Month: September 2014

In the
course of their absolute obsession with running everybody who wants
to work through a bureaucratic gauntlet, Arizona lawmakers passed
SB1380,
requiring physicians to submit fingerprints as part of the process
of undergoing criminal background checks. As annoying as that is,
it also worsened the burden on the Arizona Medical Board, which already had
a backlog of license applications it couldn’t handle. So, the board
responded by
freezing license applications two weeks ago:

Recently, circumstances beyond the control of the Arizona
Medical Board have caused a delay in the implementation of the
federal background check requirement.

As a result, there will be a temporary delay in the Board’s
ability to issue licenses to new applicants.

Existing licensees will continue to practice without
interruption, provided that the renewal application was filed
timely and any requests for additional information are met. Please
note that a delay in the actual issuance of the license renewal
will occur.

This means a temporary (we assume) freeze on additions to the
already thin ranks of physicians serving a state that’s been

fretting about a doctors’ shortage for years. The crunch is
anticipated to
get worse, largely because of Medicaid expansion increasing
demand without providing much of an incentive (at the program’s
level of compensation) for supply to match. Freezing the issuance
of medical licenses makes expanding the supply of medical
providers…a tad more challenging.

“Unfortunately,” notes the Arizona Medical Association in its
weekly email update, “for physicians wanting to apply for a license
in AZ, the immediate future is unknown at best and at a standstill
at worst. This has serious repercussions for any practices and
hospitals involved in hiring these applicants, and also for the
ability to attract more physician talent into Arizona.”

Undoubtedly, state officials will eventually untangle the
problem that they created. Maybe they need to put a few more rules
in place.

The latest poll from Gallup Politics looks
at
how Americans view the proper role of govenment. Though it
might come as a surprise to anyone watching U.S. politics, about an
equal number claim to prefer a government that provides “only the
most basic” functions as favor a government that “takes active
steps in every area it can to try and improve the lives of its
citizens.” 

For the poll, conducted earlier this month, respondents were
asked to rate themselves on a 5-point scale with “1” corresponding
to the limited-government perspective and “5” signalling support
for an activist government. About 35 percent rated themselves as
“1” or “2”, meaning they would prefer government play a minimal
role in the lives of citizens. Slightly less (32 percent) chose “4”
or “5”, indicating a preference to turn over control of their lives
to the state. The remaining third of respondents favored a middle
ground. This is the fourth time Gallup has asked this particular
polling question (starting in 2010) and all four polls have
featured a relatively even split. 

Unsurprisingly, Democrats were more likely to favor ample
government than Republicans—though there was plenty of partisan
crossover. About 17 percent of Republican respondents slotted
themselves in the pro-big government camp, and 10 percent of
Democrats said they support a more limited government. Meanwhile
about a quarter of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats rated
themselves in the middle of the government-scope scale. 

Gallup also asked respondents whether they thought government
was currently doing too much or not enough. More than half
(54 percent) said it’s “trying to do too many things that should be
left to individuals and businesses” while 41 percent said the
government needs to “do more to solve our country’s problems.”

Of limited-government fans from question one, 86 percent think
the government is currently too hands-on, with those neutral on
question one also tending to lean this way. However, when it comes
to big-government supporters, a terrifying 74 percent thinks
government isn’t active enough in our lives right now and should be
doing more.

One of the objections police officers bring up to
continuously operating body and dash cams is that during their
shifts they should have some expectation of privacy when they’re
not engaging residents. It’s why body and dash cams almost
universally have on-off switches accessible to the officers using
them.

The use of body cams can focus attention on questionable acts by
police officers. Earlier this year in Albuquerque, N.M., for
example, the shooting of homeless camper James Boyd was caught on a
cop’s helmet video,
sparking protests across the state and bringing needed
attention to the Albuquerque Police Department’s history of police
brutality and fatal shootings.

Now dash cam video from a State Trooper’s patrol car was found
to have caught a conversation with one of the officers involved in
the James Boyd shooting, Keith Sandy.

The relevant portion of the transcript,
via KOB4 in Albuquerque:

Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?

Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.

Sandy: Who asked?

Ware: I don’t know.

Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic?  I’m going to shoot him in
the penis with a shotgun here in a second.

Ware: You got uh less-lethal?

Sandy: I got…

Ware: The Taser shotgun?

Sandy: Yeah.

Ware: Oh, I thought you guys got rid of those?

Sandy: ROP’s got one…here’s what we’re thinking, because I
don’t know what’s going on, nobody has briefed me…

In an internal interview, Sandy excused the comment as “locker
room banter” and a “joke.” Understandably the lawyer for James
Boyd’s family, doesn’t see it that way. “It’s chilling evidence and
stunning that he has not been criminally indicted,” Shannon Kennedy
told KOB4. “He says to a state police officer ‘that f’ing
lunatic, I’m going to shoot him in the penis.’  It’s crystal
clear and he says it with contempt in his voice.” 

Neither Sandy nor any other officer involved in the Boyd
shooting have been indicted, and remain on paid administrative lead
while an investigation
continues to come to a conclusion.

Based on an investigation started in November 2012, this April
the Department of Justice (DOJ)
found “reasonable cause to believe that the Albuquerque Police
Department is engaged in a pattern or practice of use of excessive
force, including the use of unreasonable deadly force.” The DOJ,
Albuquerque, and the APD are now working on setting up federal
monitorship of the department.

One of the objections police officers bring up to
continuously operating body and dash cams is that during their
shifts they should have some expectation of privacy when they’re
not engaging residents. It’s why body and dash cams almost
universally have on-off switches accessible to the officers using
them.

The use of body cams can focus attention on questionable acts by
police officers. Earlier this year in Albuquerque, N.M., for
example, the shooting of homeless camper James Boyd was caught on a
cop’s helmet video,
sparking protests across the state and bringing needed
attention to the Albuquerque Police Department’s history of police
brutality and fatal shootings.

Now dash cam video from a State Trooper’s patrol car was found
to have caught a conversation with one of the officers involved in
the James Boyd shooting, Keith Sandy.

The relevant portion of the transcript,
via KOB4 in Albuquerque:

Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?

Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.

Sandy: Who asked?

Ware: I don’t know.

Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic?  I’m going to shoot him in
the penis with a shotgun here in a second.

Ware: You got uh less-lethal?

Sandy: I got…

Ware: The Taser shotgun?

Sandy: Yeah.

Ware: Oh, I thought you guys got rid of those?

Sandy: ROP’s got one…here’s what we’re thinking, because I
don’t know what’s going on, nobody has briefed me…

In an internal interview, Sandy excused the comment as “locker
room banter” and a “joke.” Understandably the lawyer for James
Boyd’s family, doesn’t see it that way. “It’s chilling evidence and
stunning that he has not been criminally indicted,” Shannon Kennedy
told KOB4. “He says to a state police officer ‘that f’ing
lunatic, I’m going to shoot him in the penis.’  It’s crystal
clear and he says it with contempt in his voice.” 

Neither Sandy nor any other officer involved in the Boyd
shooting have been indicted, and remain on paid administrative lead
while an investigation
continues to come to a conclusion.

Based on an investigation started in November 2012, this April
the Department of Justice (DOJ)
found “reasonable cause to believe that the Albuquerque Police
Department is engaged in a pattern or practice of use of excessive
force, including the use of unreasonable deadly force.” The DOJ,
Albuquerque, and the APD are now working on setting up federal
monitorship of the department.

“We as civilians—who elect certain leaders and rally behind a
war—have an obligation to understand what we’re asking [the troops
to give up] and I hope that these letters do that,” says Andrew
Carroll, a Washington, D.C., based historian. Carroll has devoted
the past 16 years to collecting and preserving war correspondences
throughout American history.

Carroll sat down with Reason TV to reveal the importance of his
project and how he hopes it shapes America’s attitude toward war in
the future. 

View this article.

Protests that began last week in Hong Kong over
Beijing’s decision to vet all candidates for a 2017 election for
chief administrator have turned into some of the largest
demonstrations Hong Kong has seen. The growing protests are thanks
in part to a disproportionate response from local police in Hong
Kong, who fired tear gas at protesters in an attempt to disperse
them. Over the weekend demonstrators took to the streets
surrounding government buildings as part of the campaign of

mass civil disobedience “Occupy Central” activists
promised.

So far, the Chinese government has officially insisted it had
confidence in Hong Kong’s ability to police the protests itself.
But it’s busy censoring news of the protests on the mainland, which
in 2014 includes a slew of social media and communication apps that
have become popular in China and Hong Kong, as well as disrupting
mobile networks and conducting surveillance on the island.

Reuters reports:

The intervention is beyond what is normal for the usually
free-talking Hong Kong, even as people are used to Chinese censors
scrubbing the Internet in the mainland when mass demonstrations
erupt.

On Sunday, users reported that Facebook Inc’s photo sharing app
Instagram was inaccessible on China’s mainland.

Chinese websites, including Baidu Inc’s search engine and the
Twitter-like Weibo Corp microblog, have set about deleting
references to the Hong Kong demonstrations.

Others have reported messages on Tencent Holdings Ltd’s hugely
popular WeChat messaging app being removed.

“I think it is still quite safe except WeChat, which is China,”
said Oscar, a 21-year-old student at Hong Kong’s Polytechnic
University, who uses Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate and plan
with other protesters.

“It depends on your phone, because some China (brand) phones,
they can detect your messages,” he said.

The Chinese government’s attempt to censor news of the protests
extends to all opinons, something that appears to frighten even
some pro-government activists in China:

“WeChat is not blocked, I think some stuff is being deleted,”
said Jennie, who, after growing up in mainland China and being
educated in the United States, now runs a Hong Kong-based
charity.

“I forwarded an article (on Hong Kong) on today and it was
deleted. The mainland should think it’s good people are expressing
ideas on behalf of the mainland government, but they even deleted
that. Basically they’re preventing the opportunity for dialogue,
which if you think about it is quite scary.”

The Chinese government may not be able to prevent its citizens
from knowing about protests in Hong Kong, but it can try to keep
them from thinking about it. The last word in the Reuters article,
from the pro-government activist:

“All my friends … know what’s happening in Hong Kong,” said
Jennie in Hong Kong. “They’re tweeting from Weibo and WeChat and
forwarding articles. Not expressing personal views, but there are
articles being forwarded.”

At the same time, Chinese authorities ordered all websites to
“immediately clear away information about Hong Kong students
violently assaulting the government and about ‘Occupy Central’,”
according to China Digital Times, another censorship watchdog.

“My dad saw an article discussion I forwarded on the ‘deeper’
issues causing the current situation, and he replied: ‘Oh it’s been
deleted’,” said Jennie. “And that’s it, he didn’t seem to be
bothered by it.”

Across the country, China had about
500 protests a day in 2012, but even when governemnt buildings
are taken over protesters express support for the Communist
Party.

NPR’s Sanjena Sathian
looks back at the left/right coalition that brought
homeschooling out from under a legal cloud. The left wing of the
alliance featured fans of John Holt and
other radical critics of institutionalized education; the right
wing reflected Christian conservative concerns. Those worldviews
may have been far apart (though inevitably, people managed to

combine them), but the different groups managed to work
together:

Fast-forward to the 1980s, when
left met right. [Home School Legal Defense Association founder
Michael] Farris found himself defending a hodgepodge of
home-schoolers/unschoolers throughout the decade, mostly Christians
like him and his family, but also “black Jews, Muslims…even one
woman who told me her religious practices were a cross between Zen
Buddhism and the philosophy of Winnie the Pooh.”

States got creative, defending compulsory school attendance laws by
leveraging truancy and even child abuse charges against
home-schooling parents, and lawyers like Farris rose to the top of
a booming individual rights movement.

Farris and other lawyers fought to change the
definition of a private school to include home schooling; they
combated truancy charges aplenty and faced down the dictum that
students should only be taught by certified teachers. But mostly
they won the courts’ silence, as judges refused to rule on the
inherent value of home schooling and instead considered it from a
rights perspective. That, in itself, was victory.

Today, most of the nearly 2 million home-schooled kids are probably
still seen as
fringe—but the idea of criminalizing parents for teaching kids
at home? Equally fringe.

Sathian wraps up by contrasting those “1980s debates that could
unite two opposing value systems under the shared umbrella of a
libertarian ideal” with “today’s deeply personal and political
battles” over issues like Common Core. But I wouldn’t rush to
consign the left/right education alliance to the nostalgia pit just
yet. Both the Christian right and the John Holt left object
strongly to Common Core, and lately they’ve been joined by many

voices within the
teachers unions, which certainly wasn’t the case with the
homeschooling battles. Unity at last!

[Via Ralph
Nader.]