 GPA, and not requiring a math or science background; Caucasians required 3.0 minimum, and we did require math or science. I’m not sure we helped the disadvantaged by this, either personally or professionally, but we made the administration happy. The kids seemed happy too, at least for a while. The ones we got were, by and large, bright. To make up for the lack of background we offered tutoring and adjusted grades. Some diversity students did well, others didn’t. Mostly they went into HR or management after graduation, places they could have gone without our efforts.

After some years, the Supreme court ended our quota based selection, saying it was, itself racist. They said we could still reverse-discriminate for “diversity,” though. That is, if the purpose wasn’t to address previous wrongs, but to improve the class. We changed our literature, but kept our selection methods and kept the same percentage targets as before.

This is a popular meme about racism. It makes sense to me.

This is a popular meme about racism.

The only way we monitored that we met the race-percent target was by a check-box on forms. Students reported race, and we collected this, but we didn’t check that black students look black or Hispanic students spoke Spanish. There was no check on student honesty. Anyone who checked the box got the benefits. This lack of check bread cheating at MSU and elsewhere. Senator Elizabeth Warren got easy entry into Harvard and Penn, in part by claiming to be an Indian on her forms. She has no evidence of Indian blood or culture Here’s Snopes. My sense is that our methods mostly help the crooked.

The main problem with is, I suspect, is the goal. We’ve decided to make every university department match the state’s racial breakdown. It’s a pretty goal, but it doesn’t seem like one that helps students or the state. Would it help the MSU hockey squad to force to team to racially match the state; would it help the volleyball team, or the football team?  So why assume it helps every academic department to make it’s racial makeup match the state’s. Why not let talented black students head to business or management departments before graduation. They might go further without our intervention.

This is not to say there are not racial inequalities, but I suspect that these diversity programs don’t help the students, and may actually hurt. They promote crookedness, and divert student attention from achieving excellence to maintaining victim status. Any group that isn’t loud enough in claiming victim status is robbed of the reverse-discrimination that they’ve been told they need. They’re told they can’t really compete, and many come to believe it. In several universities, we gone so far as to hire “bias referees” to protect minorities from having to defend their intellectual views in open discussion. The referee robs people of the need to think, and serves, I suspect, no one but a group of powerful politicians and administrators — people you are not supposed to criticize. On that topic, here is a video of Malcolm X talking about the danger of white liberals. Clearly he can hold his own in a debate without having a bias referee, and he makes some very good points about white liberals doing more harm than good.

Robert Buxbaum, November 5, 2017. In a related problem, black folks are arrested too often. I suggest rational drug laws. Some financial training could help too.

West’s Batman vs Zen Batmen

2 Replies

“Holy kleenex Batman, it was right under our noses and we blew it.” I came of age with Adam West’s Batman on TV and a relatively sane Batman in the comic books. Batman was a sort of urban cowboy: a loner, but law-abiding, honest, and polite – both to the police and to the ordinary citizen. He was good, and he was “nice.” As with future Batmen, no one died, at least not from the Batman.

bat-buddah

More recent Batmen have been not nice, and arguably not good either. They are above the law, trained in eastern monasteries by dark masters of kung fu, with a morality no one quite understands. One could say, quite literally, “He was a dark and stormy knight.”

Well, a few days ago, I found the item at left for sale on e-Bay, a plastic Batman-Buddha, and I started wondering about the meditations that produced Batman, and that Batman expounds on life and crime. It wasn’t pretty. They are not pretty. A quick check from the movie versions suggest the Zen Batman is pretty messed up, something that psychologists have noted.

Here’s a quote from the goofy, Adam West Batman of the 1960s: “Underneath this garb, we’re perfectly ordinary Americans.” Believing yourself to be normal helps improve sanity, and helps you relate to others. Calling yourself an American implies you keep American laws. Here’s another quote: “A reporter’s lot is not easy, making exciting stories out of plain, average, ordinary people like Robin and me.” It’s nice to see that the Adam West Batman feels for the other peoples’ problems, respects their professions, and does not profess to be better than they. By contrast, when a more recent Batman is asked: “What gives you the right? What’s the difference between you and me?” The Dark Knight responds, “I’m not wearing hockey pads.” This is a might-is-right approach, suggesting he’s above the law. The problem: a self-appointed vigilante is a criminal.

Here are some more quotes of the recent, eastern Batmen:
“Sometimes it’s only madness that makes us what we are.”
“That mask — it’s not to hide who I am, but to create what I am.”
“I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”

These quote are at least as messed up as the hockey pad quote above. It sometimes seems the Joker is the more sane of the two. For example, when Batman explains why he doesn’t kill: “If you kill a killer, the number of killers remains the same.” To which Joker replies: “Unless you kill more than one… but whatever you say, Batsy.”

Not a classic Batmobile, but I like the concept.

Not a classic Batmobile, but I like the concept; if that’s not Adam West, if could be.

The dark, depressive Batmen tend to leave Gotham City in shambles after every intervention, with piles of dead. West’s Batman left the city clean and whole. Given the damage, you wonder why the police call Batman or let him on the streets. Unlike West, the current Batmen never works with the police, quite. And to the extent that Robin appears at all, his relationship with Batman is more frenemy than friend or ward. Batgirl (mostly absent) has changed too. The original Batgirl, if you don’t recall, was Barbara Gordon, Commissioner Gordon’s daughter. She was a positive, female role model, with a supportive, non-sexist parent in Commissioner Gordon (an early version of Kim Possible’s dad). The current Batgirl appears only once, and is presented as the butler’s daughter. Until her appearance that day, you never see her at Wayne Manor, nor did she know quite what her dad was up to.

Here are some West Batman / Robin interactions showing an interest in Robin’s education and well-being:

“Haven’t you noticed how we always escape the vicious ensnarements of our enemies?” Robin: “Yeah, because we’re smarter than they are!”  “I like to think it’s because our hearts are pure.”

“Better put 5 cents in the meter.” Robin: “No policeman’s going to give the Batmobile a ticket.”
“This money goes to building better roads. We all must do our part.”

Robin: “You can’t get away from Batman that easy!” “Easily.” Robin: “Easily.”
“Good grammar is essential, Robin.” Robin: “Thank you.” “You’re welcome.”

Robin/Dick:”What’s so important about Chopin?” “All music is important, Dick. It’s the universal language. One of our best hopes for the eventual realization of the brotherhood of man.” Dick: “Gosh Bruce, yes, you’re right. I’ll practice harder from now on.”

“That’s one trouble with dual identities, Robin. Dual responsibilities.”

“Even crime fighters must eat. And especially you. You’re a growing boy and you need your nutrition.”

“What took you so long, Batgirl?” Batgirl: “Rush hour traffic, plus all the lights were against me. And you wouldn’t want me to speed, would you?” Robin: “Your good driving habits almost cost us our lives!” Batman: “Rules are rules, Robin. But you do have a point.”

And finally: “I think you should acquire a taste for opera, Robin, as one does for poetry and olives.”

Clearly this Batman takes an interest in Robin’s health and education, and in Batgirl’s. Robin is his ward, after all, rather a foster child, and it’s good to seem him treated as a foster child — admittedly with a foster-father whose profession is a odd.

Perhaps the most normal comment from a non-West Batman is this (it appears in many posters): “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” It’s, more or less, a quote from Karl Jung (famous psychologist) and can serve as a motivator providing pride in one’s art, but job-attachment goes with suicide, e.g. when you lose your job. The far healthier approach is less identification with job; just be proud of doing good and developing virtue. West’s Batman finds Catwoman, a woman with her own moral code, odious, abhorrent, and insegrievious, and says so. The only difference between her and The Joker is the amount of damage done; he should find her insegrievious. Sorry to say, recent, Zen Batmen and Supermen are just as bad. To quote Robin: “Holy strawberries, Batman, we’re in a jam.”

Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2017. Insegeivious is a made-up word, BTW. If we use it, it could become part of the real vocabulary.

Arrested for decriminalized possession

6 Replies
The arrest rate for marijuana is hardly down despite widespread decriminalization, but use is up. decriminalization, but use is up. A rate that exceeds that for all violent crime.

Despite years of marijuana decriminalization, arrest rates for marijuana are up from 20-25 years ago, and hardly down from last year. Why?

There are a couple of troubling patterns in US drug arrests. For one, though marijuana has been decriminalized in much of the USA, marijuana arrest rates are hardly down from five years ago, and higher than 20-30 years ago — see graph at right. Besides that, it’s still mostly black-people and Latinos arrested. And the crime is, 4/5 the of the time, drug possession, not sale.

At the same time that violent crime rates are falling, marijuana possession arrests are rising (see graph below). Currently, according to FBI statistics,  more people are arrested for marijuana possession than for all violent crime combined. You’d expect it would not be this way, and a question I’d like to explore is why. But first, let’s look at more data. I note that part of an explanation is that marijuana use is up (18% in 2015 vs 12% in 1990). This still doesn’t explain the racial imbalance but it could explain the general rise. Marijuana isn’t quite legal, and if use is up, you’d expect arrests to be up. But even here, something is fishy: use rates are the same as in 1980, 35+ years ago in the midst of the “war on drugs,” but arrest rates have more than doubled since. Why? Take New York City as an example, 17,762 people were arrested for low-level marijuana possession in 2016 (smoking in public or possession of 25 gm to 2 oz). The low-level arrest rate is twice the national average in this Democratic-bastion city, where the drug was decriminalized years ago. Arrest rates in NYC went up an additional 10% in 2016, with black people arrested at 11 times the rate of white people. How could this be?

The race discrepancy of arrests persists across the US. Though black citizens use drugs only 15% or so more often than whites, and make up only 13% of the US population, they are arrested for drugs about three times as often and incarcerated about 4 times as often. It’s mostly for marijuana possession too, and the discrepancy varies very strongly by location In Louisiana, Illinois, and New York City arrests are particularly weighted to people of color. When New York City police precinct captains were asked about this, they explained that their instructions come from above. It’s a curious answer, I’d say, reflecting perhaps their dislike of the mayor.

Drug arrests are mostly for possession, not sale, and the spread is rising.

Drug arrests are mostly for possession, not sale and the spread is rising. More than half the time, it’s marijuana.

One of the race-affecting instructions is that the police are instructed to patrol black neighborhoods, but not the student unions of majority-white colleges like NYU. They’re mandated to stop and search junky cars but not nice ones, and to search people who have outstanding parking tickets, but not generally. They even get raises that depend on the number of tickets given, a practice that does not lead to a pattern of looking the other way — one many New Yorkers would prefer. Another issue: in many states, including New York, the police can keep money or cars, if they can claim that the asset was purchased with drug money or used in the drug trade. This leads to a practice where the city budget benefits when the police arrest persons they don’t expect will be convicted. It’s a practice called civil asset forfeiture, one lampooned, on Last Week Tonight, but jealously guarded. Since it is near impossible to prove that the money or car was not used in any way illegally, once they arrest someone, the police can expect to keep his or her money or cars indefinitely. The annoyance of lawyers perhaps encourages the arrest of people who do not seem to have them — people of color. New York mayor deBlassio justifies his arrests as a way to protect the neighborhoods, as his version of former mayor, Guilliani’s broken window approach. Maybe. But I think the profit motive is at least as relevant.

drug arrests hit black folks a lot more than white

Drug arrests hit black folks a lot more than white.

I note that strict justice tends to land hardest on the poor and defenseless. I also note that many important people have used marijuana without it damaging their lives in any obvious way. Both Jeb! Bush and Bill Clinton claimed to have smoked it; as did Barak Obama, Al Gore, and the Beatles. My bottom line: while marijuana decriminalization is worthwhile, it must go along with the repeal of civil asset forfeiture laws, and other means that make arrests into profit centers – or so it appears to me. Otherwise we’ll keep on flushing lives down the drain for no good reason.

Robert Buxbaum, March 6, 2017. I’ve previously blogged about the structure of criminal sentencing, coming to conclude that the least strict sentence that does the job is to be preferred. I also ran for water commissioner in 2016.

The straight flush

2 Replies

I’m not the wildest libertarian, but I’d like to see states rights extended to Michigan’s toilets and showers. Some twenty years ago, the federal government mandated that the maximum toilet flush volume could be only 1.6 gallons, the same as Canada. They also mandated a maximum shower-flow law, memorialized in this Seinfeld episode. Like the characters in those shows, I think this is government over-reach of states rights covered by the 10th amendment. As I understand it, the only powers of the federal government over states are in areas specifically in the constitution, in areas of civil rights (the 13th Amendment), or in areas of restraint of trade (the 14th Amendment). None of that applies here, IMHO. It seems to me that the states should be able to determine their own flush and shower volumes.

If this happen to you often, you might want to use more water for each flush, or at least a different brand of toilet paper.

If your toilet clogs often, you might want to use more flush water, or at least a different brand of toilet paper.

There is a good reason for allowing larger flushes, too in a state with lots of water. People whose toilets have long, older pipe runs find that there is insufficient flow to carry their stuff to the city mains. Their older pipes were designed to work with 3.5 gallon flushes. When you flush with only 1.6 gallons, the waste only goes part way down and eventually you get a clog. It’s an issue known to every plumber – one that goes away with more flush volume.

Given my choice, I’d like to change the flush law through the legislature, perhaps following a test case in the Supreme court. Similar legislation is in progress with marijuana decriminalization, but perhaps it’s too much to ask folks to risk imprisonment for a better shower or flush. Unless one of my readers feels like violating the federal law to become the test case, I can suggest some things you can do immediately. When it comes to your shower, you’ll find you can modify the flow by buying a model with a flow restrictor and “ahem” accidentally losing the restrictor. When it comes to your toilet, I don’t recommend buying an older, larger tank. Those old tanks look old. A simpler method is to find a new flush cistern with a larger drain hole and flapper. The drain hole and flapper in most toilet tanks is only 2″ in diameter, but some have a full 3″ hole and valve. Bigger hole, more flush power. Perfectly legal. And then there’s the poor-man solution: keep a bucket or washing cup nearby. If the flush looks problematic, pour the extra water in to help the stuff go down. It works.

A washing cup.

A washing cup. An extra liter for those difficult flushes.

Aside from these suggestions, if you have clog trouble, you should make sure to use only toilet paper, and not facial tissues or flushable wipes. If you do use these alternatives, only use one sheet at a flush, and the rest TP, and make sure your brand of wipe is really flushable. Given my choice, I would like see folks in Michigan have freedom of the flush. Let them install a larger tank if they like: 2 gallons, or 2.5; and I’d like to see them able to use Newman’s Serbian shower heads too, if it suits them. What do you folks think?

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, November 3, 2016. I’m running for Oakland county MI water resources commissioner. I’m for protecting our water supply, for better sewage treatment, and small wetlands for flood control. Among my less-normative views, I’ve also suggested changing the state bird to the turkey, and ending daylight savings time.

Republicans vs conservatives

4 Replies

Most of the great divides of the 1800s pitted conservatives against Republicans. This was the Divide in the Mexican civil wars of the 1800s, and there were several; it is the divide in the South American wars of Independence, and in much of the US and European political debate of the 1800s as well.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from "The Simpsons" He's generally well meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from “The Simpsons” He’s generally well-meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

In general, the difference between conservatives and republicans is that conservative governments favor religion, and religion-based leadership, while republicans favor individual liberty. In 1800s Mexico, conservatives backed two emperors (Maximilian I and Agustin I) and Santa Anna, the ruler who suspended all personal rights an ignited the war of Texan independence. Conservatives generally favor the religion of the majority: Protestantism in England, Catholicism in Central and South America, Judaism in Israel, and Islam in most of the Muslim world. This tends to annoy the irreligious and minority religious populations, who tend to become republicans. Cinco de Mayo celebrates the 1862 victory of Mexican republicans over the French-backed, conservative Maximilian I, at the battle of Puebla. The US Civil War, in essence, pitted the irreligious, industrial, republican north against the conservative, evangelical South; slavery is in the Bible so it must be good.

Conservatives usually favor government actions against sin in all it’s forms: miserliness, drunkenness, drugs, pornography, wild music, money-making, and freedom as such. Conservative-ruled countries have generally had anti-blasphemy laws and enforced “blue laws”, restrictions on business on holidays. Republican governments have few, or none of these. In pre-revolution France, the penalty for blasphemy was death, just as the Bible mandates. This changed when the republicans came into power. In England, private blasphemy was prosecuted as late as 1977. Similar penalties are still in force in Iran and other conservative Islāmic countries. Many US states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sunday, for similar, conservative reasons. Conservatives usually favor sexual morality laws, putting strong restrictions on homosexuality, abortion, and divorce. In England, amicable divorce wasn’t legalized until 1930, and homosexuality was illegal until 1970. In the US, sexual laws are a fairly bizarre mix, in my humble opinion, the result of republicans, liberals, and conservatives making inelegant compromises.

In republican democracies like modern-day France, Holland, and Germany, sexual immorality laws are more lax than in the US. Republican governments strive to protect the rights of the individual; among these their right to property and to a fairly unbridled pursuit of pleasure. Republican countries tend to suffer from (or benefit from) significant income inequality. People can become rich due to hard work, talent, luck, or birth. And they very often become arrogant and obnoxious after they become rich — and sometimes before — to an extent that bothers conservatives and liberals alike. People can also become very poor: from laziness or bad choices, or just from bad luck or having been born to the wrong parents. Conservative and liberal elements then strive to help the very poorest, providing them with food, money and basic housing — generally achieved by taxing the rich. This is good in moderation, but taken to excess, this can lead to dependency of the poor, and redirection of the rich into less-productive fields like politics and the church. Conservatives very rarely leave a good pathway for the poor out of dependency, nor have they found a way to keep scoundrels out of the government and the church.

Scrooge McDuck. he'd likely be a Republican, if only to protect his wealth.

Scrooge McDuck, banker, railroad tycoon, steel magnate; he’d likely be republican, though not likely conservative. Motivated by money and power, he may do good, but not in any direct way, usually.

At present, the US Republican Party, the GOP, consists of approximately equal halves conservatives and republicans. That is, GOP leadership is currently an approximate balance between kindly folks like Ned Flanders who would rule by the Bible, and an equal number of rougher individuals, more like Scrooge McDuck who would rule by money.  in a sense, this is a wonderful compromise as the excesses of each group reins in the excesses of the other. In another sense though, the balance between conservatives and republicans is an ungovernable mess that leads to regular de Condorcet failures. I’m not sure how this will play out in the 2016 elections.

Fortunately, not all irreconcilable differences are as irreconcilable as one might think. Many de Condorcet problems are solvable by compromise, or by the effects of time. Compromise between charity and commerce can produce the best of all worlds, a major theme point, as I understand it, of Dickens’s Christmas Carol.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 20, 2015. I use these essays to refine my thinking — here, more than usual. Any help you can provide will be welcome, feedback, corrections, comments. I’m trying to figure out what I, myself think. The divide between Conservatives and Liberals produces some of the most wonderful quote – exchanges, e.g. between Churchill and Attlee in 1950s England. Liberals, and I have not quite made up my understanding here, seem like a sort of like conservatives in that they believe in wealth redistribution, but without the guidance of a church, or church-based morality. At some point in the future, I’ll hope to arrange my thoughts about them, and about the difference between liberals and democrats.

Racial symbols: OK or racist

2 Replies
Washington Redskins logo and symbol. Shows race or racism?

Washington Redskins lost protection of their logo and indian symbol. Symbol of race or racism?

In law, one generally strives for uniformity, as in Leviticus 24:22: “You shall have one manner of law; the same for the home-born as for the stranger,”  but there are problems with putting this into effect when dealing with racism. The law seems to allow each individual group to denigrate itself with words that outsiders are not permitted. This is seen regularly in rap songs but also in advertising.

Roughly a year ago, the US Patent office revoked the copyright protection for the Washington Redskin logo and for the team name causing large financial loss to the Redskins organization. The patent office cited this symbol as the most racist-offensive in sports. I suspect this is bad law, in part because it appears non-uniform, and in part because I’m fairly sure it isn’t the most racist-offensive name or symbol. To pick to punish this team seems (to me) an arbitrary, capricious use of power. I’ll assume there are some who are bothered by the name Redskin, but suspect there are others who take pride in the name and symbol. The image is of a strong, healthy individual, as befits a sports team. If some are offended, is his (or her) opinion enough to deprive the team of its merchandise copyright, and to deprive those who approve?

More racist, in my opinion, is the fighting Irishman of Notre Dame. He looks thick-headed, unfit, and not particularly bright: more like a Leprechaun than a human being. As for offensive, he seems to fit a racial stereotype that Irishmen get drunk and get into fights. Yet the US Patent office protects him for the organization, but not the Washington Redskin. Doesn’t the 14th amendment guarantee “equal protection of the laws;” why does Notre Dame get unequal protection?

Notre Damme Fighting Irish. Is this an offensive stereotype.

Notre Dame’s Fighting Irishman is still a protected symbol. Is he a less-offensive, racist stereotype?

Perhaps what protects the Notre Dame Irishman is that he’s a white man, and we worry more about insulting brown people than white ones. But this too seems unequal: a sort of reverse discrimination. And I’m not sure the protection of the 14th was meant to extend to feelings this way. In either case, I note there are many other indian-named sports teams, e.g. the Indians, Braves, and Chiefs, and some of their mascots seem worse: the Cleveland Indians’ mascot, “Chief Wahoo,” for example.

Chief Wahoo, symbol of the Cleveland Indians. Still protected logo --looks more racist than the Redskin to me.

Chief Wahoo, Still protected symbol of the Cleveland Indians –looks more racist than the Redskin to me.

And then there’s the problem of figuring out how racist is too racist. I’m told that Canadians find the words Indian and Eskimo offensive, and have banned these words in all official forms. I imagine some Americans find them racist too, but we have not. To me it seems that an insult-based law must include a clear standard of  how insulting the racist comment has to be. If there is no standard, there should be no law. In the US, there is a hockey team called the Escanaba (Michigan) Eskimos; their name is protected. There is also an ice-cream sandwich called Eskimo Pie — with an Eskimo on the label. Are these protected because there are relatively fewer Eskimos or because eskimos are assumed to be less-easily insulted? All this seems like an arbitrary distinction, and thus a violation of the “equal protection” clause.

And is no weight given if some people take pride in the symbol: should their pride be allowed balance the offense taken by others? Yankee, originally an insulting term for a colonial New Englander became a sign of pride in the American Revolution. Similarly, Knickerbocker was once an insulting term for a Dutch New Yorker; I don’t think there are many Dutch who are still insulted, but if a few are, can we allow the non-insulted to balance them. Then there’s “The Canucks”, an offensive term for Canadian, and the Boston Celtic, a stereotypical Irishman, but also a mark of pride of how far the Irish have come in Boston society. Tar-heel and Hoosiers are regional terms for white trash, but now accepted. There must be some standard of insult here, but I see none.

The Frito Bandito, ambassador of Frito Lays corn chips.

The Frito Bandito, ambassador of Frito Lays corn chips; still protected, but looks racist to me.

Somehow, things seem to get more acceptable, not less if the racial slur is over the top. This is the case, I guess with the Frito Bandito — as insulting a Mexican as I can imagine, actually worse than Chief Wahoo. I’d think that the law should not allow for an arbitrary distinction like this. What sort of normal person objects to the handsome Redskin Indian, but not to Wahoo or the Bandito? And where does Uncle Ben fit in? The symbol of uncle Ben’s rice appears to me as a handsome, older black man dressed as a high-end waiter. This seems respectable, but I can imagine someone seeing an “uncle tom,” or being insulted that a black man is a waiter. Is this enough offense  to upend the company? Upending a company over that would seem to offend all other waiters: is their job so disgusting that no black man can ever be depicted doing it? I’m not a lawyer or a preacher, but it seems to me that promoting the higher levels of respect and civil society is the job of preachers not of the law. I imagine it’s the job of the law to protect contracts, life, and property. As such the law should be clear, uniform and simple. I can imagine the law removing a symbol to prevent a riot, or to maintain intellectual property rights (e.g. keeping the Atlanta Brave from looking too much like the Cleveland Indian). But I’d think to give people wide berth to choose their brand expression. Still, what do I know?

Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2015. I hold 12 patents, mostly in hydrogen, and have at least one more pending. I hope they are not revoked on the basis that someone is offended. I’ve also blogged a racist joke about Canadians, and about an Italian funeral.