Morning Fog

Kerfuffle At U of Virginia Over Hiring A Trump Aide

A recent dispute at U-VA offers an interesting follow-up to my last post.  In Charlottesville, where last year a neo-Nazi rally turned deadly and Trump suggested that there were good people on both sides, the University of Virginia, a respectable bastion of academic freedom if not exactly a 1960s-style Berkeley, has agreed to hire one Marc Short as a senor fellow at the University-affiliated Miller Center.  The Center, according to the Washington Post, focuses on "presidential scholarship and public policy."  Mr. Short (who by the way has an MBA from U-VA) just left the White House staff last week, where he was legislative affairs director for the President.

An online petition nicely encapsulates the protest view: "The university should not serve as a waystation for high-level members of an administration that has directly harmed our community and … attacks the institutions vital to a free society.... we do not object to dialogue … [but] to the use of our university to clean up their tarnished reputations."

Short is a long-time Republican operator, and has predictable history with a variety of GOP figures ranging back decades. In his latest job, he obviously would have had to support some of the more controversial Trump positions. He has recently conceded that the White House could have handled the Charlottesville incident better. The University and the Miller Center are defending his appointment as representing the spirit of bipartisanship.

I feel certain that Mr. Short's appointment is secure, the opposition won't gain much traction. It's the norm, and it's legitimate.  After all, as Americans, I think, we mostly accept the revolving door between government (even administrations we don't like), business, and academia. We expect that those who serve in government (both career civil servants and the Presidential appointees) will support the policies of the President for whom they work, and that elected politicians will likewise naturally favor their party's positions.

But this small tempest does raise some interesting questions. It seems to me Trump's excesses have created new obstacles to this easy acceptance of those who themselves too easily accepted, and even supported, lies, racism, humanitarian abuses, and very possibly illegal meddling in an election. These are not things we became used to dealing with in previous administrations. When exactly should we expect an official's moral code to make him/her say "enough?"  And when she/he fails to do so, is it sufficient - when offenses reach trumpian egregiousness and even unlawfulness - for them to just apologize for a mistake in judgment as they move on to exercise their awful judgment elsewhere?  And does their level of commitment make a difference - a cabinet Secretary, or a ? 

Tough questions. History tells us they aren't new ones. I don't have definitive answers. But I feel certain that those who want to pass through the good ol' revolving door in future should legitimately expect to encounter a lot more pushing back from the other side. It's another way (not a good one) that Our National Embarrassment will have altered our political system. Maybe something Mr. Short will want to consider in his new role of examining "presidential scholarship and public policy."

Body Cams - Who Sees What?

In the wake of so many recent missteps between police and the civilian population, many sociologists, police departments, and others have embraced body cams as the ideal solution to prevent, or at least clarify, incidents where facts are in dispute or things boil down to one party's word against the other's.

I agree, up to a point, but an argument is developing between police authorities, who in Washington DC and in some others areas are choosing to restrict broad access to the recordings, and absolutists, who proclaim all body-cam footage should be fully accessible to the public. 

I'm with the cops on this. To date, DC police chief Cathy Lanier has mainly cited concerns about the privacy of individuals who turn up in such recordings, combined with the inability of hard-pressed and money-squeezed police departments to devote the time needed to edit out the innocents from such material.   The authors of the referenced Washington Post opinion piece, Adam Marshall and Katie Townsend, say there are "robust privacy protections" that can protect individuals.  That's unconvincing, and terribly naïve, when any idiot knows that whatever gets out in the public "eye" nowadays pretty much remains there.

But to my mind there's a greater danger in total access to everything on body cams.  And not just the unimaginable proliferation of records that will seemingly need to be kept in perpetuity, though that's clearly a drag on society as a whole as well. 

No, the main point is that it represents a further perversion of that process between "law" and "justice" I referred to in my last post.  Many things will show up on a camera that after the fact, will seem evident but may not even have been noticeable by the participants.  I would foresee endless second-guessing of what actually occurred, and what the police or other participants actually saw. People say that's what body cams show. I think they show what they might have seen.  

In serious cases, obviously, we will expect - and get - release of body cam recordings so that disputes can be resolved, and justice delivered, even to errant police officers when necessary.  Again here, the authors are being disingenuous to suggest that ALL videos will forever be inaccessible to the public.  I have no real concern that laws restricting total access would "destroy the very reason for using this technology." 

But extending access to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet looks like overreach to me.  It simply opens the door to lawyerly fishing expeditions into completely routine cases.  The result would be more clogged courts, ballooning costs of administration, delays, and extra work; but on the bright side - lots of billable hours.   

 

Time To STOP With The SCOPs

Here's the second of several reports that drove home the extent to which it seems the rights and expectations of the "average Joe" are under assault on multiple fronts:  "Private Police Carry Guns and Make Arrests...." 

This report from the Washington Post reminds us of the rapid growth of privately-employed cops.  It's particularly concerning in Virginia, where the law allows anyone to apply to become a "special conservator of the peace," or "SCoP," get a permit, a badge, and a weapon, and head out on the streets to police people's behavior and even to make arrests!

Our concerns about security in American society have run rampant in recent years, with concerns about terrorism, a seeming rise in crime (notwithstanding statistics indicating the opposite in some categories), and an inchoate sense of concern for our well-being that is probably due to the fact that every day we can read a fresh report of someone setting new precedents in wacko/violent/inhuman crime.

In the "national capital area," as our metropolis is sometimes called, it's well known that we already have a surfeit of security forces.  Not only are there three different states (let's count the District as one of those!), but about three times that number of counties, and cities, each typically with its own police force, highway patrol, and sheriffs to boot.   Add in the forces that nearly every federal government agency here has (e.g. National Parks Police, National Capitol Police, .... ).  And like most parts of the country, there are a host of private security forces protecting apartment complexes, shopping centers, gated communities.   Not just banks, but even ordinary stores nowadays, may have their own security personnel.  (Maybe that's not entirely new; in the mid-1960s when I lived briefly in the Dundalk area of Baltimore, the local Burger King had an armed guard!).

But with SCoPs we may have gone too far.  The fellow featured in the Post article may be a fine exemplar of the breed - he is a former cop, he hires himself out as a police force of one to a handful of residential communities, he considers himself a role model and community leader who helps supplement the real police force.  That's all well and good.  I can understand the desire on the part of property owners to have a security presence more immediate than the harried police force; I can understand, too, that Mr. Youlen may indeed relieve some of the pressure on police to handle minor rule infractions and free them up to take care of more serious matters.

But there are far too many questions.  There is little or no supervision of the licensing of these SCoPs; can anyone be assured that every one of them handles himself as professionally as Youlen says he does?  What does the power of "arrest" mean - can one of these guys pull me over to accuse me of speeding in a street that runs by his neighborhood?  There have been complaints when some of them have gone off the rails.   Do the residents of these communities agree in the leases/condo rules to be policed by the unpolice?  

Lawmakers are now considering requiring increased training for them, but this seems hardly sufficient.   I'd suggest they should not be armed, should not have badges that say "police,"  and should not have arrest powers. 

The existence of SCoPs, whose numbers in Virginia have doubled in the past 10 years, should awaken us to the need to look far more closely at even the security forces we are more accustomed to - the guys at the bank, the mall, the federal office building - they all meet a need, and no doubt 99.5% of them perform their durites responsibly.  But do we really know what their authority over us is?

Cantor Can't

This past Tuesday, as I quietly beavered away as a volunteer election official in the Virginia primary election in my own District 8, unbeknownst to me history was being made elsewhere in the state.

I refer of course to the upset victory of the upstart David Brat over the well-known House majority leader and Speaker-presumptive, Eric Cantor, in the 7th District, to my south.  This outcome triggered an absolute flood of pundit chatter, chin-wagging, blog posts, and newsprint stories (the Washington Post had 11, covering most of 10 pages of the A section). 

Surprise? Yes, especially to Cantor, it seems, though as the stories come out, it looks as if he and the media ignored some warning signs.

Cantor's defeat fits right in with my working theory that Republican voters are working hard to shoot themselves in the foot.  Cantor's (now Brat's) district is a conglomeration of mainly rural, God-fearing counties, centered on the city of Richmond, which is still fighting the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, as many of them call it down there).  So we might expect certain things from the voters -- conservatism, anti-immigration, and perhaps a certain preference for white Christian candidates.  So, Cantor already doesn't fit the picture - he's Jewish.

Yet wouldn't a rational electorate be thinking of the future Cantor had -- most likely the next Speaker of the House, the most influential Congressman of all -- right up there representing their interests?  Evidently not.  BLAM!  There goes their left foot.

There are many interesting aspects to this little election.  As one fellow-blogger has pointed out, it does at least suggest that a huge fundraising advantage does not necessarily win elections.

Also, to look ahead a bit, many analysts' immediate prediction was that Cantor's political demise would put paid to hopes of passing any immigration reform this year or next.   I don't think that's necessarily true.  Brat's victory, in isolation, doesn't tell us much about the political balance that will result after November.    

Infra Digs - A Tale Of Two Tunnels

In Washington, DC, a 110-year-old dirt-floored one-track railroad tunnel owned by CSX has become a major bottleneck in the busy north-south freight rail corridor that sees 20 to 30 trains passing daily.  (Photo is from the DC project website.) The company states what seems obvious: the tunnel needs structural repair, a higher ceiling to accommodate today's trains, and expansion to two tracks.  Neighbors and some local politicians oppose the work on the grounds it will disrupt their neighborhood. 

I think it's pretty certain that in due course the work will be approved and will proceed.  Yet the fact that things have got to this point is another manifestation of the miserable state of our country's infrastructure.

Perhaps all is not hopeless, though.  Not so far away, another tunnel - this one intended to carry sewage, is in the early stages of construction.  It will be far larger and grander than the fusty little train tunnel above, with a diameter of about 25 feet (that's a lot of sewage!).  It employs an amazing, immense, high-tech underground tunnel boring apparatus that digs, removes the dirt, and slaps up walls all in one continuous process.   (Photo from the DC Water/Sewer Authority website.)  Most important, it's a sort of counterbalance to the Virginia Avenue tunnel above.  Here, modern technology is taking a crack at resolving an issue of old, antiquated, and poorly designed infrastructure. 

Fancy as this new project is, however, it almost certainly will have one flaw, the one it shares with the much older train tunnel:  Over time, it will inevitably deteriorate.  And we can be certain that whatever plans have been made at this point for its maintenance, repair, and replacement will just as inevitably be found lacking.   

   

Washington DC - Ukrainian Spoken Here

In a conversation with a friend this morning, I said Ukraine's position in the geographic and strategic shadow of Russia meant that it may need to reconcile to being a nation with somewhat less than full freedom - like Finland, if you will.

Later, it also occurred to me how that analogy might also be extended to the District of Columbia, where in effect, the rest of the nation bullies the DC into accepting less than complete political rights. 

The people of DC still have no voting voice in Congress - a single representative in the House without a vote, and no Senator representing them (Wyoming, with a smaller population, has two).  Further, they put up almost constantly with outrageous interference in local matters by Congressmen who by definition come from somewhere else (Moscow, maybe?).

It's nice to talk of our support for democracy abroad; I feel certain we will eventually apply some sanctions to Russia; but wouldn't it be nice if we could get our own house in order too?  It would give us a firmer leg to stand on.

 

It's Fate

Political commentator Chris Cilizza's feature article on who had the worst year in Washington seems about on target - Obama "wins" the mantle of worst year, with the  Republican Party having had just a very bad year, and John Kerry and Chris Christie very good ones. 

Now, for me, the very concept of "worst year" or having a bad year hinges on those occurrences that are accidents or things we can't avoid.  In other words, fate.  This is something we also know from our own lives. Curiously, though, in his exposition, Cilizza several times suggests that Obama (and certain of the others) engineered their own bad year.  In different places, for example, he writes that Obama "wasted," squandered," or "torpedoed" what should have been the best year to establish his legacy.

I can't see that.  In fact, most of the factors mentioned (IRS scandal, the Snowden leaks, disarray in the Republican Party) were hardly matters that Obama could have controlled.  Only in the instance of the Affordable Care Act, where the President could have avoided a disaster by paying more attention to what his minions were doing, was the wound at least partly self-inflicted.  

So truly, for Obama, and for the others (the GOP, Virginia Governor McDonnell, Redskins QB Robert Griffin, Kerry, or Christie) it was the turn of circumstance that did them in. 

Coincidentally (or not), in the same newspaper, within a few pages of Cilizza's article, is a review of the new book Strategy, by Lawrence Freedman.  The juxtaposition is instructive.  The reviewer, University of St. Andrews prof Gerard deGroot, suggests that the chief lesson of Freedman's history of great strategists is that "the most careful arrangements often run aground on the shoals of circumstance."   Too true!

Reading The Tea Leaves In Virginia

In purple Virginia yesterday, the Democratic candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, edged out tea-party Republican Ken Cuccinelli.  In New Jersey, a blue state, "red" Governor Chris Christie won another term with 60% of the vote.

Pundits leaped into action this morning, several of them pointing to the "obvious" lesson these two elections offered the tea party, i.e. (according to the analysts) that moderation will win elections for Republicans, while the more extreme postures of the party's right wing will not.

I don't think this lesson is obvious, though -- not for the ones who need to learn it.  First, if the tea party faction were realists, they would long ago have abandoned the positions that voters have rejected many times already.  If they were realists, they might recognize that McAuliffe's margin might have been still larger if he were a stellar candidate, or if he weren't perceived in many necks of Virginia's woods as a carpet-bagger.  They won't easily accept an objective analysis of this defeat, because they're zealots, not politicians -- dogmatic purity is more important than political pragmatism.  

Second, we can't forget the spoiler candidacy of a Libertarian candidate who captured over 6 percent of the vote.  Together, the Republican and the Libertarian polled 54+ % - won't tea-party types consider their view exonerated?  They may rail against the Libertarian, as Democrats had occasion to rail against Ralph Nader on more than one occasion, but they'll feel confident that deep down, Virginia is still "red."

Thus, Virginia elections won't necessarily to put much of a crimp in Mr. Cuccinelli's political assessments.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, in more local elections, it appears the Republican Party missed an opportunity.  The all-Democratic Arlington County Board has developed and pushed a plan to turn a short length of busy commercial street into a trolley line that will lead from nowhere, to nowhere.   With only one dissenting voice, the Board steadfastly ignores studies demonstrating that simpler high-capacity buses on this route would cost only 1/3 as much.  They are zealots, too, and like their tea-party counterparts, they're not about to let conflicting reality, nor the views of voters, stand in the way.

Now, a voter looking to protest this attitude might have gone to the polls Tuesday with a view to ousting Jay Fisette, the one (of five) Board members who was up for reelection.  That voter's choices, though, would be limited to the Green Party candidate.  Republicans, taking Arlington's 68% Democratic-leaning history, have got in the habit of not running opposing candidates.  This was an opportunity missed -- the Green candidate polled 34% -- not even close, but a pretty good showing for a Green, and something the Democrats might want to look at closely.  But again like their tea-party counterparts, there is no guarantee they will heed obvious signs of trouble ahead. 

Unless ... perhaps today's announcement -- less than 24 hours after the election! -- by Chris Zimmerman, another Board member, that he is leaving his position for another job, may indicate that he, at least, is forecasting a storm.    

 

Too Many Lawyers

Four years ago the Washington DC subway system suffered a historic accident, in which a derailed train caused the deaths of 9 people and injured many more.  Over time, naturally, there were lawsuits on behalf of the victims, all of which have been settled.  Then, suddenly there materialized another suit,, one aimed at forcing the subway system (the Metro) to divulge the costs of each of its payouts to victims.  A judge has ruled that Metro must make that information public.

I think it's a silly quest, and a damaging decision.

It was the Washington Post that initiated the suit for information.  Their claim is that this information would help clarify Metro's "financial situation."  I suppose it would.  Yet it seems to me that a simple announcement of the total amount paid out would provide the same benefit.  Instead, the publication of the settlements in individual cases would seem to me to:

- Impinge on the privacy of some of the victims or their families, in an undesirable way.

- Engender after-the-fact comparison and competition among litigants about what they were paid.

- Provide information useful mainly to liability lawyers, who would use them to figure how to reach higher settlements the next time around.

None of these, to my mind, are desirable outcomes for the long term.  Some will argue that disclosure is essential because Metro is a government agency (that's what the judge claimed).  But that begs the question of whether a private litigant -- a large corporation, for example -- might be ordered by a court to divulge the terms agreements that were concluded on the basis they would remain private.  It might happen; it would take extreme circumstances.

It's a typical, unnecessarily complicated, legal mess, and one in which the interests of the parties (in this case the people of the region) are largely disregarded (or suborned by re-defining them).

A surplus of lawyers doesn't help us.  As final evidence of the burdens too much legalism can place on our society, I would note that the judge's opinion in this case ran to 23 pages.  Wouldn't a paragraph have done?

No-Name City

Joel Achenbach has correctly identified a trend in the naming of think-tanks and lobbying groups:  the political ones, and increasingly the commercial ones too, choose names that purposely obscure their affiliations and views. 

During the 2012 elections it was particularly noticeable that all the organizations panhandling for money had fuzzy-sounding names involving various permutations of the words "America," "freedom," "justice," "future," and the like.  You would be hard put to figure out what side they represented.

No doubt that's part of the charm of anodyne names; give people a bland name and a vaguely postitive phrase or two, and they may click on a link and send you some money without figuring out that they're contributing to a cause they hate. 

It might also be a necessary tactic, in the days of the internet when people choose their reading matter according to what they already agree with, to try to get your views at least considered by a wider spectrum of the population (or in the case of influence-peddlers, to get yourself a meeting with a congressperson on the other side of the fence).

It's possible that the seemingly deceptive practice of neutral naming is a positive trend, if it can manage to get people exposing themselves occasionally to ideas they don't already subscribe to.  Possible but, I fear, unlikely, if the messages themselves continue to be based more on dogma than on concern for honest and realistic policy-making.