Safety first!

 

George Mason Economist Russ Roberts writes:

Every news story that I have seen treats the safety issue as a legitimate concern without wondering if there is anything to it. Turns out that according to a government study, 41% of inspected trucks crossing into the Mexican border were found to be unsafe. But how was that number collected? What does it really mean?

…

The lesson here is how easy it is to get what you want politically by making the issue one of safety or the children.

Roberts was writing about a NAFTA provision allowing Mexican trucking firms to operate in the US, but the extent to which unspecified “safety” issues slither their way into random articles is interesting.  The extent to which those “safety” issues are uncritically reported is a little more disappointing.  Enter this Detroit News article about above-ground pools:

Think you got your summer oasis on the cheap?

You could be in for a cold splash of reality.

State building code requires permits for those portable, inexpensive, vinyl-lined pools found in backyards across Metro Detroit. And in some communities, the permits can cost more than the pools themselves.

Heartwarming intro, I know.  And why do we need permits?  Safety, of course.  As we are repeatedly reminded in the article:

The aim, they say, is to ensure safety. And while building officials don't hunt for homeowners skirting the law, people found breaking it can be fined and hauled into court.

…

"(People) may not be in the mindset that they need to have the same safety requirements as a permanent pool," she said.

"It's all about kids being able to enjoy the pool, but keeping in mind water always has the potential to be a danger."

And don’t forget the ominously-subtitled final section of the article, which informs us that “A child drowns every 5 days.”  So how do these permits prevent that from happening?  Uh…

To obtain building permits for portable pools, residents must submit an application to their local building department. The application must include plot plans that show the pool's dimensions and the locations of existing buildings and electrical wires, officials said.

That no make sense.  In fact, nowhere in the article about requiring permits for above-ground pools in the name of protecting children do we learn how requiring permits for-above ground pools helps protect children.  It’s almost as if these permits are not about safety at all, and in fact are required for some other reason.  If only somebody – a local reporter, perhaps – could do some digging to figure out the real reason for these permits…

Roseville and St. Clair Shores charge $30 for the permit and a $25 inspection deposit. In Warren, a pool permit is $70, and in Livonia, $120; both cities charge a separate fee for associated electrical permits.

Which is immediately followed by this line:

The permit rules are designed to ensure safety and reduce the potential for drowning, said Irvin Poke, director of Michigan's Bureau of Construction Codes.

That’s some fine reporting there, Lou.

More things that are absolutely and completely not related in any way, shape, or form

Earlier this month, round these parts, via the Free Press:

The government's top safety regulator warned that he will challenge unsafe infotainment technologies that try to convert automobiles into smartphones on wheels.

"I'm just putting everyone on notice. A car is not a mobile device," David Strickland, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told about 200 people at the Telematics Detroit 2011 conference in Novi. "I'm not in the business of helping people tweet better. I'm not in the business of helping people post on Facebook better."

Strickland and his boss, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, have challenged automakers, suppliers, wireless providers and software developers that minimizing driver distraction must be a priority as drivers are offered more information services in their vehicles.

Recently, in a Detroit News article:

Ford Motor Co. said today it is endorsing a federal ban on hand-held cell phone calls by drivers — becoming the first automaker to do so.

The Dearborn automaker said it is supporting a bill introduced last month by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.  Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president of government affairs, said the company is backing the bill "because it represents a practical, common sense approach to a national problem."

Ford has been eager to protect its in-vehicle technologies — such as Sync and MyFord Touch — that allow drivers to make hands-free calls and receive or send some limited text messages orally.

…

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has urged drivers not to use hand-held phones behind the wheel and raised concerns about cognitive distractions from calls.

Why yes, we would love to support one of your key policies because you are a very powerful man who can make life very difficult for us we care about safety.  And our products would sell better if you banned cell phones.  So yeah.  Safety first.

Speaking of making life difficult for the American auto industry:

Young car buyers going foreign

In a troubling sign for Detroit, import brands appear to be winning over the new generation of American car buyers, people between the ages of 18 and 27.

This group, known as Generation Y or "Millennials," is showing an even greater preference for Asian brands than the Gen X consumers before them, according to a study by TrueCar.com, a data firm in Santa Monica, Calif.

Why are young car buyers choosing foreign cars?

"Based on the data, it's something for the domestics to worry about," said Jesse Toprak, a market analyst at TrueCar.com. "It shows that some of these brands come across as more youthful or hip, or have better integrated use of technology."

…

Millennials appear to favor cars, such as the Scion tC and Honda Civic Si, that permit a high degree of customization.

"Our young buyers are looking for ways to connect with their personal devices," said Craig Taguchi, a spokesman for Scion.

Eh, whatever.  If we kill them, we’ll just bail them out again.

Of Cheetos and Chemo

 Give it five years.

New York Times food critic/opinion columnist Mark Bittman drops a creepy piece in the Sunday edition, entitled, “Bad Food?  Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables.”  It seems like an almost-satirical attempt to implement the old, “If it moves, tax it.  If it stops moving, subsidize it” line.  But since it’s in the New York Times, it is apparently a real proposal.  And Bittman drops a C-Bomb in the first ‘graph, which sends it into my domain:

What will it take to get Americans to change our eating habits? The need is indisputable, since heart disease, diabetes and cancer are all in large part caused by the Standard American Diet.

I didn’t make it much beyond that.  The rest of the piece is your typical conglomeration of conclusory statements (“But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit"), homages to Really Smart People (“We have experts who can figure out how ‘bad’ a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be”), hosannahs to the government ("That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix."), and directives typically handed down from parent to a child (“You don’t need sugary beverages (or the associated fries).”  Oh, and the contractually-obligated jab at big business (“Their mission is not public health but profit.”) 

I don’t know Mark Bittman.  But his writing has all the telltale signs of an individual who has never had his beliefs seriously challenged in any way, shape, or form.  Which is why he deals with counterarguments like this:

Forcing sales of junk food down through taxes isn’t ideal. First off, we’ll have to listen to nanny-state arguments, which can be countered by the acceptance of the anti-tobacco movement as well as a dozen other successful public health measures.

That makes no sense whatsoever.  It essentially says “counterarguments can be countered by accepting my argument.”  This can only be the writing of a man whose incredible hubris – this is an article about severely regulating the diet of every American citizen – has been acquired by painstaking avoidance of anybody who might disagree with him. 

The amount of government coercion that would have to occur to implement these “suggestions” remind me of things I studied in Chinese history courses in college.  It is a level of force that isn’t just intolerant of dissent, but actively assumes that no rational dissent can possibly exist.  I see no other way that a human being could write the words, “It’s fun — inspiring, even — to think about implementing a program like this” in a column advocating a proposal that would significantly impact hundreds of millions of Americans.  But alas, this is deemed worthy of a spot in the Sunday paper.  And the most popular comment calls the piece, “Incredibly inspiring and creative.”

Of course, such dietary dominance is deemed necessary under the two catch-all provisions: “public health” and health care costs: 

Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.

And — not inconsequential during the current struggle over deficits and spending — a sane diet could save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs.

Look, under this reasoning, everything is regulate-able.  There’s no end.  I can think of a million things that affect “health” in general, and health care costs in the long run.  That’s a million things that are now up for regulation by Really Smart People like Mark Bittman.  I’d have more respect for these people if they just stopped tapdancing around and argued that we should flat out ban unhealthy foods or mandate physical activity.  Why half-ass it?

But if you accept this line of reasoning, and all of its assumptions – that this is a proper function of government, that “public health” includes individual decisions that affect individual health, and that the government can regulate such things – then where does it end?  If the government can regulate your individual decisions before you get cancer, why can’t they regulate your individual decisions after you get cancer?

These are serious questions.  Why can’t the government tell my doctor that he cannot prescribe me prophylactic Bactrim because antibiotic resistance is a public health issue?  Why can’t a panel of experts prohibit me from undergoing radiation treatment because my tumor was under 10cm, and my added demand would increase health care costs?  Why couldn’t the difficult decision over how to treat my lymphoma be made by some  Really Smart People – trust us, they’re really smart – instead of my doctors and me?   What principle allows the government to regulate my consumption of 50 cents worth of Cheetos in the name of “health care costs”, but not $70,000 worth of Rituxan?

I’m sure these questions never crossed Mark Bittman’s mind.  I hope they never have to.  But if you’re going to suggest things like this, these are things you should probably consider first. 

I could have murdered everybody at the bar on Saturday night, and that is why we need to hire more cops

This story was covered in a Free Press article last month – entitled “Royal Oak police cuts add to concerns over crowd control” – but it has disappeared into the archival abyss (way to get people to click on your links!), so I’ll have to go with the Daily Tribune version, headlined “Royal Oak chief: ‘We are reaching a breaking point if we haven’t yet.” 

But the first two paragraphs are…um…bizarre, given the headline:

Were police on the verge of losing control downtown when 200 people surrounded officers arresting three men for disorderly conduct on May 22?

Not that night, says Interim Police Chief Corrigan O’Donohue, who is overseeing a police force reduced by 30 percent because of spending cuts.

Headline:  “Police Chief:  Nick Cheolas murdered everybody at the bar on Saturday night.”  First paragraph:  “Did Nick Cheolas murder everybody at the bar on Saturday night?”  Second paragraph:  “No, says the police chief.  But BUDGET CUTS!!!”  Seems that headline was a little premature.

Believe it or not, the story gets weirder.  The next three paragraphs explain how cutting five (5!!!) officers from the Royal Oak police force (from 70 to 65) stretches the force to some kind of “devastating” “breaking point.”  Then a city councilman says bartenders should cut people off sooner.  Then we get into a the incident that sparked this whole debate.  Which is this:

Just before 2 a.m. May 22 bar patrons pouring out of Woody’s, O’Toole’s and Fifth Avenue interfered with police breaking up a fight between two men. They encircled the officers and began yelling.

Every Royal Oak officer on duty was called to Fifth Street just west of the railroad tracks. Michigan State Police troopers and a Pleasant Ridge officer also responded.

O’Donohue said the other law enforcement showed up on their own. He doesn’t know if Royal Oak would have called for backup.
“I can’t say we would have asked them. At one point Berkley offered to assist but we had things under control quickly,” O’Donohue said.

In about 15 minutes, police made three arrests and sent the crowd on their way.

So…some drunk people got into a fight, the police arrested them, and…nothing happened?  More importantly, THIS is the story you chose to scare the public about “devastating” budget cuts?  I mean…is there more?  Is it coming later in the article?  Did somebody get shanked?  I want blood!  This is not news.  It is Saturday night in Royal Oak. 

Should I read on?  I should read on:

City Commissioner Jim Rasor called the police response “flawless” but other elected officials are concerned about what could have been.

“It was seconds away from total bedlam,” City Commissioner Michael Andrzejak said. “A police sergeant said as much.”

Just…I don’t…did the…what?  Let me get this straight:  The incident that we’re holding out there as the poster child for “devastating” budget cuts is an incident in which…absolutely nothing happened.  But stuff could have happened if, you know, things happened differently.  To continue our metaphorical Nick Cheolas story above: 

Nick Cheolas consumed a couple drinks, took a cab home, took the dog out, and then went to bed.  But City Commissioner Jim Rasor is concerned about what could have been had Nick Cheolas brought a machete to the bar and started hacking away indiscriminately at hipsters and yuppies alike.

“It was seconds away from total bedlam,” City Commissioner Michael Andrzejak said.  “A guy who would really like more money and desperately needs to scare everybody into giving him that money said as much.”

Fox2 News saves the day with a real live balanced piece that includes police video of the scene.  Highlights:

• Fox 2 news reporter says, “The City of Royal Oak just approved its budget Monday night. It includes no police layoffs, but no new hires, either. That's one reason why this incident has just sparked a spirited debate.” 
• Royal Oak Police Chief says, “It certainly wasn’t a riot.” 
• To which a city commissioner responds, "I think that we were less than 60 seconds from a riot.”
• Police dash cam footage of the incident.  Which shows people standing there.  Some of them have their arms folded, apparently in a menacing fashion.  And while I’m probably not the most unbiased guy on earth, if you can see any sort of “violence” besides cops shoving random people, let me know. 
• The following two lines reported (unironically) within 40 seconds of each other in a piece that uses a drunken downtown brawl to explain why police cuts will be “devastating":
• [The] department's been slashed more than 30-percent within the past few years and when you factor in upcoming retirements, increasing overtime just won't cut it.
• Crime in Royal Oak has actually dropped significantly over the past few years and most of it is actually petty crime concentrated in the neighborhoods, not downtown

I think cop facepalm is appropriate: