iftttwall

I have a new story up at The Daily Beast on Amtrak and
it’s alleged resurgence. Here’s how it opens:

“We’ll take you across the mighty Mississippi through eight
states—past wheat fields and ranches, missions and pueblos,
mountains and deserts,” reads the promotional copy for
Amtrak’s Southwest Chief, a sleeper train
that weaves 2,256 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago along
portions of the old Sante Fe trail. “You’ll see spectacular
landscapes and pristine vistas not visible from interstate
highways.” While gazing out at scenery worthy of the best John
Ford flicks, riders can chow down on offerings from Amtrak’s
full-service kitchen, such as the angus steak burger for $9.75, a
$16 Vegetarian Gemelli Pasta, or the wild caught Mahi-Mahi for
$23.25.

This “journey of elevations,” as Amtrak describes it, may be a
bliss-out for passengers, but should taxpayers be forced to
underwrite the ride? In 2011, the Southwest Chief ran a $66.5
million deficit, meaning the federal government had to kick in $185
for every passenger on board. And to keep the Southwest Chief
running, Amtrak is now seeking additional state aid of $120
million over the next decade.

As any popcorn-stand profiteer posing as a movie
house operator can attest, captive eaters create golden
opportunities to supersize profits. But on the
Southwest Chief—and Amtrak trains in general—food and
beverages are a financial drain. Last week, the
inspector general revealed at a congressional
hearing that Amtrak lost $609 million on its meal services
over the past six years, citing all kinds of eye-popping details
about giveaways to staff, spoiled food, and service workers earning
about four times the standard industry wage. Defenders of Amtrak
argue that the report was just a headline-grabbing jab that
distracts from the larger story of the organization’s
resurgence.

Read the whole thing.

After mass shootings, gun-control proponents and lawmakers are
always quick to say we need to keep weapons out of the hands of the
“mentally ill” and that better policies would identify people who
were likely to snap and start killing people.

The real world – not to mention the Constitution – stands
athwart fantasies of precognition. If you want to get a sense of
how seemingly common-sensical restrictions on the rights of
mentally ill people play out, check out this Reason TV video, which
originally went live on November 18, 2013.

Here’s the original writeup:

In the wake of any mass shooting, there’s a predictable and
justified burst of public outrage and sorrow followed by a series
of do-something legislative proposals meant to prevent similar
tragedies from ever occurring again.

Depending on the political leanings of the politician or media
figure offering the solution, the proposal often rests upon one of
these twin assumptions: We must rid the world of the wrong kinds of
weapons (i.e., “assault weapons”), or, we must keep guns away from
the wrong kinds of people (i.e., “crazy people”).  

“How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their
moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with
wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave,
while provoking others to try to make their mark?” asked
Wayne LaPierre, official lightning rod of the National Rifle
Association, in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary shooting. “A
dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess
how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national
database of the mentally ill?”

Even the nation’s premier gun lobby believes keeping guns away
from the mentally ill is a good idea. It’s a sensible-sounding
proposal, a logical precaution. But some forensic psychiatrists,
whose jobs include the task of identifying potentially violent
individuals, say that targeting the mentally ill isn’t as simple as
it sounds.

A recent Mayo
Clinic study points out that mass shooters tend to
meticulously plan their crimes weeks or months in advance,
undermining the idea that the mentally ill simply “snap” and go on
shooting rampages while also complicating the notion of effective
gun control through gun registries, since a methodical planner has
plenty of time to obtain weapons through illegal channels.

Take Lynette Phillips, a suburban California housewife who
suffers from anxiety disorder. She encountered the APPS after a
trip to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital’s psych ward resulted in her
involuntary commitment. Phillips claims she voluntarily checked
herself into the hospital after a bad reaction to a new medication
and that the involuntary commitment was an error made by an
overzealous nurse. Representatives from Aurora
Charter Oak declined to comment on the story, but she was
released before the full 72-hour hold, and a letter
from Phillips’ personal psychiatristconfirms some of the
details in her version of events, including the fact that she
sought treatment herself.

A more basic problem with a strategy that targets mentally ill
people is that the vast majority of them are not violent. When you
control for substance abuse, a factor that exacerbates violence in
all populations, only about 4.3% of
people with a “severe” mental illness are likely to commit
any sort of violence, according to a University of Chicago study.
The violence rate among those with a “non-severe” mental illness is
about equal to that of the “normal” population.

“In the absence of a history of violence or any of the other
risk factors, it is impossible to predict who will become violent,”
says Stephen K. Hoge, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia
University. “If we put doctors in the position of acting on behalf
of the government or acting on behalf of social control, then that
undermines the therapeutic mission.”

In other words, by targeting and stigmatizing the mentally ill,
especially in the absence of a coherent risk-identification
strategy, the effect may be to discourage people who need help from
seeking it, while also stripping away the rights of a huge group of
people who will likely never commit a violent act.

California is the vanguard of the gun registry movement in the
U.S. The Attorney General’s office maintains a database called
the “Armed
Prohibited Persons System” (APPS), which identifies three
groups of people whose guns should be confiscated: Individuals with
a documented history of violence, convicted felons/wanted persons,
and people with a “severe mental illness,” as defined by the state.
Lumping the broad category of “mentally ill people” in with
criminals and violent abusers can ensnare innocent and seemingly
harmless individuals in an overly expansive dragnet.

But the involuntary commitment was enough to put Phillips on the
government radar and make her an Armed Prohibited Person. A few
days after she returned home, armed officers from the California
Department of Justice entered her house in order to confiscate a
gun she’d purchased as a gift for her husband. Upon finding more
than one firearm in the house, the agents took all of the Phillips’
guns and ammunition. They had no warrant. The CA DOJ would not
comment on this story.

“They didn’t need to do that,” says Lynette’s husband, David,
who described a scene in which the officers spread all of their
guns and ammunition on the front yard as the neighborhood watched.
“They embarrassed us in front of the neighbors.”

The Phillips have no criminal record, history of violence, or
documented substance abuse problems. But it was only with the help
of an attorney that they were able to get their guns back from the
state after several months of effort, and only under the condition
that David keep the guns in a safe that’s inaccessible to Lynette.
They did not return any of the seized ammo.

The Phillips have vowed never to let government agents into
their home without a warrant again, and Lynette remains shaken by
the experience. Since its inception in 2001, the APPS program has
resulted in the seizure of more than 11,000 guns.

“To the extent that society continues to vilify the mentally ill
and scapegoat them as the primary cause of gun violence, is a major
step backward,” says Hoge.

Watch the Reason TV video above, “The Truth About Mental Illness
and Guns,” to hear more about flawed gun control policies and for
the full story behind the Phillips’ gun confiscation
experience. 

Approximately 7:30 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot
by Tracy Oppenheimer, Will Neff, and Weissmueller.

Go here for more links, downloadable versions, and videos.

After mass shootings, gun-control proponents and lawmakers are
always quick to say we need to keep weapons out of the hands of the
“mentally ill” and that better policies would identify people who
were likely to snap and start killing people.

The real world – not to mention the Constitution – stands
athwart fantasies of precognition. If you want to get a sense of
how seemingly common-sensical restrictions on the rights of
mentally ill people play out, check out this Reason TV video, which
originally went live on November 18, 2013.

Here’s the original writeup:

In the wake of any mass shooting, there’s a predictable and
justified burst of public outrage and sorrow followed by a series
of do-something legislative proposals meant to prevent similar
tragedies from ever occurring again.

Depending on the political leanings of the politician or media
figure offering the solution, the proposal often rests upon one of
these twin assumptions: We must rid the world of the wrong kinds of
weapons (i.e., “assault weapons”), or, we must keep guns away from
the wrong kinds of people (i.e., “crazy people”).  

“How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their
moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with
wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave,
while provoking others to try to make their mark?” asked
Wayne LaPierre, official lightning rod of the National Rifle
Association, in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary shooting. “A
dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess
how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national
database of the mentally ill?”

Even the nation’s premier gun lobby believes keeping guns away
from the mentally ill is a good idea. It’s a sensible-sounding
proposal, a logical precaution. But some forensic psychiatrists,
whose jobs include the task of identifying potentially violent
individuals, say that targeting the mentally ill isn’t as simple as
it sounds.

A recent Mayo
Clinic study points out that mass shooters tend to
meticulously plan their crimes weeks or months in advance,
undermining the idea that the mentally ill simply “snap” and go on
shooting rampages while also complicating the notion of effective
gun control through gun registries, since a methodical planner has
plenty of time to obtain weapons through illegal channels.

Take Lynette Phillips, a suburban California housewife who
suffers from anxiety disorder. She encountered the APPS after a
trip to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital’s psych ward resulted in her
involuntary commitment. Phillips claims she voluntarily checked
herself into the hospital after a bad reaction to a new medication
and that the involuntary commitment was an error made by an
overzealous nurse. Representatives from Aurora
Charter Oak declined to comment on the story, but she was
released before the full 72-hour hold, and a letter
from Phillips’ personal psychiatristconfirms some of the
details in her version of events, including the fact that she
sought treatment herself.

A more basic problem with a strategy that targets mentally ill
people is that the vast majority of them are not violent. When you
control for substance abuse, a factor that exacerbates violence in
all populations, only about 4.3% of
people with a “severe” mental illness are likely to commit
any sort of violence, according to a University of Chicago study.
The violence rate among those with a “non-severe” mental illness is
about equal to that of the “normal” population.

“In the absence of a history of violence or any of the other
risk factors, it is impossible to predict who will become violent,”
says Stephen K. Hoge, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia
University. “If we put doctors in the position of acting on behalf
of the government or acting on behalf of social control, then that
undermines the therapeutic mission.”

In other words, by targeting and stigmatizing the mentally ill,
especially in the absence of a coherent risk-identification
strategy, the effect may be to discourage people who need help from
seeking it, while also stripping away the rights of a huge group of
people who will likely never commit a violent act.

California is the vanguard of the gun registry movement in the
U.S. The Attorney General’s office maintains a database called
the “Armed
Prohibited Persons System” (APPS), which identifies three
groups of people whose guns should be confiscated: Individuals with
a documented history of violence, convicted felons/wanted persons,
and people with a “severe mental illness,” as defined by the state.
Lumping the broad category of “mentally ill people” in with
criminals and violent abusers can ensnare innocent and seemingly
harmless individuals in an overly expansive dragnet.

But the involuntary commitment was enough to put Phillips on the
government radar and make her an Armed Prohibited Person. A few
days after she returned home, armed officers from the California
Department of Justice entered her house in order to confiscate a
gun she’d purchased as a gift for her husband. Upon finding more
than one firearm in the house, the agents took all of the Phillips’
guns and ammunition. They had no warrant. The CA DOJ would not
comment on this story.

“They didn’t need to do that,” says Lynette’s husband, David,
who described a scene in which the officers spread all of their
guns and ammunition on the front yard as the neighborhood watched.
“They embarrassed us in front of the neighbors.”

The Phillips have no criminal record, history of violence, or
documented substance abuse problems. But it was only with the help
of an attorney that they were able to get their guns back from the
state after several months of effort, and only under the condition
that David keep the guns in a safe that’s inaccessible to Lynette.
They did not return any of the seized ammo.

The Phillips have vowed never to let government agents into
their home without a warrant again, and Lynette remains shaken by
the experience. Since its inception in 2001, the APPS program has
resulted in the seizure of more than 11,000 guns.

“To the extent that society continues to vilify the mentally ill
and scapegoat them as the primary cause of gun violence, is a major
step backward,” says Hoge.

Watch the Reason TV video above, “The Truth About Mental Illness
and Guns,” to hear more about flawed gun control policies and for
the full story behind the Phillips’ gun confiscation
experience. 

Approximately 7:30 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot
by Tracy Oppenheimer, Will Neff, and Weissmueller.

Go here for more links, downloadable versions, and videos.

Japan’s panicked Fukushima evacuation of some
130,000 persons was unnecessary, but it serves as a great warning
for us. For most of the evacuees, their first year exposure was
about 2 REMs of radiation, fifty times below where it causes
illness. Some were exposed to 22 REMs, still far below the sickness
level of 100 REMs. Yet the Japanese were basically following
American civil defense guidelines. Irrational fear of radiation
permeates Washington’s civil defense and nuclear regulatory
guidelines. That’s a problem, writes Jon Utley, because the U.S.
will eventually be targeted with a radioactive terrorist attack—and
the greatest danger might be the government’s response.

View this article.

Let us now praise Terry Bressi of the University of Arizona, who
is publicizing the existence of in-country border checkpoints that
are hundreds of miles from the nation’s edges. Bressi films his
encounters – more than 300! – and posts the vids at his YouTube
channel.

Watch the vid above but expect to get pissed at the enormous
waste of time, resources, and American idealism. Did any of our
parents or grandparents or great-grandparents or whoever really
come to the United States for this?

This video, by Tracy Oppenheimer, originally went live on
November 18. Here’s the original writeup:

“This is not increasing our security, in fact, it’s making us
less secure. It’s just feeding an empire building, it’s feeding
agency budgets, and job security for various law enforcement
agencies,” says the University of Arizona’s Terry Bressi of
in-country immigration checkpoints.

Bressi sat down with ReasonTV’s Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss
these checkpoints and their implications for civil liberties.
Bressi estimates that he has been stopped by border patrol between
300-350 times. After his first encounter, he started carrying
cameras and audio recording equipment, and has since been
videotaping his checkpoint interactions. He says this holds
officers accountable for their actions, and he hopes that by
posting these videos online, citizens will become more aware of
their rights.

“A federal agent who is standing in the middle of a public
highway, wearing a public uniform, collecting a public paycheck
while seizing the public absent reasonable suspicion has no
expectation of privacy,” says Bressi in regards to filming border
patrol agents. “This is something that I like to remind folks of,
that the government thinks that we don’t have any right to privacy
whatsoever, but that’s a double-edged sword.”

For more of Bressi’s checkpoint videos, visit his
YouTube channel.

About 7 minutes.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer, shot by Zach Weissmueller.

For more info, links, and downloadable versions,
go here.

The FDA may soon kill off the world’s most delicious
dessert—Baltimore’s own Berger Cookies. Please believe I make this
claim as one who is not otherwise overly enamored of sweets.

For those who haven’t had the pleasure, we’re talking fudge
slathered over a shortbread cookie to rapturous effect.

If you are one who feels another dessert has a better claim to
distinction, know that it doesn’t matter. Whatever you’re into will
be banned too if it contains artificial trans fats, which the FDA
may decide to outlaw as soon as January.

Berger Cookies, whose recipe has been only slightly modified
since the 1830s, are obviously not healthy. But they are one of
life’s little pleasures, and the law that criminalizes them is an
ass. A tremendous, giant donkey and/or posterior. Of evil.

Via
Capital News Service:

In the past two weeks, the Berger Cookie bakery has made two
attempts to produce the cookies without trans fat, said owner and
president Charles DeBaufre, Jr. The result was discouraging, he
said.

“We’ve tried it and trust me, it is nasty. It doesn’t taste
right,” DeBaufre said. “The texture’s not there. It’s an entirely
different product.”

Trans fats are essential to the taste and flavor of the cookie,
DeBaufre said. If the ban goes into effect, he said he would apply
for an exception. If the bakery is denied an exception, he said he
would continue to test out new recipes or “go out of business, one
of the two.”

As Baylen Linneken
noted earlier this month, the FDA claims a ban may prevent
between 3,000 and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year. But
evidence for this proposition is equivocal at best. New York City
banned trans fats in 2006, and the heart disease mortality rate
fell. But, says Linneken, it fell faster in the rest of the
country—where trans fats are still freely available—over the same
period.

The FDA further claims the benefits of prohibiting trans fats
would dwarf the costs. But there is no way they could know that. As
they acknowledge (PDF),
their estimates do not include losses to consumers who find
themselves unable to obtain foods they once enjoyed.

This loss will be particularly acute for those who live near or
hail from Baltimore, where Berger Cookies are a revered commodity.
But the ban will also affect frozen pizzas, microwave popcorn,
donuts, and no doubt other local amuse-bouches. 
   

The nation already has an ample supply of actual, terrifying
public health crises like antibiotic-resistant
bacteria and critical
drug shortages. It would be nice if the agency that professes
to protect us from such perils would leave. The cookies. Alone.
People can decide what to eat for themselves.

The FDA is accepting
public comments through January 7th.

The FDA may soon kill off the world’s most delicious
dessert—Baltimore’s own Berger Cookies. Please believe I make this
claim as one who is not otherwise overly enamored of sweets.

For those who haven’t had the pleasure, we’re talking fudge
slathered over a shortbread cookie to rapturous effect.

If you are one who feels another dessert has a better claim to
distinction, know that it doesn’t matter. Whatever you’re into will
be banned too if it contains artificial trans fats, which the FDA
may decide to outlaw as soon as January.

Berger Cookies, whose recipe has been only slightly modified
since the 1830s, are obviously not healthy. But they are one of
life’s little pleasures, and the law that criminalizes them is an
ass. A tremendous, giant donkey and/or posterior. Of evil.

Via
Capital News Service:

In the past two weeks, the Berger Cookie bakery has made two
attempts to produce the cookies without trans fat, said owner and
president Charles DeBaufre, Jr. The result was discouraging, he
said.

“We’ve tried it and trust me, it is nasty. It doesn’t taste
right,” DeBaufre said. “The texture’s not there. It’s an entirely
different product.”

Trans fats are essential to the taste and flavor of the cookie,
DeBaufre said. If the ban goes into effect, he said he would apply
for an exception. If the bakery is denied an exception, he said he
would continue to test out new recipes or “go out of business, one
of the two.”

As Baylen Linneken
noted earlier this month, the FDA claims a ban may prevent
between 3,000 and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year. But
evidence for this proposition is equivocal at best. New York City
banned trans fats in 2006, and the heart disease mortality rate
fell. But, says Linneken, it fell faster in the rest of the
country—where trans fats are still freely available—over the same
period.

The FDA further claims the benefits of prohibiting trans fats
would dwarf the costs. But there is no way they could know that. As
they acknowledge (PDF),
their estimates do not include losses to consumers who find
themselves unable to obtain foods they once enjoyed.

This loss will be particularly acute for those who live near or
hail from Baltimore, where Berger Cookies are a revered commodity.
But the ban will also affect frozen pizzas, microwave popcorn,
donuts, and no doubt other local amuse-bouches. 
   

The nation already has an ample supply of actual, terrifying
public health crises like antibiotic-resistant
bacteria and critical
drug shortages. It would be nice if the agency that professes
to protect us from such perils would leave. The cookies. Alone.
People can decide what to eat for themselves.

The FDA is accepting
public comments through January 7th.

Click above for a 50-second trip down Memory Lane with
Sens. Reid, Clinton, and Obama talking about the “nuclear option”
back in 2005. A good time for all is guaranteed!

Back in 2005, the Republican majority in the Senate was
threatening to do away with procedural filibusters when it came to
judicial nominees and other appointments. The move would allow the
World’s Greatest Deliberative Body to proceed to up or down votes
on presidential picks in those categories with just 51 votes rather
than a two-thirds majority. Majority Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and
future Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pooh-poohed that
this was any sort of big breach of tradition.

At the same time, folks such as Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.),
Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced the
very end of constitutional rule if the “nuclear option” were indeed
triggered. The whole point of the rule, they said, was to protect
the right of the legislative minority to gum up the works in the
Senate. Simple majority votes to end debate before votes? That was
for the ruffians in the House. The Founding Fathers, in their
infinite wisdom, had made it so. Indeed,
as late as 2008, Harry Reid was still saying the nuclear option
was an abomination and swearing he would never use such a dastardly
tactic.

This week, of course, the
Senate Dems went ahead and pulled the switch on
the nuclear option, citing Republican obstructionism as the
reason that they had to go ahead and embrace exactly what they
denounced just a few years ago. The immediate case deals with the
important D.C. Circuit of Appeals, where Obama’s picks would change
the balance of the panel for years to come and have been twisting
in the wind as a result.  

They had to do it, don’t you see, say liberals, because the
Republican crackpots – Wacko Birds and Angry Birds alike! – just
wouldn’t allow “cloture” (the end of debate, needed before a proper
vote on a nominee) to happen. Conservatives respond that the only
reason the GOP was busting the president’s chops on nominees is
because
his choices were so radical. Now that the filibuster on
appointees is gone, they worry, Obama will fill the nation’s courts
and bureaucracies with bomb-throwers. The upside, say cons, is that
this means 2014 and 2016 will be all about Obama’s radicalism.

What do you think, Reason readers? Is Republican obstructionism
the problem here (The
Weekly Standard notes that 71 percent of Obama’s Circuit Court
nominees were confirmed in his first term, versus 67 percent of
George W. Bush’s in his first term). Or is it Obama’s radicalism
(the Wall Street Journal writes that of recent presidents, Obama is
the only one “whose average and median waiting time for circuit and
district court nominees from confirmation to nomination was more
than six months”)?

This seems like as good a time as any to remind you all of the

long-term trend to voters identifying as
“independents” and that display such as this are surely
one of the reasons why people are looking for a real alternative to
the played-out politics of Team Red and Team Blue.