Megan McArdle still doesn’t have any multivariate regressions on her site, but she does have a clear description of how moral hazard can lead to economically inefficient investment decisions. She relates this to the social security privatization debate.

For me, the bottom line is that current social security goes to fund government, which is just about the least economically efficient use possible. Even so, I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that the government can offer a “return” of 1.25% on social security money. That’s 25% of the lowball estimate of US equity returns. Moral hazard would have to decrease average equity returns by 75% before a privatized social security system became a worse deal than the current system.

Apropos of a discussion I had with a cousin of mine this afternoon, I want to pose the question: when does an organization go bad? It seems to me that there is a continuum between organizations that are so bad that just joining makes you morally suspect, and those that are so good that one is compelled to give its members the benefit of the doubt beyond what you would give others.

The Nazi party, al-Qaeda, and the KKK would be organizations on one end of the continuum. If you know that someone has joined those organizations, you are justified in surmising that the person is more evil than average.

Contrawise, joining any fire department implies that one is, if not actually on a higher moral plane, at least entitled to more of the benefit of the doubt than average. I personally feel the same way about Salvation Army officers. Those organizations have a reputation of doing good, for few rewards, and (especially for firemen) at great personal risk. Therefore, it’s a safe bet that anyone who joins is likely to be more selfless and giving, and perhaps even good, than the general public.

So this is what I’m thinking about: where are the borders between one type of organization and another? In particular, when does an organization stop being morally neutral and become so bad that joining it implies some sort of moral failing? It seems that there are two influential and important organizations which are drifting into just such immorality as we watch. Ironically, membership in both those organizations has been thought of as “good” in the past, but is rapidly becoming an indication of evil.

Those two groups are the Catholic Bishopric and the FBI. I’m going to write about the FBI first, because I might not have time to address both, and I’m more concerned with the FBI, since I have to pay for it even as it degenerates into a modern version of the SS.

In recent years, the FBI has been responsible for almost every type of crime which past generations might have expected it to fight:

Mass murder. Try mass incineration of men, women and children, live on international TV, at Waco, followed by a multi-year coverup of same.

Home assault. Look at Ruby Ridge. (An aside: While I'm on the topic of home assault and incineration, I also suggest that you look up the death of James Beck, who was burned to death in his home as homes on either side of him were doused with water. The embers were bulldozed within 48 hours. The ATF, but not the FBI, was involved).

Espionage on behalf of the Russians (before and after the fall of the evil empire). Done by FBI special agent Robert Hansen.

Perjury, false imprisonment, and knowing protection of murderers. All done in the case of Joseph Salvati, set up by the FBI, and imprisoned for 30 years for a murder he didn’t commit, so that the FBI could protect Joseph "the Animal" Barboza. Barboza, now thought to be the real killer, was one of the FBI’s informants, and Salvati spent 30 years in jail to cover up the FBI’s connection with him.

Random street violence. There’s an example of that on this very blog, just a few posts down.

False imprisonment and perjury (if Wen Ho Lee was innocent) or setting free communist spies (if Wen Ho Lee was guilty). Check.

The FBI was too busy committing all these crimes to stop terrorists, even those they knew about, from getting into the United States. The FBI was even too busy to pay attention to pleas from a Minnesota flight school to check out Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the flight school’s students.

It is perfectly clear that the FBI has already sullied its reputation to the point that honest citizens should question anything they say. When, however, is the organization bad enough to sully the reputation of everyone who joins it? This goes back to the conversation I was having with my cousin, described at the top of this post. The cousin is thinking about joining the FBI.

While I love my cousin, and I know he is a decent, honest, gentle young man, I would loose respect for him if he was to knowingly join an evil organization. Again, I refer to the top of this post: if my cousin joined the Nazi party, I would know that there was something wrong with him. If he joined any fire department (something he’s talked about as an alternative to the FBI), I would know that he was a better person than I give him credit for, and certainly a better person than I am. So what about the FBI?

My cousin says, perfectly reasonably, that he thinks the FBI has made mistakes, but that it’s basically committed to good, and that he wants to make it better from the inside. I know that he believes what he is saying, and that makes me think that most of the young people who join the FBI this year can also believe the same thing. However, at some point, it must become clear to any observer that the FBI is beyond redemption, and making it “better” from the inside is likely to be as effective as trying to make a traveling minstrel show out of the 1940’s einsatzgruppen. When it’s that obvious, then anyone who joins can safely be said to be evil.

So when does that time come? How many crimes and coverups does an organization have to commit before it’s obvious that there’s a problem? More difficult to answer: how many crimes have to be committed before it must be obvious to the 22 year old young people who make up the junior ranks, and hence an indictment of the character of those who do join? I know from personal experience that 22 year old men are pretty clueless; I look back on my 22nd year, and count myself lucky to have survived at all. A lot of the kids who join any organization, honest or corrupt, don’t really know what they are getting into. But, again, at some point, it must become obvious, even to 22 year olds, that there’s a problem. Mustn’t it?

I suggested to my cousin that, if he wants to become a peace officer (note that I did NOT say law enforcement officer) that he move to Texas, join a Texas agency, and work on becoming a Texas Ranger. They seem squeaky-clean.

Well, if you have any thoughts on this topic, please comment. Like the blog says, I’m trying to make sense, and maybe others are as well.

I finally put a comment system on this blog. Yes, I probably should have done this earlier, but this is a work-in-progress, and I'm learning as I go. I want to encourage anyone who wants to comment to do so. Thank you.

I’ve never been to Zimbabwe, or, indeed, to any of sub-sahran Africa. What I know about Africa is scant; it’s certainly less than what I don’t know about the continent.

Even so, however, something struck me as wrong with this article from the LA Times today, Resettled and Happy in Zimbabwe. The title portrays the spirit of this piece on the day of Zimbabwean national elections.

Somehow, the LA Times seems to have glossed over points made in this story U.S. Assails Zimbabwe Ruling Party ....On the eve of elections in Zimbabwe, the State Department accused the country's ruling party of resorting to violence, intimidation and manipulation to ensure President Robert Mugabe's re-election.. Then there's Thousands Can't Vote in Zimbabwe. Let's not forget this, HUNGER BECOMES THE GRIM REALITY FOR MANY, and Mugabe facing unrest over food shortages, probably caused by this:Zimbabwe farmers flee, start over. Then there's this: Blair calls behavior of Zimbabwe's leader outrageous .

I could go on for pages, but the point is made. I think. Based strictly on the sheer volume and variety of stories about how Zimbabwe is descending into a violent, hungry dictatorship, I have serious doubts about the LA Times version. That leads me to wonder: why is the LA Times propping up the US image of a brutal dictator? What could they possibly have to gain? Does anyone out there know?

Update: LittleGreenFootballs has an interesting post on further LA Times perfidy.

Surprise, surprise, the most horrible example of prosecutorial misconduct comes from the fair city of Chicago. William Heirens, then a bright high school student, and since the first prisoner in Illinois to get a college degree behind bars, was charged with triple murder in 1946. He was injected with sodium pentothal, and, WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE PENTOTHAL made a “confession” that eventually led to his conviction. There were “inconsistencies” in the physical evidence presented, and prosecutors admitted that they would have had a hard time convicting him without the “confessions.” Though another man had already confessed to the murders, Heirens is still in prison, now 78 years old.

For those of you who haven’t seen someone injected with sodium pentothal, let me try to explain the problem here. Sodium pentothal, aka “truth serum” makes people tell the truth only in the comic book world. Here in the real world, it does NOT make people tell the truth. In low doses, sodium pentothal can make people babble incoherently, and frequently repeat whatever they are told (an event called "echolalia"). Imagine being bone-tired, drunk, and stoned, all at once. What someone says under the influence of sodium pentothal has as much relation to the truth as what you would expect to come out of the mouth of someone who’s been awake for 48 hours, just finished with a fifth of scotch, and on his tenth doobie.

To convict someone on the basis of a “confession” extracted under sodium pentothal is something that I would have associated with the Spanish inquisition, or the Salem witch courts, had they known about barbiturates back then. Even though I grew up in Chicago, it still surprises me that the Chicago PD and district attorney was, and continues to be, so depraved.


UPDATE:
Oh no. This sort of thing is still going on. I don't know what drugs Charles Thomas Sell is going to be put on, but whatever drug it is an "antipsychotic" in just about the same way sodium penothal is a "truth serum." Another name for most classes of antipsychotic drugs is "major depressants." These drugs basically slow you down. Yes, some people function better when they are slowed down, but to pretend that injecting criminial defendants with these drugs won't have an effect on their ability to defend themselves .... well, history will be the judge, I suppose.

UPDATE 2: It's worse. Dr. Sell isn't being medicated because he's a danger to self or others, but because he's "delusional." The court below held that Dr. Sell was “delusional” because he:
(i) thought there was a government plot to cover up illegal behavior by corrupt individuals to spread HIV worldwide;
(ii) thought there was a government effort to cover up defendant’s knowledge of the government’s culpability in the Waco deaths, where defendant was summoned to serve at that time as an Army Reservist; and
(iii) thought he should go to Bosnia, and that if he was prevented from going there then somebody wanted a lot of American boys dead.

So, he's being medicated because he doesn't trust the government.

Nonuniformed FBI agent in an unmarked car stops an innocent eagle scout and shoots him in the face. FBI claims this was in the process of hunting down a bank robber who happened to be driving the same kind of car, though the FBI has yet to identify exactly what bank was robbed, what kind of car the “robber” was driving, or anything else. FBI agents on the scene don’t call for medical help, but wait for the eagle scout to die (according to a WBAL Ron Smith Show radio interview with the father of the driver of the car; can’t find a link right now); when he doesn't oblige, they finally call for help from local paramedics.

It is evident from the story that the eagle scout and his girlfriend were trapped by the FBI, and that some FBI agent felt safe enough to WALK to their car and shoot the eagle scout.

The FBI has released no information about the shooting, including any corroborative evidence concerning the existence of the “bank robber,” the name of the shooter, the reason for the shooting, the reason for not calling paramedics right away, the reason for leaving cover to approach the car with the supposed dangerous “bank robber” in it, the reason the license plate of the car was not run to determine if the car was likely involved in a bank robbery, or the disciplinary actions taken or contemplated against the shooter. A government official wounded or killed someone, and the first instinct of the FBI is to cover up for him.

At the very least, this shooting was negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime. It’s too early to tell, but for all we know, this might wind up being a case of murder in the first degree (yes, I know murder requires malice aforethought; the lack of information supplied by the FBI implies, to me, that such malice might have existed. And yes, I know the eagle scout is still alive; that, too, might change). Even though it is clear the FBI agent committed a crime, it is certain that no criminal prosecutions will be forthcoming against him or her.

I generally welcome emails to help me make sense of the things I write about. I don’t need any such emails about this case. We live in a police state, where our very lives are at the mercy of government officials, and it’s only through fortuitous circumstances (like the eagle scout not dying as he lay on the sidewalk without medical attention, and the responsible FBI agent hesitating to put a “throwdown” in the car) that the true nature of the police state is documented.

UPDATE:
The shooter is FBI Special Agent Christopher Braga. Agent Braga is on paid administrative leave, at his request, since the shooting March 1 of Joseph C. Schultz. Note: paid admin leave, not suspension.

The practitioners of what we call “high risk” medical specialties, such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and obstetrics, regularly create more value than almost any other professionals. For example, a good trauma surgeon, at the expense of a knife, some string, needles, and OR time, can create, for his patient, the opportunity to live for decades longer than fate might have otherwise decreed. Whatever such a saved patient creates for the rest of his life is possible only because of the work done by the surgeon. Multiply that by a few cases a night for forty years, and the value created by each surgeon really adds up.

Specialty physicians give away to their patients most of the value they create, asking only a few thousand dollars in exchange for making continued life possible, but enough value remains that specialists have traditionally been able to make a comfortable living. Even the small sums medical specialists charge, however, are now overshadowed by the amounts they pay to lawyers (via insurance companies).

It makes sense that lawyers would want to get a share of the value created by physicians. Who wouldn’t? Medical specialists make not-inconsiderable salaries. On the other hand, medical school is long, intense, and expensive. Practicing specialty medicine correctly is a difficult skill that requires constant updating of a physician’s knowledge. So it really doesn’t surprise me that lawyers would want to capture that value without having to go through medical school.

The part that saddens me is that our laws and procedures are becoming more and more arranged to make that possible. Huge jury awards for “malpractice” don’t punish bad physicians so much as they are a lawyer tax, collected on occasions dictated by the unavoidable vagaries of fate, on working doctors.

Some surgeons have noticed this, and have retired or gone into other fields. That’s a documentable result of lawyers claiming for themselves value that they didn’t create. What’s not so obvious, however, is the talented, intelligent people who would have been surgeons who have, instead, become tort lawyers or other parasites. The number of US medical school applications has dropped by 10% a year for half a decade now, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the quality of applicants has dropped even more precipitously.

Fifteen years from now, the young person who is starting medical school this September may be the surgeon you need after you get hit by a bus. Money is only part of the motivation to be a doctor, but does it make sense to reduce the expected income of that future surgeon, in order to pay a lawyer who will contribute nothing to the chance you survive that impact with the bus? Aren’t you just a little bit concerned that such a practice will reduce the chances that the very strongest potential medical students will become trauma surgeons in the first place? Reducing the lawyer tax might be a first step to saving your life.

DENVER, COLORADO -- The Department of Justice announced that Benny Bailey of Denver, Colorado, formerly a Deputy United States Marshal for the District of Colorado, was indicted today by a federal grand jury in a two-count indictment charging him with perjury and false statements. If convicted, Bailey faces on each count up to five years in prison and a fine of not more than $250,000.

According to the indictment, Bailey helped supervise the jury in the 1997 trial of Timothy McVeigh, who had been charged with bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. After the McVeigh trial concluded in June, 1997, Bailey became involved in an intimate relationship with an alternate juror from the trial. In 1998 the trial court and, subsequently, defense counsel for McVeigh, received anonymous facsimiles alleging that Bailey and the alternate juror had an intimate relationship during the McVeigh trial and that Bailey attempted to influence the outcome of the trial by persuading this juror of McVeigh's guilt. As a result of these anonymous facsimiles, the U.S. Marshals Service and the McVeigh trial judge investigated whether or not any improprieties had occurred between Bailey and any of the McVeigh jurors.


The baliff in charge of the McVeigh jurors is thought to have an a relationship with one of the jurors WHILE THE TRIAL WAS GOING ON. This might just be a love story, or it might be the fed's way of learning about jury deliberations as they were going on. If it's the latter, then ... well, the implications are clear.

This one really does justice to the theme of this blog:

Use a Gun, Get a Ticker
Why should taxpayers shell out a million bucks for a crook's transplant?

BY COLLIN LEVEY
Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
…. (an inmate in California) serving 14 years for armed robbery, last month received a $913,000 heart transplant at the top-flight Stanford medical center, paid for by the state's taxpayers. Statistically speaking, he now has a 74% chance of living through the next five years of his incarceration. Here's hoping he opts for the low-cholesterol meal plan on the prison menu.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for years, in one context or other. When I was an intern, I once had a patient who had been through five, (5), no that’s not a misprint, FIVE heart transplants. (Truth-in-blogging: this was well over a decade ago, so I can't remember whether this man had already had 5 transplants, or was on his fourth heading to his fifth. I am certain, however, that he'd had more than one transplant already) He was in my ICU with shortness of breath as his latest heart was failing. He probably would have had chest pains, except that he was working on a transplanted heart, and there were no pain fibers running from the heart to his brain. This man was (1) Obese and (2) just done with a cigarette when he rolled in. He also admitted to eating whatever he wanted (i.e. steak) when he was outside. Meanwhile, it’s a guarantee that the general public was paying for his care one way or another. Given the cost-shifting that goes on at major academic medical centers, either Medicare, healthy insurance customers, or the University Endowment was taking a major kick in the teeth for the benefit of a man who was making almost no effort to reduce his need for another transplant. I doubt it was the University Endowment.

I have a T-shirt from the Charity Hospital Emergency Medical Services in New Orleans. The T-shirt says “The life you save … may take your own.” That’s not just a slogan. Many of the patients at any urban medical center would, if they weren’t restrained, casually kill and rob the doctors who are loosing sleep to keep them alive. There was a mass shooting at the LA County ER in 1992 or 1993. Simple assault by people who are alive only because their victims kept them so, happens every day.

And now this case from the California Prison System. I have worked as a prison doc, and I spent a lot of my time behind the walls thinking about issues like this.


So here’s the common thread about which I’m trying to make sense: under what circumstances should “society” pay for the health care of people who are, through their own fault, a net drain or a net danger to society? How do we as a “society” make those decisions? I actually have an answer, and it’s one that the transplant surgeons are going to hate. Actually, I’m not too happy with my answer either, for reasons I’ll get to below.

My answer to the question about what we owe to the irresponsible and the dangerous? Nothing. Let them die. The irresponsible have already demonstrated that they don’t value their own lives enough to give up smoking or red meat.

The dangerous are even worse: they don’t value life enough even to give up shooting sprees and violent crime. I mean, I might be able to speculate that nicotine is physically addictive, so smokers might really value life, and yet be unable to stop smoking (though I doubt it). I am unable to concede that being willing to criminally fire off a gun into a crowd of strangers is in any way compatible with a respect for life. (note to hyper-critical readers: I said criminally fire a gun. I am not talking about acts of war, defense of life or property, or any justifiable, non-criminal shooting). Our bank robber, though he may not have actually killed anyone, probably demonstrated that he was willing to do so by waving a gun around and threatening everyone within earshot that he would kill them if they didn’t cooperate.

Meanwhile, it’s a good guess that the people who are paying for multiple heart transplants could find a use for that money that would buy them something they cared about, whether it be a college education for the kids or a kickin’ Fender Stratocaster. By taking money from people who might be a little happier with it, to pay for the extended life of someone who doesn’t value life anyway, we are making the general public a little worse off, and not making anyone really better off.

Well, someone is better off when we fund all sorts of transplants, and that brings me to why the transplant surgeons won’t be happy with what I just wrote. It’s an open secret among physicians that a plurality of transplant recipients, particularly on the West Coast, have blown out their own organs. Yes, I know, the CDC claims that hepatitis C is the largest reason for liver transplants, but I don’t think that tells the whole story. These people with hep C who develop liver failure tend to be exactly NOT the kind of person who developed hep C from some minor mistake, took care of himself, and then, unfortunately, got sick. Rather, the transplant recipients tend to be the ones who were alcoholics who happened to get hep C. As for kidney transplants, I have it on extremely good authority (i.e. a famous nephrologist) that approximately 85% of people on dialysis are on it because of "poor control" of hypertension or diabetes, i.e. (though this is NOT how the nephrologist put it) they just don't bother to take their pills. I’ve never seen a study that would prove or disprove what I just said, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt (though I did work in the ORs of two major liver-transplant programs, and I have anecdotal evidence from the UCLA liver transplant program for my belief. For those who don’t know, UCLA has been America’s largest liver transplant program, and may still be).


So why am I not happy with my “let ‘em all die” stance? There’s actually a very simple reason, and anyone who has read my earlier posts might have already guessed it. OK, here it is. The bottom line is that, particularly in trying to identify who is dangerous, I don’t trust the state to get it right. What if the “bank robber” who inspired this post was framed? What if he was just convicted by mistake? What if he was prosecuted on circumstantial evidence by a racist DA who was desperate to convict ANYONE, in order to cover up a previous wrongful prosecution? (see below for my very own take on what seems to be just such a case). If so, then we’ve taken away an innocent man’s ability to provide for his own healthcare. Under those circumstances, we (meaning, yes, you and me and all voters) really owe it to him to keep him alive at least until he can clear his name.

Well, as usual, you know the name of this blog. If you want to help me make sense of it, feel free to email.

The UC Irvine parking department has struck again!! Stay tuned for Kyra's rant about them!

What I believe to be an alternately misleading and just plain wrong letter in the LA Times today:

Myths Aside, Death Row Isn't Filled With Innocents


By JOSHUA MARQUIS
The recent conventional wisdom presumption that the nation's death rows are packed with innocent men and women is dead wrong …. It turns out, however, that the states with the highest reversal rates are also among the states that seek the death penalty the least and spend the most defending accused murderers ….
Most (death penalty reversals in Oregon) were for "faulty jury instructions" or other hyper-procedural errors ….

Well, of course the states with the highest reversal rates are those that spend the most defending accused murderers. If you accuse and convict someone of murder, and then spend nothing to defend him or appeal a conviction, it’s a pretty good bet that there won’t be a reversal.

And why does Mr. Marquis think that “faulty jury instructions” to the jurors who vote to convict are not related to actual innocence. For example, it’s been my experience that most people don’t understand that, should they become jurors, they need to make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. Rather, it seems that most people use the standard of “well, whatever evidence is easy for the state to present has to be good enough to get a conviction, otherwise all criminals will go free.” If jurors are not properly disabused of their incorrect ideas, and convict when the law says they shouldn’t, it is proper for us to act as if the convicted was really guilty?

Marquis goes on to praise a bill that would “restrict DNA testing to those for whom tests could establish innocence.” Yes, that’s probably the efficient thing to do, and it would probably threaten DA records as little as possible. If the purpose of our system of justice is only to protect DAs, then we should restrict DNA testing. I, on the other hand, believe that our system of justice exists to punish only those for whom guilt is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. If new technology or evidence is likely to throw a reasonable doubt on a conviction, then the convict should get a new trial. If we, the people, make a mistaken conviction because we couldn’t know any better, that might be forgivable. If we continue to uphold a mistaken conviction because we just don’t want to be bothered to find out an easily-verifiable fact, then we are guilty of at least false arrest, and possibly murder.

Marquis’s last paragraph says it all, from his point of view:
“We have far more to fear from guilty people wrongly freed by the courts than from that tiny number wrongfully imprisoned and the even smaller number of them who actually are innocent.”

Does the justice system exist only to decrease our fears, or does it exist to punish / deter / remove criminals? When we imprison innocent men only to assuage our fear of crime, we won’t actually reduce crime, though DAs will trumpet that imprisonment as a reason to feel safe. To the extent that imprisonment works at all, it works only if we ACTUALLY IMPRISON THE RIGHT PEOPLE, and not simply close cases because it’s convenient to do so.

Well, you know the title of the blog. If there’s anyone who wants to help me make sense of this, feel free to email me.

From the USS Clueless:
Man Tried in Brother's Rape Case

E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





The Associated Press
Sunday, February 24, 2002; 7:28 PM

HOUMA, La. –– A man was expected to stand trial Monday for a rape his brother was wrongly convicted of committing 19 years ago.

DNA testing that cleared Clyde Charles also showed that there was a one-in-71,400 chance that his brother Marlo Charles was the rapist.



To summarize the case for when the AP link is gone: Clyde Charles was convicted of rape in 1981, then cleared of rape by DNA technology. In the course of clearing him, the district attorney apparently found that Clyde’s brother, Marlo, had a 1/71,400 chance of being the rapist. This is AFTER the rape victim had (wrongly) identified Clyde as being the rapist. So, the victim did NOT identify Marlo as the rapist, and DNA happens to indicate that there is a 1/71,400 chance that Marlo committed the rape. Based on this, the DA decided to charge Marlo with rape.

DenBeste is spot-on in his analysis of the racial motivation behind this insane prosecution. I've lived in New Orleans for about one and a half years, and I have good friends there. There is no doubt in my mind: racism in Louisiana is out of control. It's not just that the whites hate the blacks, the blacks hate the whites, and everyone hates the Vietnamese. (in case you didn't know, there's a large contingent of Vietnamese ex-refugees who have settled down on the Gulf of Mexico). It's that so many people allow their hatred of the other groups to obliterate whatever good sense they have when it comes down to evaluating individual members of each group.

New Orleans itself is one of the most integrated cities in the US. There are practically no geographical divisions between the races and socioeconomic groups. When I lived there, I lived across the street from the CEO of one of the largest banks in the state, kitty-corner from a local crack house, and two blocks from a small island of slums. Even so, the races and socioeconomic groups don’t mix. I would bet everything I owned that the banker never went to the crack house, and that the slumdwellers never hung out in the banker’s house, even though they could look into each other’s windows. (the banker had a 12-foot high wall around his place, but you could see into his house from any two-story building around the wall).

By contrast, Chicago, IL is the least integrated city I’ve ever lived in. And it’s just about as racist.

I currently live near Los Angeles, which more integrated than Chicago, but less so than New Orleans. LA hosted the Rodney King riots of 1992.

So what’s the message here? Living in or near the riparian valleys of the heartland makes you racist? Having the races segregated is the best solution? Integration really helps? I don’t know. All I know is that racism is real, and that it interferes with intelligent assessment of each individual. Maybe pointing it out (in case it wasn’t clear what I was doing) will help encourage people to think of each other as individuals when appropriate.

E-mails detail Indiana Guard 'ghosts'

By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

'Ghost soldiers' inflate Guard numbers
Misconduct marks Guard command


WASHINGTON — Evidence continues to grow that National Guard units across the country are undermanned and have faked their troop level reports to Washington for years in order to protect their flow of federal money and to hide their inability to retain troops.



Surprise surprise, bureaucrats turn out to be crooks when they think no one is watching. Even military officers are just ordinary crooks in times of peace.

I’m from Chicago, so I’ve thought a lot about the kind of people who create ghost payrolls, and more about the kind who tolerate it. Creating ghost payrolls is simple enough to understand; the perpetrators get more money that they don’t have to share with real employees.

What’s harder to understand is the people who know about these scams but don’t benefit and don’t mind. As a former Chicagoan, I’ve been in that situation. What is it about otherwise normal people who have their tax money taken from them and stolen, and who just don’t care?

My thought: I think that the members of the general public who tolerate corruption somehow convince themselves that they are in on the gag. For me, this is most clear in Chicago, IL. Chicago was home to a crooked House Ways and Means Chairman named Dan Rostenkowski who was eventually convicted of (among other things) defrauding the federal government (and thus the Chicago taxpayers) of millions of dollars. In Chicago, Mr. Rostenkowski became a hero after coming home from his time in the federal prison. Somehow, people convinced themselves that Mr. Rostenkowski was their friend after it came to light that he was stealing their money for himself. This was even true among people who didn't gain from Mr. Rostenkowski's activities. Bizzare. It was part gross misunderstanding of economics (people didn't realize that the pork Mr. R. brought home to them was something that they paid for in higher taxes and higher prices) and mass insanity (the people who did get the pork were a large enough "rah-rah" section that even people who gained nothing from Mr. R. thought he must have been a good guy. After all, thousands of hoodlums can't be wrong.)

As shown by this story, however, the military seems to have an “off” switch for this type of behavior. When the nation is at war, military corruption suddenly seems a lot less acceptable. In fact, it’s worth noting that the ghost troop scheme, though probably flourishing for decades, became newsworthy only when the nation went to war (though an undeclared war). I don’t think that civilian government scams ever gain the kind of perceived importance that gives enough urgency to make a national story about even low level corruption.

So is the military less corrupt than civilians? Probably not, but the tolerance for military corruption is probably temporarily depressed by the war. At least I hope so.