iftttwall

Soviet communism remains very uncool in countries that formerly
lived under it, which might explain why some very creative and
patient graffiti artists have been
repeatedly defacing a Soviet Army monument in
Bulgaria.

The latest unauthorized use of spray paint coincided with
the anniversary
of the founding of the Bulgarian Socialist
Party. The Russian Foreign Ministry is not amused,
lodging a note of protest with the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry and
issuing a statement of
indignation over “the desecration of the grave of
Soviet liberator soldiers.” According to The Moscow
Times:

The Russian Embassy in Bulgaria has issued a note
demanding that its former Soviet-era ally clean up
the monument in Sofia’s Lozenets district, identify
and punish those responsible, and take “exhaustive
measures” to prevent similar attacks in the future.

Though the photo
here depicts American pop culture figures like Superman
and Ronald McDonald, street artists have also painted the
monument blue
and yellow (in apparent support of Ukraine) and even
put colored
ski masks on the heads of statues representing Soviet
soldiers (a nod to the persecuted Russian art
collective Pussy
Riot).

(Hat tip:
Liberty Viral)

Cato’s Jason Kuznicki offers a valuable contribution to the
“libertarian morality” discussion that’s been meandering around the
Internet of late. In a post on his personal blog, Kuznicki says,
“but
of course I’m a libertine.”

Kuznicki is reacting to a strange strain of libertarianism he
spies lately, one that advocates fusing libertarianism and social
conservatism in a way we haven’t seen since the 1960s. As evidence
he points to Damon Linker’s recent “What
if your daughter was a porn star?” piece (which
both Scott Shackford and I
have written about) and a piece in The Federalist by
Rachel Wu, which asserts that “if
millennials want liberty, they need virtue too.” I would also
point you to
this post by Pamela Stubbart, who left the libertarian group
Young Voices over its promotion of porn star Belle Knox’s writing,
and the bizarro
cult of Stefan Molyneaux. 

These folks differ from social conservatives in that they don’t
always advocate using the state to impose their morality
unilaterally. But “the sentiment remains the same,” Kuznicki
writes:

If you don’t share our morality, then you’re
doing freedom wrong, and bad things will happen. 

What makes all that a little hard to swallow is the fact that
almost nothing so-cons have wanted—obscenity laws, sodomy laws,
tough standards for divorce, stigma around birth control—has panned
out for them in the past 50 years. Meanwhile “libertines”—a term
Kuznicki uses with tongue firmly in cheek—have been getting exactly
what they want on matters of vice. How’s that working out for
American society?

Pretty well, I’d have to say. Let’s imagine some victory
conditions: How
about massively falling crime rates? Check. Also
falling abortion rates? Check. A whole lot
less teen pregnancy? Check. Falling
divorce rate? Yep, got that one too!

No traditionalist would ever have predicted the present moment.
On every single one of these matters, if the numbers had gone the
other way, the so-called libertines would be taking every bit of
the blame. Perhaps reasonably. But over here in the real world, we
have a paradox: It begins to look as if the way to get almost every
item on the social conservatives’ wish list is to give us
libertines what we wanted.

Sure, we may now be a nation of cohabiting, contraception-using,
homosexuality-supporting, pot smokers, but we’ve also become a
nation that’s infinitely less bigoted and misogynist. If the former
makes one a “libertine” (or a “cultural
libertarian“), then most of us may be so, but “in another sense
none of us are libertines—if by that word we
mean foregoing all moral judgement,” Kuznicki writes. 

Essentially nobody does ​​that​​. We give a very false
picture of developments since the 1960s if we suggest that it’s all
been a matter of things disappearing from our moral radar. We have
added many new norms as well, and we are clearly better off for
having them. Norms against drunk driving, smoking, racism, and
sexism are stronger than ever, and those are certainly better than
the norm that permits you to disown your son if you find him having
gay sex.

Leonard Steinhorn, a professor at American University,
makes similar points in his writing on the baby boomer
generation. He thinks “boomers deserve far more credit than they’re
typically given” for what the ’60s hath wrought:

In surveys, 71 percent of Greatest Generation whites said that
blacks smell different, 36 percent said they wouldn’t try on
clothes a black had worn, and 94 percent disapproved of interracial
marriage. In 1954, only 12 percent said they would allow an atheist
to teach college, and in 1957, 80 percent said that an unmarried
woman had to be sick, neurotic or immoral. Boomers refused to
accept this America, and ever since the ’60s they have quietly
agitated for change. They did it by transforming society, by
changing attitudes, norms, institutions and families, and the
result is an America more inclusive, equal, tolerant and free than
any time in our history.

And here’s what I wrote
about libertarian morality at The Dish last
week: 

… libertarian-minded folks are plenty capable of placing blame
at the feet of people who deserve it. We have no problem expressing
moral disapproval of an administration that rains
death on innocent people, or of the insane
militarization of our police force and the attendant
terror it’s causing. We cast stones at those who let
their own
discomfort come before women’s safety and those who think
any abuse
by the state is warranted once someone has committed a
crime. These are absolutely moral judgements – you don’t have mere
differences of opinion on whether it’s okay to kill Pakistani
children and African-American teenagers.

I ventured into different moral arenas than Kuznicki, and that’s
the point here: morality can be conceived of in many, many
different ways. It’s easy to frame libertarians, or American
society as a whole, as decliningly moral when you define
the parameters of morality. But if we dig past purity in its many
manifestations, there’s a whole host of ways in which libertarian
libertines are making the world a much more safe, just, tolerant,
moral, and free place. 

On
August 7, Barack Obama said that U.S. airstrikes he was
ordering in northern Iraq were meant to protect Americans from the
Islamic State’s threat to the Kurdish city of Erbil, where the U.S.
government has a consulate. He also said Americans would be
protected anywhere in Iraq, including Baghdad. Finally, he said
airstrikes would be part of a humanitarian mission to
save “thousands — perhaps tens of thousands” — of Yezidis
who were trapped and desperate on Mount Sinjar. There are several
reasons not to intervene militarily in another country’s
conflict, even modestly. One is the potential for mission creep. We
already could detect the signs of mission creep in Iraq, writes
Sheldon Richman. Now, with the stepped-up U.S. airstrikes after
the Islamic State’s horrific execution of American
reporter Jim Foley, the signs are clearer than ever.

View this article.

Before Ferguson erupted into violent protest
against the police shooting of an unarmed man, Mike Davis
(pictured), then Police Chief for Brooklyn Park, Minnesota,
told
a survey of law enforcement professionals:

I think that the work we’ve done over the past 30 years has been
good, but some of the things we’ve done have only resulted in
ephemeral changes. Many of our historically challenged
neighborhoods are still structurally distressed. In our inner
cities—in Camden, Philadelphia, Minneapolis—look at who is being
killed. It’s young black males—the same people that most often view
the police as illegitimate.

Davis concluded, “If we aren’t viewed as legitimate in these
communities, we aren’t going to be effective.”

The comments by the former chief (now the director of Public
Safety at Northeastern University) were published in June of this
year in a roundup of professional opinion on Future
Trends in Policing compiled by the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS).

The rest of the publication is mostly devoted to gee-whiz
technology, evolving approaches to management issues, and some
strategic innovations including greater use of intelligence and
“predictive policing” (future crime, anybody?). There’s even some
worry about how courts will interpret the civil liberties
consequences of sticking cameras hither and yon.

But, in a short section that mostly quoted him, Chief Davis
voiced concern about legitimacy within the community. The
conclusion mentioned that he wasn’t the only law enforcement
professional to raise the issue.

In the last few years, police chiefs have been discussing the
ideas of “legitimacy” and “procedural justice” in policing. These
concepts have to do with the judgments that members of the public
make about their local police, and whether citizens believe they
are being treated fairly and respectfully by the police. Legitimacy
and procedural justice sometimes are seen as a new, high-powered
version of community policing.

The Justice Department’s COPS has already raised concerns about

militarized policing and police
encounters with dogs. Specifically, an analyst for COPS fretted
that garbing police in camouflage and allowing them to act as
occupation troops is ruining relations between law enforcement and
the people they supposedly serve. COPS also put together guidance
urging police officers to find means other than bullets for dealing
with family pets.

So some law enforcement professionals were aware of
problems even before Ferguson. Maybe recent events will spread the
wisdom—and lead to an attempt to rebuild legitimacy.

After resisting for decades, Major League Baseball has adopted
instant replay on nearly all disputed calls, providing a
transparent and public view of what happened. While this frustrates
many by
slowing down the action, it almost always gets the call right.

Michael Brown’s shooting death by Ferguson, Missouri, police has
made a national issue out of the lack of “instant replay” for
altercations between cops and citizens.
At least one witness claims Brown stood with his hands up and
screamed “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!” while a “source close
to the department’s top brass” told
FoxNews.com that Brown nearly beat Officer Darren Wilson
unconscious before Wilson shot Brown six times. 

With such disparity between eyewitness accounts, and with
high-definition video technology so inexpensive and ubiquitous,
there is a
growing demand for police to record their interactions with the
public. As
Reason‘s Ron Bailey wrote, “Requiring law
enforcement to wear video cameras will protect your constitutional
rights and improve policing.”

There have already been some ups and downs with experiments in
police cameras. Cameras have been turned off, failed to record, and
footage has been lost. It will also likely take some time before
departments require their officers to record and preserve video
evidence rather than merely suggesting they do so. 

Still, in places like Rialto, California, the mere presence of
cameras has resulted in a precipitous drop in complaints and use of
force. It has also improved community relations with the police,
since
everyone tends to exhibit more civilized behavior when they
know they are being recorded.

In
The Guardian, Rory Carroll writes:

“Rialto’s randomised
controlled study has seized attention because it offers
scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were
introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers
plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of
force fell by 60%.

“When you know you’re being watched you behave a little better.
That’s just human nature,” said Farrar. “As an officer you act a
bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better.”

Video clips provided by the department showed dramatic chases on
foot – you can hear the officer panting – and by car that ended
with arrests, and without injury. Complaints often stemmed not from
operational issues but “officers’ mouths”, said the chief. “With a
camera they are more conscious of how they speak and how they treat
people.”

The same applied to the public; once informed they were being
filmed, even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite,
Farrar said. Those who lodged frivolous or bogus complaints about
officers tended to retract them when shown video of the incidents.
“It’s like, ‘Oh, I hadn’t seen it that way.'”

Which brings us to the disappointing news coming out of San
Diego, where the police department asserts the evidence captured by
police cameras is not for public consumption. As reported by Sara
Libby in City
Lab:

(The San Diego Police Department) claims the footage,
which is captured by devices financed by city taxpayers and worn by
officers on the public payroll, aren’t public records. Our
newsroom’s request for footage from the shootings under the
California Public Records Act was denied.

Once footage becomes part of an investigation, the department
says it doesn’t have to release them. SDPD also said during the
pilot phase of the camera program that it
doesn’t even have to release footage from the cameras
after an investigation wraps.

Got that? You, the taxpayer, pay for the cameras and the
salaries of the people wearing the cameras who are charged with
protecting and serving the community, but you are not entitled to
review the footage of controversial police encounters, including
shootings. Not even when the case is closed.

Such a policy makes the use of police-worn cameras beneficial
only to police and not to the public. For a
“scandal-plagued” PD like San Diego’s, it’s not surprising that
they would prefer to set the precedent of one-way transparency, but
it’s unlikely to satisfy the public that justice was done.

If the public and the press do not get to vet the video
evidence, they will remain dissatisfied with the government’s
assertion that they got the call right.

Terrorist group the Islamic State, or ISIL,
presents a bleak picture of the future of the Middle East and
America’s involvement there. This week they brutally beheaded an
American journalist. The organization controls oil fields and has a
well-coordinated military force that is growing by the thousands.
It threatens to collapse Iraq and is quickly drawing the United
States into another
ground war in that nation. There may be a silver lining,
though: The effort to stabilize Iraq could improve U.S. relations
with Iran.

“U.S.-Iranian cooperation is quite favorable” and “it is only
natural that the two powers join forces … to meet the common
threat,”
explains the intelligence organization Stratfor. “Tehran and
Washington’s concerns about the Islamic State transcend Iraq’s
borders and include common interests elsewhere in the region.”

“Iran wields considerable influence in Iraq,”
suggests The Guardian, but with a terrorist group
slitting throats just across the border and gaining steam, Iran has
an immediate interest in snuffing out the threat of spreading
instability. Tehran has
already launched several
ground and air attacks. Secretary of State John Kerry and
President Rouhani
have been saying that the two nations could work together to end
the ISIS threat, which is a 360 from typical, antagonistic rhetoric
between America and Iran.

Stratfor notes that both will likely be quiet about whatever
work they do together, due to the domestic unpopularity of the
other. And, military coordination will be limited by both nations’
fear of each other’s intelligence apparatuses. Although the two
nations haven’t had diplomatic relations for decades, their
coordination for a common goal is not unprecedented.

The United
States and Iran have
cooperated against a common jihadist enemy in the past, such as
when they worked together to topple the Taliban regime following
the 9/11 attacks. Relations quickly soured again when U.S.
President George W. Bush’s administration declared the Islamic
republic a part of the “axis of evil” and when controversy over
Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons program broke out in 2002.
However, these tensions did not prevent the two sides
from cooperating
again in the U.S. move to effect regime change in Iraq in
2003.

To be sure, Iran has additional aims in the
current situation. “If we agree to do something in Iraq, the other
side of the negotiations should do something in return,” Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
said today. “All the sanctions that are related to Iran’s
nuclear program should be lifted.”

AFP notes that this “is the first time that Iran has explicitly
linked its readiness to work with the West in Iraq with a lifting
of the crippling EU and U.S. sanctions imposed over its nuclear
program.” But, as Reason
contributor Sheldon Richman has
detailed, Iran
doesn’t pose a
real nuclear threat, this request is not
unreasonable.