Police shootings of unarmed persons have been all over the news lately, most recently a mentally ill homeless person on skid row in Los Angeles.
In almost every case what seems to precipitate the shooting is the officer perceiving that the suspect is trying to grab his gun.
It has made me start wondering why every police officer carries a gun, particularly in urban settings. In the case involving the LA skid row killing it appears there were 5 to 7 officers on the scene - what if some of the officers were armed only with non-lethal weapons and were charged with actually engaging suspects, while officers with weapons monitored from a distance where no one could grab their gun?
I would have officers having only non-lethal weapons be an elite force, chosen for their social skills, athleticism and fitness and they would have special training and pay. After all, guns aren't heavy and the most out of shape person in the world can shoot someone.
Police in England have generally don't carried guns except in special circumstances, and seem to have done just fine.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
A Potential Nuclear Deal With Iran - a laypersons perspective
The news is full of chatter about Benjamin Netenyahu as he uses the forum the Republican Congress gave him to try to kill a potential deal with Iran that would allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. What to make of it?
I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details. First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out. Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.
So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties. On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal. On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.
On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century. The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence. So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war. And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us.
Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons. So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes. Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can. They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives. So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.
But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility. The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors. Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations. Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Life is a zero sum game, compete or die. The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".
That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it. But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive.
Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview. He is against every treaty with any "them". Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.
At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.
I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details. First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out. Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.
So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties. On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal. On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.
On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century. The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence. So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war. And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us.
Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons. So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes. Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can. They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives. So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.
But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility. The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors. Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations. Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Life is a zero sum game, compete or die. The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".
That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it. But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive.
Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview. He is against every treaty with any "them". Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.
At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)