Reason Magazine - Staff

Bill Me, Baby

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:53:00 EDT

People calling a federal phone number to order duck stamps are instead greeted by a phone-sex line, due to a printing error the government says would be too expensive to correct. The carrier card for the duck stamp transposes two numbers, so instead of listing 1-800-782-6724, it lists 1-800-872-6724. The first number spells out 1-800-STAMP24, while the second number spells out 1-800-TRAMP24.

People calling that second number are welcomed by "Intimate Connections" and enticed by a husky female voice to "talk only to the girls that turn you on," for $1.99 a minute.

I'm sure the collective wit of H&R commenters can produce a better pun than the one in my headline.

Another Isolated Incident

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:59:00 EDT

Last June, police in St. Louis broke in to the home of an 86-year-old woman, deployed a "smoke bomb," and turned her place upside down in what looks to be a mistaken drug raid. A clergyman from the woman's church has been trying to get an apology and compensation, but thus far has been rebuffed by city officials.

“We’ve been battling since June,” Brown said. “The (police) board is for the birds, when it comes to citizens. I talked to one board member, but he was very insulting. They just closed the door in our face.”

Valentine wants an apology from the department and compensation for the damage done to her psyche and home.

“She’s scared, and when she hears loud noises outside she thinks it’s the police coming in her house,” Brown said.
[...]
“When they realized they’d been had, why didn’t they just get everyone’s information and write a report for a complaint number and take it to the City counselor, who could get the right department to pay for damages?” Broughton said.

Instead, Valentine and Brown said the officers threatened to the take the elderly lady’s house when they left.

Police tore down Valentine's door, ripped up her walls, sliced open her mattress, and seized a safe containing stationery. They found no drugs, made no arrests, and, three months later, have made no offer to compensate her for the damage done to her home.

Internal Investigation: Slaughter of Mayor's Dogs During Botched Drug Raid Justified

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:48:00 EDT

In a decision that shouldn't surprise anyone, an internal investigation by the Prince George's County, Maryland Sheriff's Department has determined that raiding officers acted entirely appropriately when they shot and killed two pet labradors during a mistaken drug raid at the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.

Neither Calvo nor his mother-in-law—both in the house as the raid transpired—were interviewed for the investigation. Calvo says one of the dogs was shot as it was running away, an assertion supported by a veterinary examination showing an entry wound to the back of one of the dog's legs.

Prior posts on the Calvo raid here. I'll be speaking on a panel with Calvo and Peter Christ of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition on Thursday, September 11 at the Cato Institute.

Cato to Host Forum on No-Knock Raids With reason's Radley Balko; Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo, and LEAP co-founder Peter Christ

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:01:00 EDT

Here are the details, from Cato's website:

Should No-Knock Police Raids be Rare-or Routine?
POLICY FORUM
Thursday, September 11, 2008
4:00 PM (Reception To Follow)
Featuring Cheye Calvo, Mayor, Berwyn Heights, Maryland, Radley Balko, Senior Writer, Reason and author of Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America, Peter Christ, Co-founder, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
The Prince George’s County police department is under fire for a recent drug raid on the home of Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo. Unbeknownst to Calvo, a box containing marijuana was delivered to his home. Shortly thereafter, police officers kicked in the front door and shot both of Calvo’s pet Labrador retrievers. The police have subsequently cleared Calvo of any wrongdoing but are unapologetic about their raid tactics. Are no-knock, paramilitary raids an appropriate tactic for drug investigations? Or do sudden, unannounced entries bring unnecessary violence to police investigations? Join us for a discussion of the Prince George’s incident and, more broadly, the militarization of police work in America.
Cato events, unless otherwise noted, are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by 4:00 PM, Wednesday, September 10, 2008. Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 789-5200.
If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online.

Palin +1

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:51:00 EDT

Sarah Palin is one of only three governors to sign a proclamation for "Jury Rights Day," an event sponsored by the pro-nullification Fully Informed Jury Association.

Via Volokh.

[Insert Name Here]

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:24:00 EDT

Sometimes you catch a bit of a news report or a piece of text from an article that beautifully frames what a phony game all this convention business really is. Happened to me this evening while reading the Washington Post, with this passage:

Sitting around a dining room table, the McCain team has talked to her about Iraq, energy and the economy but has focused on what she should say in her speech, struggling almost as hard as she has to prepare for what will be, along with a debate in October, her main opportunity to shape the way she is viewed by voters. Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was "very masculine," according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and "we had to start from scratch."

Few politicians write their own speeches anymore. But even my jaded eyes bugged at the idea that McCain's campaign had already written tonight's speech before they knew who the running mate would be.

"We Did Well!"

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:39:00 EDT

The Washington Independent combs through public records in Wasilla, Alaska and finds a news clipping reporting how various Alaska towns fared in the annual funding sweepstakes. There, in Sarah Palin's own handwriting, is a big circle around the graph noting that Wasilla's $2.5 million take led the region.

"We did well!!!" Palin boasts with triple exclamation marks, adding that the article didn't include an additional $1 million in federal money to pave the Wasilla airport.

That's $3.5 million in federal earmarks for water treatment, airport paving, and "pedestrian walkways" in a town of 9,000.

Meticulously vetted! Has bravely risked her political career fighting earmarks and government waste!

With "Reformers" Like This, Who Needs the Status Quo?

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:19:00 EDT

It's getting more and more difficult to buy the narrative that Sarah Palin courageously risked her own career to take on Alaska's GOP establishment. Indeed, it's looking like she was part and parcel of the state's federal money grab right up until the time it became politically inexpedient, at which point she abruptly did an about-face.

The photo above (via Ben Smith) certainly shows Palin's spunk, but it shows her being defiant in the face of critics of the "Bridge to Nowhere." Palin political nemesis Andrew Halcro explains that as late as September of 2006, Palin was a vocal defender of the bridge, adding she was insulted by the insinuation that it led to "nowhere."

It wasn't until last summer, six weeks after the FBI raided the offices of Sen. Ted Stevens, that Palin announced her opposition to the bridge (before taking the money anyway, and using it for other projects). By that time, Alaska's lone congressman, Rep. Don Young, was also already under federal investigation. Opposing Stevens and Young as of late last summer wasn't a much of a political risk at all—just a little hypocritical, given Palin's own proven deftness at the earmark game.

We also learn today that John McCain has at least three times singled out for criticism earmarks procured by Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla. And the AP is reporting that as governor this year, Palin requested that indicted Sen. Ted Stevens procure some $200 million in federal earmarks for the state. That's $300 for every resident. That's more than any other state, and about nine times the average of the other 49 states.

All of which not only severely undercuts Palin's image as a reformer, it also puts the lie to the McCain camp's claims that Palin was thoroughly vetted. It would be one thing if Palin had been nominated for, say, her foreign policy expertise, and the earmark stuff was merely a shortcoming. But McCain says he selected Palin in large part because of her fight against earmarks and government waste. She's been on the right side of this issue for all of about a year.

Which means that Palin either wasn't vetted at all, or McCain's staff did vet her and didn't see a problem with any of this.

Neither scenario inspires much confidence in McCain or his staff.

Prosecutor in Ryan Frederick Case Wants to Move the Trial

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:11:00 EDT

Ryan Frederick is a 29-year-old Chesapeake, Virginia man who shot and killed a police officer during a drug raid on his home last January. Police were searching for a major marijuana growing operation an informant had told them they'd find in Frederick's garage. They found only a few joints in Frederick's living room.

Over the last several months, I’ve noticed that the web comments to the Virginian-Pilot’s coverage of the Frederick case have gone from almost universal calls for Frederick’s head on a plate in the days following the raid to, lately, a healthy majority expressing skepticism toward the Chesapeake Police Department, and a pretty strong showing of support for Frederick.

It looks like Special Prosecutor Paul Ebert has noticed, too.

The special prosecutor in the case against Ryan Frederick, the Chesapeake man accused of killing a city detective, wants the murder trial moved out of the Hampton Roads area.

The commonwealth has urged the court for a change of venue from Chesapeake to a court elsewhere in the state. Frederick is to stand trial Jan. 20 in Chesapeake Circuit Court on charges of capital murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.

Paul Ebert, the commonwealth’s attorney from Prince William County appointed to the case, said the trial must be moved because pretrial publicity has made it impossible for the commonwealth to get a fair trial.

Frederick’s attorney, James Broccoletti, said he opposes any move, arguing that the citizens of Chesapeake have not only an obligation but a right to sit in judgment in a case of this magnitude.

Actually, what Ebert wants is a knee-jerk jury that will convict upon hearing “marijuana” and “shot a cop,” with no further deliberation.

It's pretty rare for a prosecutor to ask for a change of venue. The good news is that under Virginia law, Ebert isn't likely to get it. It's probably also bad news for Ebert's case that he's asking for one.

Prior coverage of the Frederick case here.

Oops

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:53:00 EDT

Sean Hannity, referring to the attacks on Palin on his show Monday night:

...they tried to make the attack that she has a young daughter, pregnant and engaged. Is that fair that they would attack that? I mean, I don't remember Chelsea Clinton being attacked. I don't remember Al Gore's children being attacked. I thought there was a general rule that children of candidates ought to be left alone.

Here's none other than John McCain, wowing them at a GOP fundraiser, circa 1998:

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because Janet Reno is her father!

Chelsea Clinton was 13 18 at the time. Going to need a new set of talking points, Sean.

Lower the Drinking Age

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:30:00 EDT

It's been nearly 25 years since Congress blackmailed the states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 or lose federal highway funding. Supporters of the law have hailed it as an unqualified success, and until recently, they've met little resistance.

For obvious reasons, no one wants to stand up for teen drinking. The alcohol industry won't touch the federal minimum drinking age, having been sufficiently scolded by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and federal regulators. So the law's miraculous effects have generally gone unchallenged.

But that may be changing. Led by John McCardell, the soft-spoken former president of Middlebury in Vermont, a new group called the Amethyst Initiative is calling for a new national debate on the drinking age. And McCardell and his colleagues ought to know. The Amethyst Group consists of current and former college and university presidents, and they say the federal minimum drinking age has contributed to an epidemic of binge drinking, as well as other excessive, unhealthy drinking habits on their campuses.

This makes perfect sense. Prohibitions have always provoked over-indulgence. Those of us who have attended college over the last 25 years can certainly attest to the fact that the law has done nothing to diminish freshman and sophomore access to alcohol. It has only pushed underage consumption underground. It causes other problems, too. Underage students, for example, may be reluctant to obtain medical aid for peers who have had too much to drink out of fear of implicating themselves for drinking illegally, or for contributing to underage drinking.

More than 120 college presidents and chancellors have now signed on to the Amethyst Initiative's statement, including those from Duke, Tufts, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, Maryland, and Ohio. Over the last few years several states, including Wisconsin, Montana, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vermont have also considering lowering their drinking ages back to 18.

All of this has the usual suspects predictably agitated. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, not accustomed to striking a defensive posture, calls the Amethyst Initiative's request for an "informed debate" on the issue "deeply disappointing," and has even raised the possibility that parents shouldn't send their kids to colleges who have signed on to the measure.

Acting National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Mark Rosenker says it would be a "national tragedy" to, for example, allow 19- and 20-year-old men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to have a beer in celebration of completing their tours of duty.

Supporters of the 21-year minimum drinking age have long credited the law with the dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities they say took place after it was passed. But a study released last July may pull the rug out from their strongest argument.

The working paper by economic researchers Jeffrey Miron and Elina Tetelbaum finds that the bulk of studies on highway fatalities since the federal minimum drinking age went into effect erroneously include data from 12 states that had already set their drinking ages at 21, without federal coercion. That, Miron and Tetelbaum conclude, may have skewed the data, and indicated a national trend that may not actually exist.

While it's true that highway fatalities have dropped since 1984, it isn't necessarily because we raised the drinking age. In fact, the downward trend actually began in 1969, just as many states began lowering their drinking ages in recognition of the absurdity of prohibiting servicemen returning from Vietnam from enjoying a beer (the 1984 law was a backlash against those states). As Miron and Tetelbaum explain, 1969 was the year when "several landmark improvements were made in the accident avoidance and crash protection features of passenger cars," a more likely explanation for the drop than a law passed 15 years later.

Miron and Tetelbaum also credit advances in medical technology and trauma treatment for the decline in fatalities, which makes sense, given that we've seen improvements in just about every other area of human development over the same period, including life expectancy, and both incidence and survival rates of major medical conditions like heart disease, cancer, and stroke—none of which have much to do with teen drinking.

The U.S. has the highest minimum drinking age in the world (save for countries where it's forbidden entirely). In countries with a low or no national minimum drinking age, teens are introduced to alcohol gradually, moderately, and under the supervision of their parents.

U.S. teens, on the other hand, tend to first try alcohol in unsupervised environments—in cars, motels, or outdoor settings in high school, or in dorm rooms, fraternity parties, or house parties when they leave home to go to college. During alcohol prohibition, we saw how adults who imbibed under such conditions reacted—they drank way too much, way too fast. It shouldn't be surprising that teens react in much the same way.

Anti-alcohol organizations like MADD and the American Medical Association oppose even allowing parents to give minors alcohol in supervised settings, such as a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer on the couch while watching the football game. They've pushed for prison time for parents who throw supervised parties where minors are given access to alcohol, even though those parties probably made the roads safer than they otherwise would have been (let's face it—if the kids hadn't been drinking at the supervised party, they'd have been drinking at an unsupervised one). They advocate a "not one drop until 21" policy that's not only unrealistic, it mystifies and glorifies alcohol by making the drug a forbidden fruit—a surefire way to make teens want to taste it.

McCardell and the academics who have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative are asking only for a debate—an honest discussion based on data and common sense, not one tainted by Carry Nation-style fanaticism. In today's hyper-cautious, ban-happy public health environment, that's refreshing. The group comprises serious academics who have collectively spent thousands of years around the very young people these laws are affecting. The nation's policy makers would be foolish to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

Radley Balko is a senior editor of reason. A version of this article originally appeared at FoxNews.com.

The Road to Damascus

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:00:00 EDT

The Onion summarizes "Bob Barr on the issues."

(1995–2007) Trying to control the faith, sexuality, reproduction, drug use, and national allegiance of every single American.
(2007–) Aw, Fuck it.

Obama Gets Separation: Convention Bounce or Palin Thud?

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:29:00 EDT

The snapshot below is from RealClearPolitics' summary of the latest tracking polls. Obama seems to have opened up his biggest lead since the primaries ended.

Whether that was positive reaction to his speech and the DNC coverage or negative reaction to McCain's VP selection I guess remains to be seen.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

Sheriff Lott's New Toy

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:12:00 EDT

The Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff's Department (that's them above) just obtained an armored personnel carrier, complete with a belt-fed, .50-cal turreted machine gun. Sheriff Leon Lott has charmingly named the vehicle "The Peacemaker," and insists that using a caliber of ammunition that even the U.S. military is reluctant to use against human targets (it's generally reserved for use against armored vehicles) will "save lives."

Can we call this overkill, yet? Is there any weapon people like Sheriff Lott would consider inappropriate for use against American citizens?

Like most of these military toys obtained by local police departments, the Peacemaker will inevitably be used on drug and gambling raids—that is, to enforce laws against consensual activities. Or, as we're now seeing in Minnesota, perhaps on raids against leftist political activists.

Can't be too careful, you know.

Palin

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:03:00 EDT

From what little of Palin I know thus far, she seems to be about as good a pick from a major party as libertarians could hope for. But how McCain picked her is a bit disconcerting:

Sarah Palin pumps her fist as she is introduced to supporters at a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio, Friday.

John McCain on Friday announced a running mate whom he met only six months ago and with whom he spoke just once on the phone about the position before offering it in person earlier this week.

McCain’s first encounter with Sarah Palin came at a Washington meeting of the National Governors Association in February, according to a campaign-provided reconstruction of how the little-known Alaska governor was thrust into the national spotlight. The two discussed the position by phone on Sunday before McCain invited Palin and her husband to Arizona to formally make the offer. McCain, joined by his wife, Cindy, did just that Thursday morning at their home near Sedona, Ariz.

By picking somebody he and most Americans barely know — an out-of-the-blue decision that sent shock waves of disbelief through the political world and still has jaws agape — McCain has taken a considerable gamble.

I don’t buy the "no experience" critique. Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics. I do wonder though, why McCain has so much confidence in Palin after spending so little time with her. It certainly can’t be her record–there’s not much to go on there, either.

They cynical (and probably correct) answer would be that pretty, female, and social conservative were all he needed. That is, his main concern was how she could help him win, not so much how well she’d do in the no-so-unlikely event that she were to become president.

Did Bob Barr Already Win Texas?

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:56:00 EDT

His campaign says both the Democrats and Republicans missed the filing deadline to put their presidential candidates on the ballot. It’s a near-certainty that they’ll be given a mulligan. And that, Barr’s campaign correctly explains, is the problem.

Over the past several decades, Libertarians have spent millions of dollars, filed countless numbers of lawsuits while being sued countless numbers of times over their right to be on the ballot. Thousands of people have put in their time, energy, earnings and passion in an effort that, in the end, simply allows a voter to see a candidate’s name printed on the ballot.

Throughout every battle that we engage in each election season, we must dot every “I” and cross every “T” or face the consequences of failure for our ballot drives.

Even when we follow the letter of the law, as we did in Pennsylvania, we still face challenges that drain our financial resources and strain our staff.

Should we give Barack Obama and John McCain a pass in Texas and look the other way? Would they do that for us?

Fitz for VP!

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:17:00 EDT

Blogger (and fellow IU alum) T.J. Brown cites an old column of mine and says McCain should select the guy who once held Barack Obama's Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate, ex-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. It isn't going to happen. But it would have been a pretty bold and inspired move.

Fitzgerald actually is what both Obama and McCain claim to be—an advocate for change and a straight talker, respectively. And he was willing to risk his political career for it. During his tenure in the Senate, Fitzgerald stood up to then- House Speaker Denny Hastert and the GOP leadership, refusing to help procure massive pork barrel and corporate welfare grants for his home state, over Hastert's objections. He also wouldn't play ball when the party pressured him to nominate a local GOP prosecutor for the vacant U.S. attorney position in Chicago. Fitzgerald wanted to be sure then-GOP Gov. George Ryan was properly investigated on corruption charges, and wasn't confident someone with ties to the state party would suffice. So he nominated a prosecutor from out of state, earning him wrath from both his own party and the local media.

Naturally, Fitzgerald was soon drummed out of his party—the GOP refused to support him in his first re-election primary. After a sex scandal bounced the party's initial nominee, Illinois Republicans had to settle for Alan Keyes, who was then trounced by Obama.

Don Young Inches Ahead, With a Boost From....Ron Paul?

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:13:00 EDT

I'm in Anchorage, Alaska this morning, wrapping up a vacation. Other than Sen. Ted Stevens' unfortunate win that Nick Gillespie noted this morning (but fret not—polls show he's going to get clocked in the general election) the big news up here from last night's primaries is that the state's sole representative in Congress, Rep. Don "Stuffed It Like a Turkey" Young, is in the fight of his political life, clinging to a 145 vote lead over state Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

Young of course is the House's poster boy for earmark madness, making an art of procuring mounds of pork for the Last Frontier, then openly boasting about his recklessness with taxpayer money. Young's best move, though, may have been finding $10 million in the federal budget for a road project in Florida, coincidentally benefiting a real estate magnate who had hours earlier raised $40,000 for Young's campaign, and happens to own 4,000 acres along the same road. Young's a dinosaur, the epitome of the frozen sludge of long-serving, good ol' boy politics that's come to epitomize Alaska's delegation in Washington. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Young is also being investigated by the Justice Department for corruption.

Which makes it all the more puzzling that Young won a last-minute and possibly game-changing primary endorsement from, of all people, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Paul's endorsement praises Young for "standing up to environmental extremists," and for supporting Paul's proposal to abolish the income tax. But that hardly seems worth Paul sticking his neck out for this idiot, particularly given Young's resolute support for the Iraq war, the issue that defined Paul's run for the White House.

Parnell, Young's opponent, has proposed a one-year earmark moratorium. He has also been endorsed by the low-tax, limited government Club for Growth, a fact Young has used against him, weirdly implying that the anti-government group may call in favors from Parnell in exchange for their support (how would that work, exactly?). There's really not much difference between Young and Parnell on environmental issues. Both support drilling in ANWR.

Paul's last-minute entry into the race shouldn't be taken lightly. Paul raised more money from Alaska than any presidential candidate from either party, and finished third in the GOP caucuses, ahead of John McCain, with votes to cover Young's slim lead over Parnell this morning several times over.

Paul's no stranger to earmarks himself, so perhaps that explains why he's not much bothered by Young's frivolity with taxpayer money. But I'd imagine that many of the people who donated to Paul's presidential run in support of his opposition to the war and his support for a limited, fiscally responsible federal government will be pretty disappointed by his move to keep a guy like Young in office.

McCain, Obama Equally Gassy on Oil

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:00:00 EDT

In an interview last week on National Public Radio, Barack Obama was asked about his proposal for a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. To her credit, the interviewer prefaced her question by noting that nearly all economists from across the political spectrum oppose the idea. Taxing oil company profits won't make gas any cheaper—it'll likely make it more expensive in the long run by discouraging exploration—and it won't speed the development of alternative energy sources. Obama's answer was pure demagoguery, pitting senior citizens and working class families against oil companies, who he says are reaping profits "hand over fist."

Obama's opponent John McCain has smartly opposed a tax on oil company profits—and Obama has promptly attacked him for it.

But McCain isn't much better. McCain has proposed an equally ridiculous "gas tax holiday," which will also do almost nothing to provide relief at the pump. Obama has smartly opposed the idea—and McCain has promptly attacked him for it.

Economic ignorance is nothing new in politics. Neither is the idea that a candidate would perpetuate economic idiocy he knows to be false because it plays into the narrative he's pitching to the voters. But no issue seems to prompt more jaw-dropping sophistry and anti-capitalist demagoguery than gas prices.

Both candidates have promised to crack down on so-called "oil speculators," who are really only commodities traders wagering on whether the price of oil will go up or down. Speculators are an important part of the market process because they're generally knowledgeable about what they're trading, and their collective wisdom sends useful signals about supply and demand. "Cracking down" on speculators is silly. In the first place, it isn't possible. Oil futures are traded all over the world, well outside of U.S. jurisdiction. In the second place, if you own a 401(k), you're likely an indirect "speculator" yourself.

We Americans seem to think we have a right to cheap gas. There is no such right. Like anything else sold on the free market, the gas at the station pump belongs to someone else, at least until it falls into your tank and you swipe your credit card. From extraction, to processing and refining, to retail sale, someone owned the oil in your car at every step of its manufacture. And each owner was free to put whatever price on the stuff he pleased. You have no more right to cheap gas than you have to cheap bananas, or a cheap iPhone. This notion that cheap gas is part of our national heritage has been both nurtured and exploited by politicians, despite the fact that there's little they can do—or should do—to make it so.

For years now, our political leaders have told us that we need to wean ourselves off of oil and gas and find cleaner, more renewable energy sources. McCain and Obama are no exception. But there's no surer way to change our behavior when it comes gas consumption than high prices at the pump.

In fact, that's exactly what's happening. We're driving billions fewer miles per month than we drove last year. We're biking more, walking more, and more often opting for public transportation. Sales of sport utility vehicles have plummeted, while quaint gas-sippers like the Geo and the Mini-Cooper are all the rage. The big car companies have all but stopped production of gas-guzzlers, and can't churn out hybrids fast enough to meet demand.

We're changing our habits. We're driving less, and driving more fuel-efficient cars when we do. The market is working. High gas prices are altering behavior and nudging us toward more conservation-oriented transportation habits.

So why are our politicians tripping over themselves to keep prices low?

The easy answer is to win votes. The better answer is that Washington can't handle not having control. Letting market forces dictate our energy habits isn't satisfactory for our all-knowing leaders in Washington, because elected officials want their hands on all of the economy's levers, all of the time. Instead of letting supply and demand alter consumption patterns and drive the market to come up with better sources of energy, they'd rather keep gas prices low through government fiat, while at the same time promoting their own favored forms of alternative energy through subsidies, tax breaks, corporate welfare, and research and development boondoggles. It's waste piled upon waste, and a massive strain on taxpayers. But we let it go on.

The whole mess does nothing to ensure that the cleanest, most efficient, or most innovative ways of harnessing energy will win market share. On the contrary: The winners in this system are the energy suppliers with the most political clout in Washington—a lesson you'd think we'd have learned from the ethanol debacle.

Unfortunately, this isn't likely to end anytime soon. Pandering to voters by making impossible promises and vilifying faceless speculators is quite a bit easier than explaining to the American people that sometimes, sometimes, they're going to face problems that cannot—and should not—be fixed by politicians.

Radley Balko is a senior editor of reason. A version of this article originally appeared at FoxNews.com.

Ladies' Home Journal's Red Light Problem

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:29:00 EDT

The August issue of Ladies Home Journal includes a scary article (not online, alas) with the headline, "A New Killer Road Risk," and the subhead, "Read This to Save Your Life!"

The "risk" isn't all that new—the article is about red light running. In it, author Kelly King Alexander parrots bullet point arguments from auto insurance groups and government officials, data from online polls of drivers, and anecdotes about how red light running has reached epidemic proportions, then closes with some admittedly sad stories from relatives of people killed by red light scofflaws.

Halfway through the article, there's a box with a header set in bold and all-caps that reads, "WHAT CAN YOU DO?" The copy inside the box says:

Readers can go to www.stopredlightrunning.com/lhj and click on a form letter urging the federal government to encourage states to adopt automated enforcement laws to reduce red-light running. The letters will be compiled by the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running and sent to the White House early in 2009.

Neither the magazine article nor the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running website offer specifics on just how the federal government might "encourage" the states to adopt red light cameras, but the best bet is that they'll ask Congress to follow the example set in previous attempts to impose traffic regulations on the states—by withholding federal highway money from the states that don't comply.

What Alexander and Ladies' Home Journal don't disclose in the article, however, is that the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running is funded by three private companies: Affiliated Computer Systems, Gatso USA, and Redflex, Inc. All three are in the automated traffic enforcement business, and all three stand to make millions should the campaign prove successful. That's a pretty big omission.

The truth about the effects of automated red light enforcement on red light running is actually quite a bit more complicated than Alexander makes it out to be. She devotes all of two paragraphs to critics of automated enforcement, and mostly just to dismiss them.

But the most thorough independent study of red light cameras was published earlier this year in the Florida Public Health Review. That study, which I blogged about last March, included reviews of existing research, and found that most independent studies have found increases in crashes at intersections with red light cameras, including increases in crashes that result in injuries. It also found that claims of a notable increase in red light runners are exaggerated, and that studies sponsored by insurance companies or done by researchers with ties to insurance companies or government agencies tend to suffer from "research design flaws," and what might be charitably called an incomplete analysis of the data.

One good way to decrease accidents at dangerous intersections is to actually lengthen yellow lights. But that option tends to drop from consideration the moment cities start tasting the revenue from automated enforcement cameras. Perversely, the incentive for cities at that point is to encourage red light running, or at least not going out of their way to discourage it. Several cities have actually been caught shortening yellows after the installation of cameras.

If you're really interested in this stuff, here's a list of studies in support of red light cameras as provided by the campaign. And here's a compilation of research that comes down against them.

But getting back to Ladies' Home Journal, it seems to me the magazine should have disclosed the fact that the campaign it partnered with to nudge its readers to lobby Washington is underwritten by three companies who stand to make quite a bit of money should that pressure result in a new law. It may have also given readers reason to look at Alexander's article a bit more skeptically.

The System is Broken

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) info@reason.com (Roger Koppl) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:30:00 EDT

...

Colbert on Medical Marijuana

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:03:00 EDT

The First Download Is Always Free

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:54:00 EDT

Tech radio host Kim Komando sows panic about . . . digital drugs?

But websites are targeting your children with so-called digital drugs. These are audio files designed to induce drug-like effects.
All your child needs is a music player and headphones.
Digital drugs supposedly synchronize your brain waves with the sound. Hence, they allegedly alter your mental state.
Binaural beats create a beating sound. Other noises may be included with binaural beats. This is intended to mask their unpleasant sound.

Just like mixers do with alcohol!

Some sites provide binaural beats that have innocuous effects. For example, some claim to help you develop extrasensory powers like telepathy and psychokinesis.
Other sites offer therapeutic binaural beats. They help you relax or meditate. Some allegedly help you overcome addiction or anxiety. Others purport to help you lose weight or eliminate gray hair.
However, most sites are more sinister. They sell audio files ("doses") that supposedly mimic the effects of alcohol and marijuana.
But it doesn't end there. You'll find doses that purportedly mimic the effects of LSD, crack, heroin and other hard drugs. There are also doses of a sexual nature. I even found ones that supposedly simulate heaven and hell.
[...]
Companies that sell digital drugs claim they're safe. Supposedly, they won't affect your physical health.
Let's think about this for a moment. The sites claim binaural beats cause the same effects as illegal drugs. These drugs impair coordination and can cause hallucinations. They've caused countless fatal accidents, like traffic collisions.
If binaural beats work as promised, they are not safe. They could also create a placebo effect. The expectation elicits the response. Again, this is unsafe.
At the very least, digital drugs promote drug use. Some sites say binaural beats can be used with illegal drugs.
The sites also look favorably on the effects of illegal drugs. So, talk to your children. Make sure they understand the dangers of this culture. It could be a small jump from digital drugs to the real thing.

The Internet sure is a scary place. Probing journalist that I am, I downloaded the "marijuana, cocaine, peyote, and opium" pack from the website I-Doser. The tracks are ambient and soothing, but that's about all they did for me.

Cue legislation from outraged elected officials in 5 . . 4 . . 3 . . .

Cheye Calvo Gets It

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:34:00 EDT

Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo on the police raid on his home earlier this month:

"The reality is that this happens all the time in this country and disproportionally in Prince Georges county and most of the people to whom it happens don’t have the community support and the platform to speak out. So I appreciate you paying attention to our condition but I hope you’ll also give attention to those who may not have the same platform and voice that we have."

Good for him. And he's right.

Prince George's County police have now cleared Calvo and his wife of any wrongdoing (though they still won't apologize for the raid), and the FBI is investigating possible civil rights violations. Here are a few excerpts from Calvo's letter to the Justice Department requesting that investigation:

My mother-in-law was made to lie face-down on the floor in the kitchen, several feet away from where Payton was bleeding to death. Her hands were restrained with plastic handcuffs behind her back. She laid there on the floor with her head held down by police so that she could only see Payton's lifeless body for a considerable period of time.

The officers called for me to walk downstairs backwards with my hands up, which I did. The officers then directed to me to kneel down in the living room by the open front door in my boxer shorts with my hands restrained in plastic cuffs behind my back. I remained in that position for a considerable period of time, watching Payton's body in the other corner of the room and my mother-in-law lying face down in the kitchen.
[...]
Georgia was questioned by a detective named Kim, who in the course of her questioning managed to talk on her cell phone and to make a veterinary appointment for her dog. Georgia overheard Kim tell her friend that, this was her first raid and that it was "exciting" because it was the mayor's house.
[...]
Without ever investigating what happened or speaking to us, both the sheriff and the county police chief have announced public conclusions in this case defending the raid. More disturbing, we now have received reports of similar misconduct involving other innocent homeowners, including invasion of the homes of other innocent country residents and killing of other innocent family pets. This appears to be a pattern and practice in our law law enforcement agencies where a lack of training and supervision is apparent.

At this point, I'm pretty jaded about this stuff. But that third paragraph nearly made my eyeballs explode.

Puppycide in Prince George's County

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:44:00 EDT

Ten days ago, police in Prince George's Country, Maryland conducted a mistaken drug raid on Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, his wife, and her mother. During the raid, the shot and killed the family's two black labs, one of which the family says was running away. Police officials now concede that Calvo and his wife were innocent, and they regret that Calvo and his family were "victimized by drug dealers," but they refuse to apologize for the violent tactics, or for killing the dogs.

As it turns out, it isn't the first time Prince George's County police have killed the family pet during a botched raid. From November of last year:

The Myers say the deputies knew immediately they had raided the wrong home. They say it could have ended with an apology, until the couple heard two shots from the yard.

"And I said, 'You just shot my dog," said Pam Myers, through tears. "I just wanted to go out and hold her a bit. They wouldn't even let me go out."

The couple's five-year-old boxer Pearl was killed. The deputy says he feared for his life. They say the dog would bark but was no danger to the deputies.

ABC 7/NewsChannel 8's Brad Bell reports that a search of court records shows a warrant for a suspected drug dealer who lives two doors away at 14610 Livingston Road. The address is clearly displayed on that house.

"It's just not right that people have to worry about - police have their jobs to do, but the house is marked over there. All they had to do was go look," she said. "I want the sheriff to apologize to my family for killing their dog."

The Myers say they have received no apology. They say the deputies just left the scene, offering no explanation.

And the Washington Post reports:

Upper Marlboro resident Amber James has filed a $4 million lawsuit accusing sheriff's deputies of searching her home without a warrant in May 2007 while looking for her sister, who lived in Capitol Heights. According to the suit, deputies falsely claimed to have a warrant and searched every room of the home. When they did not find the sister, the suit alleges, they threatened to return the next day and search again, saying that if they did, James's dog would be dead.

The Post article quotes some law enforcement professional organizations who say that during a raid, killing the family dog should be the absolutely last option. That may be the case, but too many police departments across the country haven't gotten the memo.