There were several news stories that struck me this week as varying between annoying to downright troubling, with one that was rather humorous. It's Saturday and I'm relaxing so I thought I'd vent a little on all of them in the blog today.
A-Rod and Steroids
The first story that was simply annoying was the whole "revelation" about Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod for short) the All-Star third baseman for the Yankees admitting that he used steroids from 2000 to 2003. He was forced into the admission as damage control because a positive test result for Rodriguez from a supposedly confidential test done by Major League Baseball to determine whether or not regular random testing was going to be done had been leaked to a Sports Illustrated Writer.
Now, for me anyway, this has to be the single most anti-climatic story in a long time. That steroids and other performance enhancing drugs were used in that era is now widely known (there are also 103 other names on that positive test list who have not been revealed). That A-Rod used steroids is hardly surprising. It is now known that the Yankees were aware of the positive test result before they signed him to his huge contract. At that time the fact of the matter is that the players didn't care, the teams didn't care, and Bud Selig, the baseball commissioner, probably hadn't raised himself to a level of consciousness capable of pondering the issue, much less caring at that time.
For all the hoopla and grandstanding by politicians and others about steroids and the like, there is actually no real statistical evidence that any of it actually "enhances" performance in terms of actual baseball results. At best steroids and HGH substances help bodies recover from injuries and fatigue faster. Building muscle mass is not really all that helpful for generating bat speed for hitting or arm speed for pitching. Frankly, like a lot of vitamin supplements, people take them because they "think" they are helped, not because they actually are (there was a notable story this week adding to the literature that vitamin supplements are largely over-rated). And, thinking your are being helped is all that it takes, mind over matter is huge in sports performance. Athletes taking steroids, like people taking vitamin supplements often attribute results to the wrong cause. In logic we call this the fallacy of non causa pro causa.
Now, of course, steroids are generally bad, especially for developing teenagers to take, and certainly shouldn't be used absent some legitmate medical need. But some of the nonsense involved, like the absolutely useless prosecution of Barry Bonds, the silly Congressional hearings. The ongoing buffoonery of Bud Selig establishing commissions which accomplished nothing of value, and now his talking about changing the baseball record book is supercilious beyond belief.
Making Budget By Increasing Traffic Fines
With various state and local governments struggling with their budgets there were several stories this weeks about debates to raise the fines for traffic violations to increase revenue. One story was called "Are You a Victim of the Trooper Tax?"
I was an LA Police Officer for 15 years and worked in traffic accident investigation for most of that time (which meant when I wasn't investigating accidents my main directive was to observe and enforce traffic laws or write tickets). One thing we were always sarcastically asked as traffic officers was whether the ticket we just wrote helped us meet our "quota" for the day. That is, a set number of tickets each officer had to write each day. Now, I will state without reservation that there was no "quota" system in the LA Police Department when I was a member of it and actually any such system would have been illegal. Now that being said, if an officer working eight hours with the primary duty of enforcing traffic laws could not observe and write citations for 10-20 violations in a normal shift (when they weren't interrupted with other duties), then that officer was simply unobservant or lazy.
The purpose of a traffic citation and subsequent fine if you are found guilty is to change your behavior. The goal is to have people drive safely and according to the standards of the vehicle code (which also includes having mechanically safe vehicles). For that system to work there has to be a rather immediate confrontation by the enforcing officer and issuing of a citation in relation to the actual improper driving for the desired change to have a chance to work. This is the basic 101 of traffic enforcement philosophy; it's what I was taught 30 years ago. I actualy remember once losing a traffic citation case in court because the judge ruled that I had not been able to stop the violator and issue the citation in a timely manner to that the violator would have some cognition between the citation and what he was supposed to have done.
I have a real problem with the idea of utilizing law enforcement as agents for in "revenue stream" for government. Increasing the fines making them excessively punitive (In California now I see "Minimum Fine signs on roadways that would effectively steal a minimum wage workers pay of nearly two weeks simply to pay a citation). It crosses the line and changes law enforcement from safety officers to tax collectors and this is simply not good public policy. Fines should be enough to get peopleās attention so they remember not to do something again, but they can't get to the point of wiping out weeks of earned income simply to redirect it to government (which then has to turn around and provide program to give it back to low income people).
Oh, and don't think that the "going to traffic school" scam fixes it. The cost of traffic school is the same to the individual as the citation. The government gets a little less money, but still gets a cut of the franchise it awards in the license of the "certified" traffic school. Traffic School remains one of the biggest scams that has been created in a long time and has lined a lot of people's pockets and done nothing to improve traffic safety.
Another tactic which raises money but it utterly worthless for traffic safety is the "red light camera" which has now become so popular to which has been added "speed cameras." These devices and the companies that sell them make lots of money for local governments, but in many cases accidents actually go up at intersections where they are installed. I did read this week that one Arizona County Sheriff was pulling the plug on this stuff for the very reasons I've mentioned, much to the annoyance of the revenue-minded county fathers. There is simply no verifiable evidence that these devices to anything to improve traffic safety. But they have spawned a large market for devices to covers ones license plates so they cannot be photographed.
As W. S. Gilbert wrote, "A policeman's lot is not a happy one." And if politicians continue with the notion that increasing traffic fines, eliminating officer's discretion, and writing more tickets to ease their fiscal woes; the lot will be unhappier still.
Why Actually Elect All of These People
Probably the most annoying and troubling thing that occurred this week was the "Stimulus Package" vote. This bill which is over (apparently) 1200 pages long and expends (apparently) about $800 Billion of the treasuries money; that is money generated by taxpayers and taxpaying entities which is given to government for their use to provide for the mutual protection and benefit of society. Was voted on by the House and then the Senate in two differing versions and then in what is called a "Conference Committee" (a committee of members of the House and Senate) the differences are supposedly worked out and a uniform bill is agreed upon which both bodies then re-vote upon and then send to the president to sign into law.
As to the details of the bill I neither care much nor frankly understand what all of this mind-boggling amount of money is going to be spent on (in fairness it is a mix of spending and tax cuts). Nor, do I really even care that the Conference Committee was rigged; that is, the assigned Republicans were actually excluded from the meetings and had no real input. The democrats won the elections, the control the process and would win out in the end anyway, so their input in the committe would be pro forma at best.
My real complaint and I think what all Americans of every political persuasion should be complaining about is that the elected members of the House and Senate voted and passed the largest monetary appropriation in history when absolutely not one of them had actually had the time to read the completed document. Even the "Conference Report" or the executive summary apparently was so long that it was largely unread. The party leaders either said, "vote for this" and they did; or other party leaders said, "don't vote for this" and they didn't." Of course three notable Republicans in the Senate crossed ranks and voted for it, which is the only reason it passed. But this doesn't make them any more brave or noble than the others, because they didn't read the bill either!
Was there any indication that the entire economy of the United States was going to go into complete and unalterable collapse if this bill was not voted on yesterday and this morning? Was there some reason (other than a holiday recess and pre-scheduled travel plans) than this vote could wait until, say Wednesday or Thursday to give the elected representatives of the people of this country a chance to actually read the law that they were being pressed into voting on? Perhaps there was, but I've seen no discernable proof of such, only a lot of rhetoric and histrionics.
Historically, almost without fail, the worst laws are those passed in haste or in a reactionary manner to a perceived or even a real crisis. Now certainly sometimes there are times of emergency and crisis when debate must end and action must be taken. But even in the 1930's I think that Congress at least took the time (or was given the time) to read what President Roosevelt's proposed laws were before they voted on them.
If the United States Congress is simply going to be reduced to an oligarchy of twenty or thirty in the house and 10 or 15 in the senate making all the decisions and the rest of the lot are nothing but a bunch of back benchers then at least get rid of all their staff and give them communal offices to save some money in the budget; or change the rules so they can video conference their votes in. That will save on travel expenses.
UPDATE: On Sunday Feb 15th we learn that President Obama won't even sign the bill that had to be passed with all this alacrity until Tuesday. So the Congressional leadership couldn't allow another day to allow the members to actually read the bill for a couple of days before voting?
Having A little Fun At President Obama's Expense
Now, I sort of like President Obama, even though I didn't vote for him and generally disagree with his policies. But I pray that he does well, that we will, as the Bible says, "live quiet and peaceful lives" and that his policies help the ecomony and the world situation in general.
He generally seems like a decent sort, but one thing that has been tormenting him for no real good reason this week demonstrates, humorously I think, why senators are almost never elected president. President Kennedy 40 years ago was the last one to move from the Senate to the White House, and he was the first since Warren Harding some 40 years before him. The reason for this is fairly simple; they typically don't make good presidents (regardless of party). In the case of Kennedy (a democrat), he simply wasn't president long enough to know if he would have been ranked good or not (he's fallen in the rankings pretty consistently over the years) and Harding's case (a republican), even though he also died in office, he is still generally considered one of the worst presidents in history.
Why is this? Because senators don't actually run anything in the senate and they generally don't have any managerial or executive experience running a large operation. This is why the US typically elects governors or generals to be president.
Now, President Obama may turn out to be the exception to the rule, but the humorous situation he finds himself in is trying to find someone, anyone apparently, to be the Secretary of Commerce. Right now a hold over from the Bush Administration is running the Commerce Department. It's an important job, although there have been attempts to actually eliminate the entire department in the past. The president's first choice was Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. Bad choice, he's so entwined in a corruption scandal right now he may not even run for his own office again. So then President Obama had the idea of asking a sitting Republican Senator, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, to fill the position. Gregg accepted it, then apparently met the people he'd have to work with, had "buyer's remorse," and nicely decided to withdraw and return to the Senate (where there's clearly a lot less reading involved these days). It's not Keystone Cops, but it is pretty funny.
Filling important positions in an organization is the job of the leader of the organization. He takes the hit when it is done poorly. He's already had a couple other high profile cabinet and executive office candidates forced withdraw for various ethical reasons (somehow whoever was advising the president even thought that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle lame-brained handling of his taxes would be no big deal). This is a symptom of the growing pains of someone who has never actually been in charge of a large organization. Hopefully, he'll learn on the job.