Bad Boy, Bad Boy, Who You Gonna Sue?

The Washington-Post points out in its excellent review of officer involved shootings, that since 2005 thousands of people have died at the hands of police officers, but only 54 officers have been brought up on criminal charges. Of those, only a handful have been convicted or have lost an associated civil suit.

Tulsa 911 received a call from a distraught woman who said there was a car sitting in the middle of the road. Officer Betty Shelby was the first on the scene. She ordered the man, Terrence Crutcher, to take his hands out of his pockets. Not only did he take his hands out of his pockets, but he put them in the air; an act officer Shelby considered out of the ordinary. But when you consider that Crutcher is a black man, immediately throwing his hands into the air at the sight of a police officer hardly seems strange. What happens next is all on camera. Crutcher walks towards his car and Shelby fires.

Even Trump seemed to side with Crutcher, saying that Crutcher had done “everything he was supposed to do” and that officer Shelby had “choked,” a sentiment he also expressed after the murder of Philando Castile.

Trump said,

“Was she choking? What happened? […] But maybe people like that, people that choke, people that do that maybe they can’t be doing what they’re doing, okay? They can’t be doing what they’re doing.”

The odds that Shelby will be brought up on criminal charges are slim. On November 12, 1984, Dethorne Graham had a diabetic attack while helping his friend work on his car. His friend drove Graham to the convenience store to buy some orange juice in order to counteract his drop in blood sugar. Seeing that there was a large line, Graham ran quickly out of the store and got back into the vehicle. An officer saw the unusual behavior and arrested Graham, breaking his foot in the process. Graham sued the police department for unlawful use of force.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was unanimously decided that as long as an officer had “objective reasonableness” in his use of force, any use of force could be justified. In other words, if an officer can prove that any other officer would have acted the same way, an officer is not liable for use of force.

This is an extremely slippery slope. The Washington-Post points out in its excellent review of officer involved shootings, that since 2005 thousands of people have died at the hands of police officers, but only 54 officers have been brought up on criminal charges. Of those, only a handful have been convicted or have lost an associated civil suit. The “objective reasonableness” standard has been invoked every-time. It even is used in the reverse. Former Weirton, West Virginia officer Stephen Madar was fired for refusing to shoot an armed suspect- preferring instead to keep his cool in a situation he considered suicide-by-cop.

As CATO fellow Jonathan Blanks points out,

As long as the question is whether the cops can piece together vague excuses to justify their fear as being objectively reasonable, particularly in light of the great deference paid [to] the police by the courts and public, there will be no incentive to not kill when the opportunity presents itself.

A Line in the Sand

On December 12, 2012, a 54 year old woman (identified only as Jane Doe) received additional screening when crossing the U.S./Mexico border at El Paso after a drug dog alerted on her person. After the strip search yielded nothing, she was forcibly taken to University Medical Center where she was shackled to a examination table and subjected to hours of vaginal and anal probing, as well as CT scans and other intrusive examinations. She was then asked to sign a consent form, and, when she refused, she was charged $5,000 for the expense of the examinations. This was all done without her consent and without a warrant. What’s worse? She is an American citizen.

Ms. Doe’s experience is not unique, nor is it limited to American citizens. In 2014, settlement was reached in Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, a case involving the intentional coercion and intimidation of Mexican immigrants. The court found that Customs and Border Patrol Agents were brutalizing immigrants in order to get them to waive their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and to plead their case before an immigration judge.

Border Patrol is plagued by corruption and excessive use of force, according to a report from the Homeland Security Advisory Council. 170 agency employees have faced corruption charges since 2005- more than any other law enforcement agency. Just last month, former CBP Agent Juan Pimentel pled guilty to smuggling 110 pounds of what he thought was cocaine from Mexico to Chicago. Pimentel also pled guilty to bribery for being paid $50,000 to commit the act.

As well as identifying many of the systemic problems facing the CBP, the report recommends ways in which to curb corruption and excessive force within the agency. Drone patrols replacing car patrols, new thresholds for acceptable use of force, and mandatory body cameras (which have been shown to reduce excessive force in other law enforcement agencies) are among things mentioned by the report as being potential fixes. Despite these relatively benign suggestions, Border Patrol Union Vice President Shawn Moran would rather not see them implemented. Commenting on a recent LA Times story he said,

 Are agents supposed to hesitate and not defend themselves because someone set up an arbitrary threshold above which someone will be scrutinized? All this is going to do is further demoralize agents and create a disincentive to agents to go out there and do their job.

Ms. Jane Doe was awarded over $1.5 million in her lawsuit against the CBP and Texas Tech (who operates University Medical Center where her examination took place), but no amount of money can compensate for the denial of her constitutional rights or the humiliation she must have felt. I’m glad that she won her case. Too often the government refuses to acknowledge its own unlawfulness, so it makes me optimistic to see the she was awarded compensation. In the words of Ms. Doe’s attorney (ACLU senior staff attorney Edgar Saldivar), “We have to fight for everything we can get to make sure people [at] the border are protected constitutionally.”

This is the Vision of the Night

How bad is Trump’s economic plan? Very.

In yesterday’s post I talked about the necessity of freeing the market place in order to spur innovation in the energy sector. I wrote that the great expansion in human prosperity came as a result of the implementation of a set of ideas- ideas that were first enunciated by Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations. Broadly speaking, these principles are free markets, free trade, and free immigration. Trump’s economic “Vision”,  released August 8th, and subsequently revised, rejects those principles in favor of a bureaucratic, corporate management of the economy. Hillary’s plan isn’t much better, but more on that some other time.

I should first admit that his tax plan doesn’t look half bad. Reducing taxes, simplifying the tax code, and offering a cocktail of credits is in the right direction. I have my doubts on how serious Trump is on this, though. His tax plan has already undergone several revisions, and he criticized Gov. Scott Walker for not caving to the Unions and raising taxes in Wisconsin. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt here. If his current plan is the one he pursues, America will be better off for it (providing his other positions don’t do more harm than his tax plan does good).

Trump’s position on trade, however, is frustratingly wrong. Flatly wrong. Lunacy. Trump favors economic protectionism, which is the idea that domestic firms should get preferential treatment in trade negotiations by establishing tariffs and other trade restrictions.  Economists argue among themselves a lot, but there are a few things that they almost always agree upon. One of those things is the benefits of free trade. At this stage in the game, with hundreds of years of economic study behind us, making a case for protectionism is madness. It’s a lot like when some quack tries to prove that vaccines cause autism. Utter nonsense. There’s no evidence to suggest that protectionism is economically beneficial. Therefore, I don’t have to demonstrate to you (even though I can) that free trade is the more beneficial policy, because, as Hitchen’s razor points out, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It’s easy for me to get fired up about trade policy, but it’s hard to put name and faces with those who are hurt but the injustice of protectionism. Immigration is a different story. Not only is Trump’s plan to deport millions of people economically and politically unfeasible, it’s also morally abhorrent. These people are coming here because there is work for them to do. They are coming here because they are desperate. We need them, and they need us. What’s often forgotten in thinking about economic issues is the way in which policy affects real people in their everyday lives. I hope that by examining the moral tragedy of deportation, you will come to a deeper conclusion about the great harm of many of Trump’s other economic policies. Our economy is fragile. It may not survive President Trump.

Wanna Save the World? Free the Market.

What’s needed in the energy sector is an innovation boom.We need to develop technologies that will simply out compete fossil fuels. What we need is to hold true to Smith’s observation: free trade, free immigration, and free markets.

I never intended to write a three part series on energy for this blog, but I felt I was starting to make an argument for something, and that I should probably do my best to finish it. However, my strict 500 word policy left me cutting corners a lot, and today’s post will be no different.

In the first part of this series, I talked about developing a new framework for thinking about energy policy (Safety, Efficiency, Economy, Sustainability), the problem with fossils fuels, possible solutions to those problems, and then problems with those solutions. In the second part, I tried to argue that a new form of nuclear energy, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, is our best solution for the world’s energy future. The LFTR is safe, efficient, economical, and sustainable. But as a friend of mine pointed out, solar and wind technologies will become more viable options in the future as technology grows. He’s absolutely right.

We have been cursed by our prosperity. There has been so much abundance since the end of the Second World War, that we take economic and technological progress as a given. I live a life filled with many more advantages than even someone like J. P. Morgan did 100 years ago.  But the truth is, for much of human history, there was very little change in personal wealth from one generation to the next. A poor peasant was born, lived, and died with almost no chance of living a life above subsistence. We don’t live in a world like that anymore. The idea that one generation wouldn’t be substantially better off than their parents is almost anathema to us.

But, if you were to ask yourself how it is that “the West” became so prosperous, you might find yourself spiraling down into a very deep rabbit-hole. Economists and philosophers have been debating this issue for awhile now, but a few things seem to be agreed upon. Adam Smith, in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, laid out a set of principles he thought distinguished rich countries from poor ones. The book is extremely dense, and, try as I might, I’ve never gotten through it all. Smith makes the observation that rich countries have better institutions than poor countries. They are generally economically freer, they value free trade over tariffs, and they are countries that attract and accept immigrants.

Smith was writing in a time when Great Britain (under the infamous King George III) wasn’t exactly a paragon of those virtues. But the United States took these principles and ran with them. It’s why the U.S. overtook the UK as the world’s leading industrial power by 1880, when it had been (only 100 years before) a rural backwater clinging to life on the Atlantic coast.

What’s needed in the energy sector is an innovation boom.We need to develop technologies that will simply out compete fossil fuels. What we need is to hold true to Smith’s observation: free trade, free immigration, and free markets.

Your Love Keeps LFTR Me Higher

“…when humanity learned to do without slaves, and made carbon our slave, we began to learn what it meant to be civilized people. Imagine the profound changes to our society when we free ourselves from the barbarity of fossil fuel. “


First, a caveat (which does not count toward my 500 word limit):

Yesterday I wrote about SEES (Safety, Efficiency, Economy, and Sustainability) as a framework for understanding our energy solutions in the future. I wrote that while solar and wind meet several of these requirements, only nuclear, (and only new forms of nuclear in particular) satisfy the SEES. A friend of mine pointed out on Facebook that it was perhaps illogical of me to judge current forms of solar and wind against the nuclear of the future. He may have a point. But whereas LFTR technology is already developed and waiting to be implemented, proposed solar and wind technologies still seem to fall short. I haven’t seen anything in solar and wind that looks like the panacea the LFTR might be. This is not to say that we may develop viable solar and wind techs in the future. More on that in a few days.

We split the atom at the end of WWII not for energy needs, but for warfare. We developed the atomic bomb in 1945, but we didn’t begin thinking about nuclear as a power source until 1947 (and it wouldn’t be until 1954 that a nuclear plant was connected to a power-grid). In the early days of nuclear, emphasis was placed on heavy water reactors that used uranium (specifically uranium 233/235) as the nuclear catalyst. This is for two reasons. First, we understood how uranium worked within a reactor because we had been building bombs using the same process, and second, heavy water reactors produce plutonium (specifically plutonium 239) which is preferable in bomb tech to uranium due to its more fissionable character.

In a “typical” nuclear reactor (“typical” is used here in quotes because there are many different ways of doing nuclear), uranium 233 or 235 is used to generate heat within a reactor. This heat is then transferred through a heat exchange to outside water sources which boil to produce steam which then spins turbines for power generation. These reactors need to be kept cool in order to prevent meltdown, and water is circulated within the reactor to regulate temperature. However, because the temperature within the reactor reaches 450º Celsius,  the reactor must be kept pressurized in order to keep the coolant water in a liquid state. Meltdown occurs when power is lost to the pressurization system, the water flashes to steam, and the reactor can no longer be kept cool.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor mitigates many of the concerns of traditional heavy water reactors. Instead of water, the LFTR uses molten salt as a coolant and propellant. Since salt is already liquid at 450º Celsius, the reactor does not need to be pressurized, and the chance of meltdown is therefore virtually non existent. Thorium is also “fertile” as opposed to “fissile”, meaning the nuclear waste created within the reactor cannot be made into a bomb. Thorium is one of the most abundant rare-earth materials in the earth’s crust, and since the LFTR consumes 98% of the inputs (as opposed to 0.7% in uranium based reactors), we have a virtually limitless supply of thorium energy.

Like I said, the thorium based reactor is an already developed technology. Chinese and U.S. firms are already working together on developing market ready LFTR technologies as a way to combat climate change and secure our energy future. I can’t tell you how excited this technology makes me. It may be a silver bullet. Tomorrow I’m going to talk about LFTR implementation: how it might take shape, and how the LFTR might change the very way we view the world and each other. As LFTR evangelist Kirk Sorensen often says, when humanity learned to do without slaves, and made carbon our slave, we began to learn what it meant to be civilized people. Imagine the profound changes to our society when we free ourselves from slavery of fossil fuels.

Next Up: The Backyard Thermo-Nuclear Reactor

Let’s Talk about SEES, baby.

It’s becoming harder and harder for mainstream conservatives to deny the dramatic changes in global climate. Whether it’s record flooding coinciding with record drought, street fights in India over dwindling fresh water resources, or orcas appearing in the arctic, the climate is changing in dramatic ways.  If we’re going to combat climate change seriously, we need to dramatically reevaluate how we see energy production.

In my mind, there are four characteristics which must determine how we approach energy production in the future. These are Safety, Efficiency, Economy, and Sustainability (SEES). Any new forms of energy must be able to out compete fossil fuels in price per kilowatt. New energy technologies must also use their resources efficiently and safely, and, perhaps most importantly, new energy sources must be (or virtually be) in limitless supply.

Fossil fuels fail to meet three out of the four of these. They are not safe , they are not efficient, and they are certainly not sustainable.  But as it stands right now, fossils are out-competing alternative energy technologies. In the new annual report from the Energy Information Administration, we can see that fossils are far cheaper to produce than any other form of energy production currently on the market and are likely to remain that way. This is all the more shocking when you consider that the gas in your car was dug up half a world away, shipped across the planet, refined, and then distributed to your local Circle K. Milk is almost twice as expensive as gasoline even though the process for getting milk to the consumer is far less intensive.

Solar and wind fare better than fossils when judged on SEES, but even they fail to meet all four qualifications. Without massive subsidy, solar and wind are just too expensive, and the EIA report doesn’t even factor in the upfront cost of purchasing solar panels, or the installation, or the walls of batteries that are needed to maintain quality of life. This is all beside the fact that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells is highly toxic.

Only nuclear satisfies the SEES. Now, wait. Yes. I am aware of Fukushima and Chernobyl. And, yes. I get it. Nuclear is only 0.7% efficient in getting the energy out of the inputs. Yes. I am aware that according the EIA report, nuclear is almost 3 times as expensive to produce as fossils. And yes, I know. Uranium is not in limitless (or virtually limitless) supply. But I’m not talking about the way in which we do nuclear right now, I’m talking about the way we’re going to do nuclear in the future. What I’m talking about is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR).

What’s needed in the energy market is innovation and invention. If we can manage to cut through the politics of these issues, we can reduce energy regulation, reduce market manipulation through subsidies and credits, and we can begin, really begin, to take this problem seriously.

Next up: Let’s Talk About the LFTR.

Driving Through the Middle

Snopes carried an interesting piece today. Kim LaCapria sat down with Libertarian presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson and his running-mate Gov. Bill Weld. It isn’t unusual that presidential candidates, especially 3rd party candidates, talk to reporters (unless you’re Hillary Clinton), but it is unusual that Snopes, the internet’s favorite meme busters, would be invited for a sit down. Johnson said that he hoped to dispel some of the “libertarian myths” surrounding himself and the party, and that Snopes was the right outlet for that.

In response to those [myths], Johnson opined that “some of the baggage the Libertarian Party carries is that it’s ‘survival of the fittest’ [and] a ‘Darwinian party,'” firmly adding that “we’re not in that camp.” He continued by explaining that the 2016 Libertarian ticket didn’t espouse any fully laissez-faire ideas and voiced support for social programs:

We do believe in a health/safety net, for example … we’re for supporting social security, but that [earlier referenced misconception is part of] the baggage the Libertarian Party carries. And you know what? In theory, a lot of that at some [prior] point might actually [have ‘flown’.] But in my lifetime, I don’t think so. We’d like to actually like to hold off [on major fiscal cuts] and push the country in a direction of fiscal solvency … [it’s] where you’ve got to start.

I get criticized by my fellow libertarians for being No True Scott because Gary and I agree on this point (as does F.A. Hayek for that matter). As an active member of the Libertarian Party both at the national and state level, I can attest that I hear criticism for Gov. Johnson on this point (and middling points like it) a lot. Johnson has made a lot of enemies within the party partly because of statements like the one above. He only won his candidacy by ~51% and the other 49% often find themselves biting their tongues harder than any Republican did for Mitt. There’s even the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus,a  group formed in opposition to Gary Johnson and his evil plan to “make Libertarian ideas “non-threatening” in order to placate the enemies of liberty.”

Johnson continues:

You know, if there’s a criticism I don’t particularly embrace at all it’s that we’re somehow Republican-lite. And look, we’re running as Libertarians for a reason. We think the Republican party has really lost touch, but we think the Democrat party has lost touch also, and that the vast majority of Americans are fiscally responsible and socially inclusive … and we’re the voice for that mix … which is, like I say, most Americans.

I don’t know if I would characterize “the vast majority of Americans” as “fiscally responsible and socially inclusive”, but I do hope to see that changing. Already there are positive signs on the social toleration front.

The piece is very good, and the embedded video of Johnson’s well attended New York  rally shows the strength of a campaign that seems to have gotten out of Aleppo unscathed.