May 7^th

Today I take a different direction: There have been several interesting letters to the editor of the Record-Eagle, our local daily newspaper. The back-and-forth exchange began with a letter pointing out that “Someone lucky enough to have a million dollars invested would by now be $89,000 wealthier without having to lift a finger.” And then the writer contrasted this with the $16,300 that someone gets working at minimum wage for 40 hours a week.

In this polarized political atmosphere there was swift blowback. No one disagreed that the owner of a million investable dollars could have made over 85 thousand dollars in the market last year without lifting a finger. That is an undebatable fact. The outrage was over the writer saying “the person lucky enough to have a million dollars.” Two respondents claimed that luck had nothing to do with it; for one writer the million came from “hard work and long hours”—“paying their taxes”—“saving and investing wisely.” Then this gentleman accused the writer of “playing the class warfare card.” This writer claims the writer says “apparently greedy “wealthy” individuals…” but nowhere in the original letter does the word greedy appear. That word is perhaps inserted to validate the class warfare charge. One might also note that every time this writer uses the word wealthy he puts it in quotes. Maybe he is in a position to feel that having a million investable dollars does not make one wealthy, just “wealthy.”

So what do we know about this man who claims that it isn’t luck at all:  his name is irrelevant; his background is not He is a retired vice president of a major American corporation, retired after over twenty years of service. I’m sure he worked hard, paid his taxes and invested wisely. On the other hand, he was lucky enough to be born in America, to be bright enough to get a college degree in business and not to work for Hewlett Packard where he might, in spite of all his fine attributes, been one of the 18 thousand people laid off by Carly Fiorina. I think that luck played a considerable part in his probably comfortable retirement.

The other respondent’s letter was in today’s paper; she has a problem with reading comprehension. She quotes the original letter that claims that by investing a million dollars you could become $89,000richer without lifting a finger; so far so good. Then she adds, “How does an investor reach a million dollars without lifting a finger?” Whoops there! The original writer said no such thing; she said that once you have a million dollars you can get another $89,000 without lifting a finger; that’s quite different. Then this lady claims that if you invested just $25 a month beginning at age 25 you would have a million dollars at retirement. $25 a month for forty years will produce just $12,500. If you invested all of that in the market  forty years ago when the Dow was at about $800 it would now, with the Dow at about $18,000, have multiplied your stash by enough to give you less than a third of your million dollar target. (If you want a million dollars after forty years you must invest $150 a month, six times as much as this woman suggests, and you must get ten percent compound interest; calling Bernie Madoff!) Oh well, I’ll bet the lady is not a properly certified financial advisor and if you rely on letters to the editor for financial advice you’ll deserve what you get.

I’ll have a letter to the R-E soon in support of the original writer and I’m sure I’ll get some blowback. Stay tuned.

 

May 6^th

Thomas Sowell is writng today. As an economist he isn’t much of a sociologist but he tries.

 Sowell, like many right wing types, manages to shade the truth in his favor; witness his statement, “…the demonstrable lie that Michael Brown was shot in the back by a white policeman.” For Sowell any mistake which is not flattering to his point of view is a lie. In the heat of the moment, in a community long abused by police, anything derogatory about the police is credible so people believed erroneously that Brown was shot in the back. Mistaken beliefs are not lies. Sowell claims that there are those who believe the problems of poverty in the ghetto communities are caused by the “sins of whites” and are the “legacies of slavery.” Who are those people Sowell? He provides no names; pick any liberal.

All these evils “went up after the much celebrated sixties.” Oh come now Dr. Sowell, did they teach you nothing about logical fallacies in your economics graduate program at Chicago? Have you never heard of post hoc reasoning? Just because events occur as a sequence in time does not mean the previous event caused the subsequent event. It is certainly true that many new welfare programs began then but so did the voting rights act, school desegregation, the anti-miscegenation SCOTUS decision, the murder of Martin Luther King and the murder of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. I would bet that much of the 60s civil unrest was caused by the murder of Martin Luther King…but you didn’t even mention that. I guess you just forgot it in your zeal to blame liberal support programs.

Dr. Sowell makes another interesting point: The ghettoes and black communities were not nearly as restive in the 1920s as they became in the late 1960s and today.  Sowell likes to blame this, again, on social welfare programs, programs that didn’t exist in the 20s and began to flourish in the 60s. But there are other massive social differences between these two periods; Blacks in their ghettoes in the 20s had little hope that things might change for them or that they could do anything about their condition themselves. Although there were riots as early as 1919 in Chicago when 38 were killed and 500 injured. Some WW 1 veterans then were unwilling to take anymore segregationist abuse. Along with the 60s social programs, there was also cheaper television and with it the images of how other people lived. Now some ghetto people began to appreciate what might be possible eventually and to be in a rush for eventually to happen immediately; when it didn’t frustration finally produced the aggression seen in the ghettoes over the last twenty years or so. This was helped massively by just a few racist police.  Jelani Cobb has found that,  “With the exception of the riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., every major riot by the black community of an American city since the Second World War has been ignited by a single issue: police tactics.”

Hungry people rarely attack unless you show them food and then deny them access to it; then watch out!

Is this analysis too subtle for Thomas Sowell? Probably not unless he has his political blinders on; unfortunately he is rarely without them.

May 5^th

Yesterday we had Pat Buchanan in full rant mode; he was after those lawless black folks who seem immune to all that money the liberals have sent their way. Obviously, for a conservative like Buchanan any lack of respect for money is a sin of considerable magnitude.

Let’s look at some of Pat’s comments: Pat’s first point is that if Freddie Gray had been simply left to die in the street as a result of black crime no one would care but because he was killed in the care of the police he was “credibly cast in the victim’s role.” Well yeah, Buchanan, because you see the cops are supposed to protect civilians not kill them. That’s what we pay them for but sometimes they, and you, don’t get that message.

Hillary Clinton mentions Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as examples of racial problems; Buchanan quickly defends George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin to death “while Martin was sitting on top of and beating senseless this neighborhood watch guy.” Buchanan conveniently leaves out the established fact that Zimmerman had called police about Martin and was told to stay in his car and not to follow him. He disobeyed a police order. If Treyvon Martin had a gun he could legally, according to Florida’s stand your ground law, have simply turned and killed Zimmerman on the spot. Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin because he was walking in the neighborhood and he was black.

Then Buchanan tells us about his version of Michael Brown’s death; that Brown was a hoodlum there is no doubt. There is also no doubt that he was killed unnecessarily by a panicked cop. The cop, as I’ve said elsewhere had been disrespected by this enormous black kid, in fact, he’d had his nose broken. So to recover his self-respect he didn’t wait for the backup that he’d requested, and was on its way; he started to chase the kid down and when the kid turned around and started toward him (charged Buchanan says) he fired twelve shots at him before finally killing him; twelve shots! Can you say panicked cop?

Buchanan makes the point that most black men are killed by other black men. That’s true but those black men are not paid to “protect and defend” anybody.  Cops are paid to do just that and when they don’t do that, and in fact do just the opposite, people get upset. Pat Buchanan can’t understand that.

Pat then comes to Freddy Gray who died while in police custody. The coroner said it was murder but Buchanan can’t bring himself to report that; instead he reports that Freddy Gray had been arrested a “dozen times.” But does Buchanan tell us how many of those arrests resulted in convictions for some crime? Of course he doesn’t tell us that.

Finally Buchanan bristles at the thought of releasing some of these felons from prison. We’re running about 700/100,000  population in prison compared with less than 200/100,000 for most European nations. Much of this disparity is due to our drug laws which criminalize even small amounts of marijuana. This is the crime for which Buchanan is sure early release will endanger honest citizens. More likely early release would reduce the income of Correction Corporation of America, that’s the outfit that makes a profit from long sentences for minor violations and from strict enforcement of drug laws. What do you suppose it’s worth to Correcrion Corporation of America if a judge sentences a man to a twelve year prison term for selling pot? Do you think they might support the reelection of judges who do that? Imagine, we now monetize jail time!

May 4^th

I have a virtual plethora of targets today; enough so that I can leave one target from old reliable Patrick J. Buchanan to comment on tomorrow.

We begin today with an illuminating piece by Jack Lessenberry. Jack calls our attention to the Michigan catastrophic insurance law that is in danger. This law provides care for people who are grievously injured in an automobile accident. It costs motorists just over 150 dollars a year and if you need it you’ll be happy that Michigan has it.

Now enter State Senator Joe Hune. He chairs the senate’s insurance committee and he is also the happy recipient of about one hundred thousand dollars of insurance company contributions toward his campaigns. Naturally the insurance industry expects nothing in return for their generous support of Senator Hune. This catastrophic insurance program has a substantial reserve kitty and the insurance companies see an opportunity to slip in there and get some of that cash. Good old Joe thinks that is a great idea although he hasn’t reckoned with L. Brooks Patterson a republican firebrand who favors the law because he himself was in a horrific accident and knows how important these benefits are. Stay tuned on this one.

 

Then we have a cartoon contest in Texas. Just not any cartoon contest; this one was to picture the Prophet Mohammed in the most unflattering of poses. The originators were the American Federation Defense Initiative headed by Pamela Geller. This is a standard hate group whose members have a problem with all Muslims everywhere. They offered a 10 thousand dollar prize for the best (read most offensive) cartoon. Of course what happened was just what they wanted to happen. Two Muslims wanting to avenge these insults to their Prophet drove up and came out of their car shooting. Naturally this hate group, expecting trouble, surrounded the place with police and other armed personnel. The result was one wounded guard and two dead Muslims along, I suppose, with one delighted Pamela Geller.

I wonder what would happen if we had a cartoon contest where the cartoonist had to show Christ in the most humiliating and ridiculous situations. Then perhaps offering a 10 thousand dollar prize for the best effort and all this arranged for by a Muslim group. I’ll bet Ms. Geller and her wish to “defend free speech” would stumble around deciding what to do about that one. But then I think the Muslims, unlike Ms. Geller, are too smart to try something like that.

 

 

May 3^rd

Last night a police officer was shot in the head in Queens, a borough of New York City. I got this information as I was watching Fox News. The anchor, a woman of mild color, was instantly in tantrum mode. She was absolutely outraged that there were no street demonstrations, no riots, no public outcry at this crime. She couldn’t understand why this event was different from the outrage shown over the broken back of Freddie Gray, the suffocating and subsequent heart failure of Eric Garner for the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes and so on and on.

There should surely be outrage at the shooting and the clearly attempted murder of any police officer anywhere. There are some notable differences between these situations, however, that the Fox anchor does not seem to recognize. She might understand these differences if she thought about them even briefly but thinking does not seem to be in her job description. Let me help!

Consider Freddy Gray; his crime was apparently making eye contact with a policeman. Then Freddy ran, was caught put into a police van and emerged injured so badly he soon died. The excuse given by police for his arrest was that he carried a switch blade knife. The knife excuse didn’t fly because the knife was a pocket knife, which isn’t illegal to carry, and it was in Freddy’s pocket out of the sight of any policeman until Freddy was searched. So the cops lied. Then once six police officers were charged with crimes relating to Freddy’s death the police union claimed this was a rush to judgment.

Here is another interesting difference: Neither Freddy, nor Eric Garner, nor Walter Scott (shot five times in the back while fleeing from a policeman for the offense of driving without a tail light.) has anything equivalent to the powerful police union whose job seems to be protecting police regardless of their guilt or innocence. The cop felt threatened and so shooting the person perceived as threatening is just fine. Police, essentially, have a license to kill if they get nervous. The civilian, usually unemployed and poor, will have a court appointed attorney who may or may not stay awake during his client’s trial. (That his attorney fell asleep during his trial was not enough for one defendant to successfully challenge a jury’s guilty verdict.)

 There are few unemployed cops but the unemployment rate in the Baltimore area where Freddy Gray lived is 25 percent. The police are supposed to be constantly in grave danger, constantly risking their lives to protect citizens, and there are certainly situations where that happens. How many police are killed by gunfire each year? That varies, but in 2014 there were 27 fatalities by gunshot among all law enforcement officers in this country. Civilians killed by officers are harder to determine because of different reporting standards for each state. Estimates range from four hundred to one thousand. Many of these police shootings of civilians, of course, are the result of suspected felons fleeing arrest. Sometimes, though, it seems that the police officer is acting as judge, jury and executioner. And so police killings of civilians are about twenty-two times more likely than civilian killings of police.

Just some things to think about for those who think.

May 2^nd

There will be a brief hiatus in this blog until the current back-and –forth over the death of Freddy Gray dissipates. I’m not interested in commenting about this issue again until some new reason to do so emerges.

Even so it is fascinating to watch Fox News commentators. The man is alive until he is taken into police custody after which he is fatally injured. To accuse the police is a “rush to judgment” because, I suppose, Gray had another pocket knife and severed his own spine just to make these heroic police look bad. But of course, why didn’t I think of that?

May 1^st

Once again there are no righteous columnists in today’s paper.  I will comment on the Baltimore police department because nothing else is in the news. I believe the Baltimore police department has been reading “The Arabian Nights,” particularly the story of Scheherazade. You may remember that the king sleeps with a fresh virgin every night and beheads her the next morning. Scheherazade tells the king a fascinating story but dawn arrives before she can finish so the king spares her life for one more night. Scheherazade keeps this going for a thousand nights and a thousand stories until the king falls in love with her and makes her his queen.

So what has this to do with the Baltimore police department? The Baltimore police department has been issuing a tale de jour about what happened in that police van. This has been going on…and on, for several days. We now are told another van occupant heard banging around in Gray’s section of the van. According to police this was evidence that Gray was trying to hurt himself. Maybe Gray was trying to get the attention of the driver and the other transporting officer because he wanted medical treatment. I guess the police couldn’t imagine that possibility.

Then a story emerges that the van stopped four times on the way to the station, not the three as originally claimed. One of these stops was to let officers put Gray in leg irons. Why was that? He has his hands cuffed behind his back, he is in a police van, but leg irons are required because he might run away? The new van occupant was picked up just six blocks from the station and didn’t experience the earlier “rough ride” if indeed there was one. If there wasn’t a rough ride then how did Gray break his back? According to these fiction writers he did it by throwing himself around, while in handcuffs and leg irons, in the back of that van.

It takes a lot of kinetic energy to break the back of a healthy mid-twenties man. Kinetic energy depends upon the square of the velocity. How much velocity could be generated in the six feet or so available to Gray in the back of that van? The answer is not very much.  One thing is not disputed: Gray was not attached to a seat belt as was required by the police department.  No excuse of that oversight has emerged. If that simple rule had been followed Baltimore might have saved millions of dollars, but then the cops wouldn’t have had any fun, the fictional stories would stop and Scheherazade would lose her head.

P.S. As of shortly ago six cops involved in this episode have been charged with various serious crimes and are under arrest. I guess Scheherazade survives another night.