One Thing That Every State Legislature Can Do To Help Rebuild Confidence in Law Enforcement

Complaints about police abuse of power had grown rampant way before the Ferguson riots.  If outlets such as Mother Jones, Daily Caller, Huffington Post, and Reason agree on anything it is the all too common episodes of abused state authority.  Comprehensive study and reform is necessary.  It can start here.

According to the Governors' Highway Safety Association, 33 states allow police to pull over individuals for not wearing seat belts.  In these states it is a primary offense, meaning that the officer has probable cause to stop a vehicle if he or she suspects a person does not have their seat belt on.

A Reason writer in 2012 predicted that primary offense seat belt laws could open the door for abuse and harassment.  If it has not happened yet, it could.  Not wearing a seat belt does not threaten the safety of anyone else.  It's time to get this law off the books.

It would seem that this could be a rare opportunity for liberty minded Republicans to join forces with the NAACP and other groups concerned about police power.

Are Conservatives Not Funny?

The Atlantic published an incisive piece on conservatives, comedy, the industry, and the market exploring why the right dominates the market in news, but not comedy.

Academics enjoy poking at "harmonized and slow" conservatism, claiming that it destroys the "conditions necessary" for comedy to flourish. In the 21st century, conservatives find themselves in the minority, or even outcast, roles in academia, media and elsewhere.  Great comedy always comes from the powerless jester who has nothing to lose by poking fun at the system.  Example, liberals and leftists could not possibly make a convincing Animal House type movie today.  What on earth could they make fun of besides themselves?

Conservatives are in a much better social position, especially now, to ridicule and satirize.

The article does not mention that two decades ago, conservative performers actually dominated Saturday Night Live.  Victoria Jackson, Norm Macdonald, and others set the standard of political and social satire in their time.  Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" character gently satirized evangelical Christianity's excesses without ridiculing underlying beliefs.  This let everyone laugh at the character, scored points, and offended no one. Carvey also entertained President George H. W. Bush with an off beat, but still gentle caricature of that president. Phil Hartman's 1980s impersonation of President Reagan was considered spot on, portraying a man gentle and grandfatherly in public, aggressive and in charge behind the scenes.

After SNL, Chris Farley, David Spade, and Dan Aykroyd made Tommy Boy, a hilarious look at business, competition, and sales that managed to also celebrate the free market. Aykroyd also starred in libertarian favorite Ghostbusters.

But can conservatives and libertarians match the level of comedy churned out on Comedy Central?  Yes.  Daily Caller produced an exact parody of a puffy self-congratulatory video produced by Politico. Their "Morning Bro" series is a daily dose of satirical hits on the media and politics.  One of libertarianism's primary publications, Reason, rebutted media and presidential attacks on civil discourse.  This video turned over the top political campaign statements from 1800 into modern television attack ads. Watching John Adams and Thomas Jefferson savage each other is hilarious, but also shows that today's civil discourse is much more tame than 200 years ago.

Yes conservatives are funny.  You just have to look.

Inspector General's Report At Department of Justice Mimics Libertarian and Conservative Concerns

Above the Law recently summarized a report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice.  The conclusions reached sound like they came from the pages of Reason and other outlets.

It notes that every dollar spent on prisons is a dollar not spent on enforcement and prevention efforts.  It quotes the assistant attorney general who called prison costs "unsustainable."  In addition to Above the Law's analysis, it is interesting to find the opportunity cost argument used by the government.  Perhaps the sequester made some agencies realize that even a federal budget is finite.

Part of the prison cost will require some rethinking.  The writer explains that quite a few prisoners of means live in cells on the taxpayers' dime well into old age.  Could other options be available for non violent felons besides prison, at least in these circumstances.

The American Bar Association warned in 1998 that overfederalization "strains the fabric of the federal and state system."  It also noted that "there are powerful reasons for the fundamental limitations on federal criminal law."  General police power over day to day crime, according to constitutional law, is better left under the control of the states.  State courts can lose their importance, while federal courts become overburdened.  The ABA cites a number of other hazards of putting more police power in the hands of the federal government.

The inspector general warns that these chickens have come home to roost.  The federal government now can prosecute over 4,000 criminal offenses in federal law.  Add to that 10-100,000 possible federal regulations that could carry federal criminal penalties.  Moving back to state prosecutions of criminal law can "alleviate the budget crisis posed by the federal prison system."

Reevaluating federal prosecution of criminal law is the first step.  Next comes rethinking the mindset that allowed and encouraged this overreach in the first place.  An unrestrained federal leviathan is rampaging through our society.  Curbing the law enforcement prerogatives of this beast is one step toward restoring the proper proportion of power.

Is European Anti-Semitism Back?

One in three European Jews has felt at some time or another recently that Europe has grown so hostile that they considered moving.

This comes from an online survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.  The same survey revealed that one in four Jews had suffered either harassment or direct attacks due to their faith.

Reason magazine reported these findings in a broader piece underscoring the growing problem of anti-Jewish intolerance in Europe.

Anti-Semitism was blamed on left wing politics and Islamic extremism.  Only 19 percent blamed "right wing" individuals or groups.  It should be noted, of course, that some neo Nazi groups have come together in Central Europe.  They, presumably, cling to the traditionally irrational hatreds.  Many misidentify Nazis as "right" when their traditions and ideology speak to a leftist origin.

A Norwegian academic even resurrected the old czarist hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  This was a tract concocted by the Russian secret police to discredit that country's Jews.  It distracted attention away from the tottering Czar and directed it toward the vulnerable Jewish community.  Treating it as legitimate reflects a horrifying tendency among European leftists to more brazenly unearth centuries old hatreds and stereotypes thought dead for decades.

This is no sign of the return of the nightmare of the Holocaust, but the dangers of prejudice and persecution are real.  European peoples do not enjoy the same constitutional protections taken for granted in the United States.  Rights and liberties are more easily infringed upon (for example, Britain is considering legislation that could seriously impact the right of the free press in that country.)

Americans in love with what they think is the superior European culture should look again at the dark underbelly of prejudice that lurks just beneath its urbane surface.

Cameras on Cops

Reason's December print edition has an updated column from last August entitled "Watched Cops Are Polite Cops." 

Some jurisdictions have done this.  Rialto, California saw complaints against officers drop by 88 percent.  Judge Shira Scheindlin. of the federal district court in Manhattan, ruled that officers in high complaint areas film their "stop and frisk" efforts in an effort to see if officers are complying with civil rights laws.

Ronald bailey, who wrote the piece, argues that police should be on board.  Complete photographic evidence can defend an officer against spurious complaints.  The knowledge that officers had filmed interactions may have contributed to the drop in complaints in Rialto.  Citizen recordings usually only start after tensions have risen and omit context.

Bailey warns that officers coming into homes with cameras on can violate civil rights,  "video of someone's metaphorical (or literal) dirty laundry is nobody else's business."  But safeguards, like those used on the reality show Cops, can protect the innocent.  Mandatory erasing of videos in the short term, unless needed for evidence, is also necessary.

Bailey also points out that people may act more civil when they know the camera is on them.

The issue is complex.  It certainly has the potential to invade privacy and violate rights, but also ensure that police act professionally at all times.