math, mistaken for terrorism, halts flight

“A security protocol that is too rigid–in the sense that once the whistle is blown everything stops without checks–and relies on the input of people who may be completely clueless. ”

He keeps a remarkably even keel about this.

more light shines on sf crime

The Atlantic comes out specifically focused on the staggering number of smash-and-grab car burglaries in San Francisco. Conor Friedersdorf had the same reaction to King Candy's Supervisor Campos' recent New York Times quotes that I did:

Campos’ position is frustrating. (See update here.) The people who want San Francisco’s “smash-and-grab” vandals punished, myself included, do not want “to criminalize people for being poor.” We want to criminalize people for willfully smashing in car windows, stealing personal items, and imposing hundreds of dollars in repairs on victims, most of whom are working people who really suffer from such a loss.

The article goes on to call Campos for his legislation criminalizing victims:

Campos vilified his colleague for saying, “Sometimes people might need to spend six months in jail to think about what they did.” Yet how did Campos react to news that guns are being stolen in some of these smash-and-grab burglaries? He crafted legislation “to require that law enforcement officers as well as civilians who leave guns in parked vehicles in the city secure the weapons in lock boxes or in an enclosed, locked trunk. Failing to secure a gun in a parked car would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail or a $10,000 fine.”

In other words, he wants to punish some of the victims of smash-and-grab burglaries with longer jail sentences than he is willing to give the perpetrators of the crime.

This is obviously a complicated issue, but one thing is certain, more police, stronger enforcement and deterring consequences are needed immediately in this city.

san francisco crime

Crime is on the rise in San Francisco. It’s happening all over the city. Rarely a week goes by that I don’t read about some violent incident within blocks of my apartment, along streets I often walk.

This week we landed in the spotlight in the New York Times because of it:

Recent data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that San Francisco has the highest per-capita property crime rate of the nation’s top 50 cities.

The article illustrates how pervasive the issue has become, showing how car theft has exploded in traditionally safe, “touristy” neighborhoods.

I lived in New York City for almost a decade and never felt as uncomfortable walking around that city at 2AM as I do at 7AM and 9PM in San Francisco.

San Francisco is comically under-policed.

“San Francisco at times is a consequence-free zone,” [Supervisor Scott] Wiener said. “I’m not advocating extreme law and order, but there has to be consequences. Sometimes people might need to spend six months in jail to think about what they did.”

In a bitterly contested 6-to-5 vote last year, Mr. Wiener led the passage of a measure adding several hundred officers to the city’s police force, the first increase since the 1980s, when the population was over 10 percent smaller.

Bitterly contested! With these statistics! Who would contest such a thing?

[Enter King Candy, stage left.]

On the other side is David Campos, a supervisor who opposes the increase in police officers and describes Mr. Wiener’s views as “a very knee-jerk kind of punitive approach that is ineffective and inconsistent with the values of San Francisco.”
“We are not going to criminalize people for being poor,” he said. “That criminalization is only going to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.”

Of course nobody wants to criminalize people for being poor. WE WANT TO CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE FOR BEING CRIMINALS. We need law and order to be enforced in a way that discourages bad behavior. And we need enforcement now.

dragging white house technology out of the 20th century

Until very recently, West Wing aides were stuck in a sad and stunning state of technological inferiority: desktop computers from the last decade, black-and-white printers that could not do double-sided copies, aging BlackBerries (no iPhones), weak wireless Internet and desktop phones so old that few staff members knew how to program the speed-dial buttons.

On Air Force One, administration officials sent emails over an air-to-ground Internet connection that was often no better than dial-up modems from the mid-1990s.

Astounding.

busting the juice cleanse

The NYT is on it, busting the juice cleanse:

Dr. Antoinette Saddler, a gastroenterologist at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, agreed to read through one of many blog posts available online about cleansing. She said she was perplexed from the beginning.

A juice diet rests the stomach, it claimed.

“Why does the stomach need resting?” she asked

She read further. Juices require less of the stomach’s digestive processing, it said.

“Who said that was beneficial?” she said.

And then she got to the inevitable detox claim: Juicing “allows the body to have more of the resources it needs to support the phases of detoxification, and even to begin to help remove the cumulative toxins stored in the body.”

“What does that even mean?” she said. Exasperated, she stopped reading.