Police body cams — a randomized controlled study

Back in 2014, the city of Rialto, California carried out a study on the effects of police body cameras. They work.

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.'”

The Guardian

50 Years of Wrong Climate Predictions

1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’

1969: ‘Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.’

1970: Ice age by 2000

1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’

1971: ‘New Ice Age Coming’

1972: New ice age by 2070

1974: ‘New Ice Age Coming Fast’

1974: ‘Another Ice Age?’

1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’

1976: ‘The Cooling’

1980: ‘Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes’

1978: ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend

1988: James Hansen forecasts increase regional drought in 1990s

1988: Washington DC days over 90F to from 35 to 85

1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years

1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019

2000: ‘Children won’t know what snow is.’

2002: Famine in 10 years

2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020

2008: Arctic will be ice-free by 2018

2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet

2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’

2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015

CEI.org blog

And this book was published in 1977. It made the case that the climate had been unreasonably warm, and would very likely soon revert to the much cooler norm.

Bernie’s Plan Already Rejected by Sweden

Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the crowd running for the Democratic nomination, say they want to implement “democratic socialism”, “just like Sweden has”.

Well, it seems what Sweden has is capitalism.

Mr. Sanders often falsely claims that Scandinavia demonstrates the success of his socialist schemes, even though Scandinavian countries are home to some of the freest economies in the world. The confusion arises because many Sanders talking points haven’t been updated since the 1970s, when these countries were conducting disastrous experiments in government expansion. News of several decades of reform and revival hasn’t yet reached Sanders campaign headquarters.

When it comes to wealth taxes, once again we can thank our Scandinavian friends for showing why a Sanders scheme presented as a way to plunder the rich would also make the average citizen poorer. The Scandinavian experience also suggests that if Mr. Sanders ever does manage to enact a wealth tax, he really could achieve his goal of abolishing American billionaires.

Sweden abolished its wealth tax in 2007.

….

Denmark had already abolished its wealth tax years earlier. Nordic neighbor Finland axed its wealth tax shortly before Sweden. And while Norway still taxes wealth, it has been reducing the burden in recent years while also cutting rates on corporate income.

Back here in the U.S., Vermont’s most famous Marxist aims to stem the ocean of money flowing out of the U.S. in the event he succeeds. As part of his plunder plan, Sen. Sanders is promising exit taxes at rates up to 60% of wealth to discourage billionaires from fleeing the U.S. and taking up residence in capitalist countries.

This might allow Mr. Sanders to hold many existing billionaires captive for a time. But his plan surely provides enough incentive for the next generation of entrepreneurs to find other locales to build their fortunes.

Thank goodness there’s a giant asterisk on the Sanders plan to achieve his dream of a country without billionaires. The Sanders plan is not constitutional, for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is unconstitutional. The founders banned such direct taxes and the 16th Amendment only authorized the taxation of incomes, not balance sheets.

Wall Street Journal

On Trump, Progressives confused by irony and facts — Bookworm Room

The NYT published an article asserting 40 “facts” indicting Trump. In truth, each of those “facts” was false or pure opinion based upon intractable bias. The New York Times published an article by one of its opinion columnists, David Leonhardt, that purports to indict Trump in a mere 40 sentences, each asserting a supposedly devastating…

On Trump, Progressives confused by irony and facts — Bookworm Room

Lewandowsky and the Non-Impeachment Hearing

Trump and his team, faced with a special counsel investigation, made a radically different decision. Beyond refusing to testify to special counsel Mueller — which Mueller never demanded he do — Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. Trump, who could have followed a Nixonian course of claiming executive privilege over all sorts of material, instead opened up the White House to Mueller’s investigators. Trump directed his people to testify and turn over thousands of documents to Mueller.
Don McGahn, the White House counsel, famously testified for 30 hours before Mueller’s prosecutors. All other key figures testified as well. That included Lewandowski, who said Tuesday that he spent hours with the Mueller team.
The fact is, House Democrats know what they know about the Trump-Russia matter, and in particular about alleged obstruction of justice in the White House, because Lewandowski and others in the Trump circle cooperated so fully with the Mueller investigation. They did so at the specific direction of the president.
And now, Democrats want to press a case of obstruction of justice against Trump.
What happened Tuesday was the second part of the Trump strategy. The first part was to cooperate with law enforcement. The second part was to not cooperate with congressional impeachment efforts.
Trump has refused to allow White House aides and former aides to testify before the impeachment panel; at the direction of the White House, two former aides, Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter, refused to appear alongside Lewandowski Tuesday. McGahn, also at the direction of the White House, has refused to testify before the committee. The House has gone to court to compel McGahn’s testimony, but a favorable decision is not guaranteed and in any event will take a long time.
Lewandowski, who never worked in the White House, did appear and made clear he would address the specific contents of the Mueller report. Indeed, when he was asked to confirm this or that passage in the report, he did. In that sense, his testimony was like that of Mueller himself, who sought to stay within the boundaries of the report when he testified before Congress.
The Trump-Russia affair is the anti-Watergate in the sense that the president and his team cooperated extensively with the special counsel, which will make the Judiciary Committee’s task of pressing an obstruction of justice case against them all the more difficult.
But what about Nadler’s specific point, about Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment? (For the curious, Article 2 accused Nixon of abusing federal powers to go after his enemies.) Article 3 charged that Nixon “failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.”
Of course, House leaders, if they can muster 218 votes, can impeach the president for virtually anything they choose. But practically, they need a court to rule that the needs of their impeachment inquiry outweigh any White House claims of privilege. Again, Democrats are looking back to the days of Watergate, when U.S. v. Nixon said the needs of a criminal trial outweighed the president’s claim of privilege. But of course, with Mueller, Trump has already cooperated with the criminal investigation.
The bottom line is that Trump has flummoxed Watergate-fixated Democrats with a simple strategy: cooperate with the special counsel. In not cooperating with the Judiciary Committee leadership, he is in effect arguing that he has already cooperated with the important investigation and does not have to cooperate with a political investigation on Capitol Hill, especially when the House leadership cannot decide whether it is a formal impeachment proceeding or not.

Washington Examiner

UNEXPECTEDLY: Washington Post stands by bogus report claiming North Carolina GOP held vote while Dem…

UNEXPECTEDLY: Washington Post stands by bogus report claiming North Carolina GOP held vote while Democrats were at 9/11 ceremony . “You may want to sit down for this one: A major newsroom published a bogus story this week casting Republicans as villains and Democrats as noble victims.

Source: UNEXPECTEDLY: Washington Post stands by bogus report claiming North Carolina GOP held vote while Dem…