... jumping straight to the racism/white supremacy angle each time a black man is killed in an incident of police brutality is extraordinarily pernicious. White people - especially poor white people - get abused by the cops as well. (See also: John McWhorter's fair discussion here.)
Like all other observable social problems, the roots of police brutality are multivariate. Sometimes, I'm sure, the racism of the officers - or the department - involved is a factor; there's no sense in denying that. But socioeconomic status and overzealous lawmaking certainly play roles as well; indeed, these factors are, in my view, vastly more important.
Let's focus on the overzealous lawmaking in particular. As events of recent months have amply demonstrated, the US harbors a significant population of "Karens" who feel that everything they don't like should be banned by law -- and that everything they do like should be mandated by the same. For a Karen, it's not enough to, for example, offer clear scientific guidance to the American people in re: slowing the spread of the Kung Flu and then let us make our own personal risk calculations based on that information. No: a Karen wants all of us to be coerced by the force of the state to close our supposedly "nonessential" businesses and/or radically change how we go about our lives. A Karen, in short, thinks she knows best and should make decisions for the whole.
But each time you marshal state troops to modify people's behavior, you increase the number of times those people will come into negative contact with law enforcement officials. And when you increase negative contacts with the cops, you increase the likelihood of violent - and even deadly - encounters.
Not to be all libertarian, but: when you call in the state, you're implicitly agreeing that violence is an acceptable means to enforce your desires. True: the state does not always respond violently when someone has violated one of its rules. But the threat of violence is always there. If you refuse to comply with the state's dictates, eventually - if you're stubborn enough - you will see the barrel of a gun.
Perhaps one way to reduce fatal encounters with the cops, then, is to simply reduce the number of laws we have on the books. Because in my living memory, a number of people who were killed by the police were essentially killed over nanny-ish regulatory infractions that needn't have been treated as crimes at all.
Now, to shift the focus a bit: I also think it's crucial not to over-sell the problem of police brutality. When an innocent person is killed by the cops, it's always and everywhere a crime that should be punished to the full extent of the law. And we should definitely work to reduce the chances of such events as much as we possibly can. But we must also be careful not to accept narratives that assert police routinely gun people (especially black people) down in the streets for no reason -- because such claims are just not true.
Outlets like The Washington Post keep running tallies of all individuals who are killed by police officers in the US, but based on my examination of their data, they inflate the numbers by conveniently failing to make distinctions between justified and unjustified fatal encounters. If you drill down to the victims who are truly innocent, you discover that those deaths are exceedingly rare -- that your chances of being unjustly killed by the police are very, very low whether you're white or black.
As we can see in the overwhelmingly horrified response of the law enforcement community to what happened to George Floyd, most police officers are decent, professional people who simply want to protect their communities. Calling them pigs and treating them like they're murder-happy psychos is deeply irrational -- and dangerous.
Also irrational? Burning down a neighborhood to express your rage.
Virtually every American wants to see George Floyd's killer go to jail. Popular opinion on this is basically unanimous. But as soon as you start looting stores, trashing people's small businesses, and torching affordable housing - or openly encouraging those activities - you become a domestic terrorist, not a promoter of genuine justice.
Seriously: eff you, Antifa. I hope Trump does go after you with extreme prejudice because you're not helping.
And that, I think, is all I have to say about this week's news.
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Monday, April 27, 2020
A Warning
Things might be a bit quiet around here for a bit. We're all safe and healthy at Casa Right Geek, but I just got hit in the face with inspiration for a geeky project that, at the moment, is completely consuming my spare time.
Besides, I need to find other things to discuss besides the worldwide coronapocalypse. ;)
Talk to you soon!
Besides, I need to find other things to discuss besides the worldwide coronapocalypse. ;)
Talk to you soon!
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Video: Perverse Incentives
I can confirm Matt's commentary here. Normally, my weekly gross pay is $552. If I were to stop working entirely, I would receive $877 (according to the letter I just received the other day from the VEC).
Mind you, I'm not going to ask my boss to lay me off. I love my kids too much to do that -- and everything my departed father ever taught me about the dignity of working (even if you have a shit job) further militates against that choice. But I wonder: how many people will actually live by that principle when the temptation to mooch is so unbelievably powerful?
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Yes, Open the Fuddruckers (*Restrictions Apply)
I work for a tutoring company that was able to switch to online instruction, so I'm still earning nearly my usual income. Thus, I'm in an extraordinarily privileged position. I don't have to worry about food, rent, or other necessities; for me, the money is there.
But I know many, many others aren't as fortunate as I -- and I know that my own situation could change at any time. Indeed, the only reason I have work at the moment is that I'm the first-in-line senior instructor. In reality, our business has dropped off roughly 90%. All our other instructors have effectively been laid off, and my bosses are certainly not making the money they once did. Why? At a fundamental level, a tutoring business depends on the health of the economy. Parents pay for our service with their discretionary funds. If parents lose those funds, we become an unaffordable luxury.
If our society remains stuck on pause for much longer, the ripple effects will be more damaging than you can ever imagine. But evidently, some are unable to reflect upon these secondary and tertiary impacts. Some - like Patton Oswalt - think we can stay in and watch Netflix indefinitely. Some, to put it frankly, are completely divorced from reality.
The reason we locked down to begin with was to slow the spread of the coof so that our healthcare system wouldn't be overwhelmed. Yet now, certain people are demanding that we move the goalposts -- that we remain locked down until we've developed a vaccine or otherwise eradicated the danger of infection entirely. This is bat-crap insane. Keeping everyone at home and on the government teat is simply not sustainable. As a wise science fiction author once wrote, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
I'm going to diverge from the usual responses to Oswalt's out-of-touch BS and say something bold: yes, this is about going to Fuddruckers. Do you know how many working class folks had jobs in those dining rooms before all this began? If we all started going to Fuddruckers again, we'd ensure the continued employment of many thousands of people! That's not putting money and comfort before lives; that's actually saving people from abject poverty and despair -- two things with documented mortality rates.
Of course, it's not only about going out for a burger. Large chains like Fuddruckers can probably absorb some loss when all is said and done. What really worries me is the coming destruction of Main Street USA -- all those mom-and-pop shops that can't protect themselves with a corporate shield. The tourist-trappy towns I love to visit - like North Conway Village, NH, or Gatlinburg, TN - depend on places like these. So too does my future place of residence just outside of Washington, VA. (I wonder: is Chef Patrick over at the Inn doing okay? If he goes under, my father will be crying in heaven.) (And what about Hackleys General Store? That place is literally the center of Amissville. If Hackleys folds, where will our future neighbors gather instead?) (Okay, enough with the anxious parentheticals, Steph, and get on with it!) Each threatened small business represents a family dream - and perhaps even a whole community - in peril. But we're just supposed to set that aside until the bat flu risk has been reduced to zero?
No: such a course is not rational, nor is it based on anything approaching "science." Science tells us we should limit the number of patrons we admit at a time, require masks, and disinfect surfaces after every use. It does not tell us to close down everything a government apparatchik considers "nonessential."
Bottom line at the end: The growing resentment of our politicians' continuing over-reach is wholly legitimate. People are losing their means of survival. If you're a celeb relaxing in a mansion - or a comfortable keyboard jockey who can work from home - you have no freakin' clue what's actually happening out here and should probably shut the eff up before you further cement my estimate of your rampant stupidity. Plz and kthx.
But I know many, many others aren't as fortunate as I -- and I know that my own situation could change at any time. Indeed, the only reason I have work at the moment is that I'm the first-in-line senior instructor. In reality, our business has dropped off roughly 90%. All our other instructors have effectively been laid off, and my bosses are certainly not making the money they once did. Why? At a fundamental level, a tutoring business depends on the health of the economy. Parents pay for our service with their discretionary funds. If parents lose those funds, we become an unaffordable luxury.
If our society remains stuck on pause for much longer, the ripple effects will be more damaging than you can ever imagine. But evidently, some are unable to reflect upon these secondary and tertiary impacts. Some - like Patton Oswalt - think we can stay in and watch Netflix indefinitely. Some, to put it frankly, are completely divorced from reality.
The reason we locked down to begin with was to slow the spread of the coof so that our healthcare system wouldn't be overwhelmed. Yet now, certain people are demanding that we move the goalposts -- that we remain locked down until we've developed a vaccine or otherwise eradicated the danger of infection entirely. This is bat-crap insane. Keeping everyone at home and on the government teat is simply not sustainable. As a wise science fiction author once wrote, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
I'm going to diverge from the usual responses to Oswalt's out-of-touch BS and say something bold: yes, this is about going to Fuddruckers. Do you know how many working class folks had jobs in those dining rooms before all this began? If we all started going to Fuddruckers again, we'd ensure the continued employment of many thousands of people! That's not putting money and comfort before lives; that's actually saving people from abject poverty and despair -- two things with documented mortality rates.
Of course, it's not only about going out for a burger. Large chains like Fuddruckers can probably absorb some loss when all is said and done. What really worries me is the coming destruction of Main Street USA -- all those mom-and-pop shops that can't protect themselves with a corporate shield. The tourist-trappy towns I love to visit - like North Conway Village, NH, or Gatlinburg, TN - depend on places like these. So too does my future place of residence just outside of Washington, VA. (I wonder: is Chef Patrick over at the Inn doing okay? If he goes under, my father will be crying in heaven.) (And what about Hackleys General Store? That place is literally the center of Amissville. If Hackleys folds, where will our future neighbors gather instead?) (Okay, enough with the anxious parentheticals, Steph, and get on with it!) Each threatened small business represents a family dream - and perhaps even a whole community - in peril. But we're just supposed to set that aside until the bat flu risk has been reduced to zero?
No: such a course is not rational, nor is it based on anything approaching "science." Science tells us we should limit the number of patrons we admit at a time, require masks, and disinfect surfaces after every use. It does not tell us to close down everything a government apparatchik considers "nonessential."
Bottom line at the end: The growing resentment of our politicians' continuing over-reach is wholly legitimate. People are losing their means of survival. If you're a celeb relaxing in a mansion - or a comfortable keyboard jockey who can work from home - you have no freakin' clue what's actually happening out here and should probably shut the eff up before you further cement my estimate of your rampant stupidity. Plz and kthx.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)