Guarino

A New Conservative Wave in Old Europe

One of the underreported stories of the week is the significance of Italy's election this past week.  It was a huge victory for Silvio Berlusconi and his People of Freedom party.  (ht:Fred)

Why is this change monumental?  We now have three old Europe nations-- Germany, Italy and France-- that have recently elected more conservative, pro-American leaders.  This is a very favorable development with respect to our international relations as the War on Terror continues.  But it also is good for the stagnant quasi-socialist economies of those countries.

When I visited Italy last June, the effects of economic difficulties were apparent.  We heard of unemployment rates among young adults in the range of 20%.  The socialistic stranglehold on national economies can reduce opportunity substantially.

Within Italy, the Communist party nearly faded into oblivion with this most recent election.  Previously, it had a significant degree of influence.  This is great news also.

It appears Italy has joined France and Germany in confronting the errors of its previous ways.  I hope it will be able to effect those changes needed to revitalize the nation.

A Primer on Tasers

Last weekend, I attended the annual meeting of my medical specialty society in New York.  My medical specialty is occupational medicine, and I signed up to attend a half-day long seminar on occupational health issues for public safety professionals.  One of the presentations-- unexpectedly and paradoxically-- was on the subject of tasers.  It was a gripping presentation, and a video was shown of the taser being used.  (I wish to acknowledge Dr. Fabrice Czarnecki who gave the presentation I attended.)

While use of the taser may have been shown on television previously, I had not seen it.

Considerable local and national discussion, of course, has focused on the appropriateness of this law enforcement tool.  I learned some things I did not know about the taser, and I suspect some other folks may not know either.

First, the taser does not shock someone with an invisible beam like a "ray gun" as seen in science fiction.  It does not work like a "stun gun", in which the gun is pressed against the body of the assailant to deliver a shock (which apparently does not work well).  Instead, the taser shoots "darts", each of which has a sharp end intended to penetrate the skin of the assailant. 

Second, what the assailant perceives is not merely a shock.  Instead, there is intense pain as the shock is delivered, and it lasts as long as it is being applied.  The taser is very effective because the assailant falls, immobilized in severe pain until handcuffs can be placed.

Third, the use of the taser is not without after-effects.  The site of skin penetration where the "dart" enters can become significantly burned.  Because the dart penetrates about 0.5 - 1.5 cm below the skin, the burn encircles the entrance point to a mild extent, but tends to be fairly deep.

Fourth, there is a "standard of practice" for police professionals that the electric shock not be discharged for more than 5 seconds, and no more than three times.   There  have been instances when the shock has been delivered for up to a couple of minutes, and obviously this increases the risk of complications.

Fifth,  there are animal studies on the adverse effects of the taser, but little good peer-reviewed human data.  And there is very little information on what level of taser electric exposure causes what level of response.  There have been 270 taser-related deaths in the US out of 600,000 field exposures.  Some of these deaths, however, may not have been directly caused by the taser.  For instance, drugs, "excited delirium", or heart disease may have been the cause. 

Sixth, the darts need to be removed.  They become "stuck" in the skin and underlying tissue, not unlike a fishhook, and removing them can be tricky.  Sometimes the assailant has to be brought to the ER for removal of the dart.  Medical personnel should remove it if it enters the head, neck, or groin regions, for instance.  The police officer, of course, should avoid hitting these areas-- and also avoid hitting the chest.

The heart speeds up with certain taser exposures, and in unusual cases a rhythm called ventricular fibrillation is seen.  This rhythm usually results in cardiac arrest and death, unless promptly treated.

There have been case reports of other types of injuries with taser use: the dart penetrating through the skull and then through the surface of the brain; fractured vertebrae, even when no fall has occurred; seizures; eye injuries leading to blindness; trauma due to the fall that takes place; and drowning if the assailant falls into water.

One of the circumstances in which tasers are used is when the assailant demonstrates "excited delirium."  This is when the individual is profoundly agitated and out of control.  This can be caused by illicit drug abuse or withdrawal; or by psychiatric problems.  Some of these individuals will develop various medical complications, or will die because of them.

It is felt that limiting the number of times tasers are used for any one individual,  and limiting the time during which electricity is discharged, will reduce the risk of complications.  There is little benefit seen with subjecting police trainees to taser exposure.  Police, however, must be trained how to use them properly.

Who is at high risk with taser exposures? Young children, the elderly, pregnant women, frail individuals and short people.  It has been suggested to avoid using it in these populations.

The use of the taser should be restricted to assailants who are felt to be at risk of hurting themselves or hurting others.  In some cases, use of a baton or a firearm might be a better option, and should be considered.  When deciding to use the taser, the risk of NOT using it also needs to be evaluated.

If any police are reading this article, you are welcome to offer your thoughts.

 

Pastor Gillespie on Liberation Theology and Obama

Pastor Joel has a stimulating post on the misconceived tradition of liberation theology; and how it affects what our perception of Barack Obama should be.  Well worth reading.

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part II

I had reported on the City Council meeting Tuesday night regarding Robbie Perkins' remarks in response to Mary Rakestraw's motion to remove Mitchell Johnson:

Robbie Perkins predictably attempted to label it as "divisive", "over the edge"; and said it was not statesmanlike.

Brenda Bowers also points out that Perkins had labeled the events Thursday night as "sad"; and that he had initially entered public service to avoid this type of approach.

Of course, Perkins made no attempt to address the merits of whether Johnson should be permitted to continue as City Manager, or whether he should be relieved of his responsibilities.  According to the prevailing local political ethic, that is a matter to be decided upon, in unanimity, in closed session.  And council members ought not disagree.

The technique to be utilized apparently is to express subtle derision toward one's opponents instead of engaging the issue.   Make it appear that they are behaving poorly, and that their duty should be to change the way they approach matters.  Try to stifle their efforts by drumming up social disapproval against them, even though they may be on the right side of the issue.

Later in the meeting, a motion was made to direct Mitchell Johnson to present the City Council with a budget that would not contain a tax increase.  Goldie Wells continued to be adamant in opposition to anything that made sense, indicating that asking this of the City Manager would be "a waste of time".

Perkins then countered by making a motion to fund fully the gang unit in the Police Department, thereby trying to put the budget hawks on the City Council on the defensive by making it appear they were soft on crime if they pinched too many pennies.  Remain mindful that we have not yet had the chance to review the report of the outside consultant reviewing the GPD, because it is not yet completed.  We do not know what will be recommended regarding how crime should be controlled most effectively; and whether the recommendations should be adopted.

The local political norm of annual tax increases, you see, is inevitable, according to the unstated premise Perkins seemed to present.  It is unthinkable that another alternative exists, or that we can fight crime effectively without these tax increases.

There is only one problem.  We have had tax increases on a nearly annual basis for years; and crime conditions in Greensboro are awful.  If tax increases are the answer to crime, then why is Greensboro such a high-crime area?

Baron's Smoking Guns

Mike Baron has had another post that dramatizes the issues regarding local water supply and demand.  In black and white.

GSBO City Council Meeting: Fear of a Simple Vote

I had the opportunity to watch parts of last night's city council meeting, and read some of the other coverage. 

Mary Rakestraw, of course, introduced a motion to remove Mitchell Johnson which triggered some acrimonious discussion. 

The Melderec con Simkins forces do not want to vote on this.  There perhaps are two reasons: an obstreperous brand of obstinacy, and simple fear.  There may be fear of certain members having to go on record with this vote.

Our city council is small, and our system is supposed to be democratic.  Any member should be free to introduce a motion and have it voted upon.  But the usual forces were at work.  TDBS and Goldie Wells made it sound as if it were nearly a capital crime to introduce such a motion without the entire council agreeing upon it beforehand.  TDBS added that it was an "ambush" and "unfair".  Wells said it was not in the best interests of the entire city to introduce such a motion.  Robbie Perkins predictably attempted to label it as "divisive", "over the edge"; and said it was not statesmanlike. 

Mike Barber made some good comments, but once again acted to butter his bread on both sides.  He voted in favor of TDBS' motion to squelch what Mary Rakestraw was trying to do.  But he supported Trudy Wade's motion that would have demoted Mitchell Johnson.

Sandra Anderson Groat indicated she strongly supported the ability of council members to make motions without clearing them in closed session.  She then proceeded to vote in favor of blocking Rakestraw's motion.

TDBS and Goldie Wells were being disingenuous.  They were trying to make it appear that they objected because the council had not completed its discussions on the city manager.  But in fact the city manager has been an issue for months (if not years); and all council members have had ample opportunity to contemplate and discuss his performance.  Making a vote on a matter such as this is a matter of accountability.  But they simply don't want Rakestraw's motion entertained, because they do not want this accountability.  They claimed frustration; but instead, it is clear that there is a desire to control the way the script plays out.

Mary Rakestraw once again was courageous.  She described how certain council members in closed session had made disparaging remarks, or ridiculed other council members.   It would be instructive to know who they are, and what they said.  She pledged to make her motion again in the future.

Late in the meeting, Rakestraw expressed concern about the number of suspended police officers, and asked Chief Tim Bellamy when all these officers were going to be returned to active duty.   Bellamy made a blatantly impertinent response to Councilwoman Rakestraw, and there was considerable laughter in the council chambers.  It somehow seems doubtful that Bellamy will be held accountable for this highly inappropriate public behavior-- i.e., for a staff member to speak in a manner that attempts to "stick it" to a sitting council member.

There was an attempt to frame the discussion to make it appear that Rakestraw, Wade and to a lesser extent Barber were acting irresponsibly.  But instead we learned in the process about the character of the machine politicians opposing them; and also learned more about their duly anointed police chief.   

Simkins Endorsements in Primary Elections

We have a primary election for some local elective offices coming up in a few weeks.  And it  appears that the Simkins PAC is interviewing candidates in preparation for making endorsements in the primary election.

It is unclear to me whether this represents a new twist.  Last year, the PAC did not make endorsements in the City Council primaries.  I am uncertain to what extent it may have made primary endorsements in the past otherwise.

In any event, this means the usual procession of candidates-- Democrat and Republican-- presents to try to crawl in bed, to varying degrees, with the machine.  This is a grotesque spectacle, and it often betrays a lack of principle among those candidates that participate.  I have previously argued that Republican candidates should not be seeking this endorsement.

What do the upcoming Simkins primary endorsements mean?

Consider what has happened on the Guilford County Board of Commissioners over the last several years.  There has been a significant decrease in power and influence wielded by Melvin "Skip" Alston and Carolyn Coleman.  Are the upcoming endorsements intended to somehow reverse that trend?  Will the endorsees in the Board of County Commissioners races be those more likely to support them, directly or indirectly?

It would be good to know which County Board of Commissioners candidates are seeking the Simkins endorsement; and which are not.  Based on his previous posts at this blog, I think I know of one who would be less likely to accept it-- Wendell Sawyer. 

But it would also be good to know what is happening in the races for the state legislature and the school board; and whether judicial candidates are being interviewed.

I have not made a formal effort to survey candidates as I did last summer in the City Council race.  But we need to know what the candidates' inclinations are, and what the PAC is really hoping to achieve by endorsing during this primary season.

Back Home

I got back late last night after spending a long weekend in New York City at the national meeting of my specialty society.  There were some good sessions about which I hope to post soon.

I stayed with my mom on Staten Island, and commuted into Manhattan via "express bus" to attend the conference. 

I saw that a discussion ensued in response to the "Top 10 Reasons" post on Friday.  It's good to be back.