Blogs

Grand Jury Doesn't Indict Staten Island Cop in Death of Eric Garner

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 2:47 PM EST

Update 12/3/2014: Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly told New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio the Department of Justice will conduct a federal investigation into Eric Garner's death, following a grand jury's decision not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo. 

A Staten Island grand jury has declined to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner.

The "no-bill" decision comes despite the fact that Pantaleo was caught on camera putting Garner in a chokehold during his July 17 arrest.

Cell-phone video of Garner’s July 17 arrest shows Pantaleo wrestling him to the sidewalk on Bay Street, with the white cop’s arms wrapped around the neck of the black suspect.

On the ground, Garner was heard repeatedly yelling “I can’t breathe!” as Pantaleo and other cops held him down and handcuffed him.

The Medical Examiner’s Office ruled Garner’s death a homicide caused by “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”

Police union leaders denied that Pantaleo used a chokehold — which is banned by the NYPD — and blasted the autopsy as part of a “political” witch hunt.

The fact that this video exists, that the cop saw it being recorded, that the grand jury watched it and then still declined to indict, should chasten anyone who thinks body cams will be a cure-all for police abuse.

Read about the science of implicit prejudices and what we can do to better train police.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

April 23rd Is the Saddest Day of the Year

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 2:30 PM EST

According to Google—sort of—the saddest times of the year are spring and fall. Weird. Click here for the explanations, which seem a bit ad hoc to me. I mean, less light? Then why is winter such a happy time? Not to mention spring. "As it turns out," the article explains, "lengthening daylight may discombobulate people's chemical regulatory system." So....less light is bad. But more light can also be bad. And winter is OK even though it has the least light of all. This might all be true, but it's sure a bit of a chin scratcher.

And the unhappiest day of the year in 2014 was April 23. WTF? I could understand April 15. But what's the deal with the 23rd? Anybody got a theory? Am I missing something here?

The Problem With the Ferguson, Ray Rice, and UVA Rape Stories

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 1:36 PM EST

What do these three recent stories have in common?

  • Ferguson
  • Ray Rice
  • The University of Virginia gang rape

One thing they have in common is that I've written little or nothing about them. But they share two other attributes as well. Here they are:

  1. All three have spotlighted problems that are critically important and absolutely deserving of broader attention. Ferguson is all about racial disparities, police killings of unarmed civilians, the militarization of law enforcement, and other equally deserving issues. Ray Rice was about the scourge of domestic violence and its tacit acceptance within the culture of professional sports. The UVA rape story was about sexual assault on university campuses, fueled by alcohol, fraternities, and official lack of concern.
     
  2. However, the specific incidents in all three cases are, to say the least, less than ideal as poster children for these issues. We will never know for sure what happened to Michael Brown, but as evidence has dribbled out, the simple liberal narrative of a gentle teenager being gunned down while trying to surrender has seemed less and less credible. In the Ray Rice case, it's clear that Rice did something terrible—but as it turns out, the evidence suggests that the criminal justice system treated him fairly reasonably and that the NFL's actions were mostly a craven reaction to public opinion. Finally, in the UVA rape scandal, a number of credible questions have been raised about whether Rolling Stone's account of what happened was fair—or, in the worst case, even true.

If you're curious about why I've been relatively quiet about these stories, that's why. All of them spotlight issues that I think are well worth spotlighting, and I don't really relish the thought of doing or writing anything that might dilute their power. These are all things that I want people to pay more attention to, not less, and if you want the world to change you have to be willing to exploit the events you have, not the events you wish you had.

And yet, the specific fact patterns of each specific case are genuinely problematic. To pretend otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

I've dealt with this by not saying much. That's not exactly an act of moral courage, is it? And yet, with the facts as hazy as they are, I'm just not sure what else to do. Perhaps the answer is to stop worrying about it: Just accept that we live in a messy world and sometimes the events that have the most impact aren't clear cut. But you use the events anyway in an effort to grab public attention and improve the world a bit, even if that sometimes means a few individuals end up being treated unfairly in some way. Perhaps.

I don't know—though I'm struck that three such similar events have occurred in just the past few months. But I'm still not sure whether I should have reacted differently. I just don't know.

The Fracking Boom Could End Way Sooner Than Obama Thinks

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 1:00 PM EST
A natural gas rig outside Fort Worth, Texas.

President Obama is fond of touting America's vast trove of natural gas—and the energy (read: economic growth) it can provide—as a reason to support fracking. "Our 100-year supply of natural gas is a big factor in drawing jobs back to our shores," he told a gathering at Northwestern University in October.

You can hear that same optimism about US natural gas production from Democrats, Republicans, and of course, the industry itself. The conviction that America can fuel its economy by churning out massive amounts of natural gas for decades has become a core assumption of national energy policy. But what if it's wrong?

Those rosy predictions are based on official forecasts produced by the Energy Information Administration, an independent federal agency that compiles data on America's energy supply and demand. This spring, EIA chief Adam Sieminski told a Senate hearing that he was confident natural gas production would grow 56 percent between 2012 and 2040. But the results of a series of studies at the University of Texas, reported today in an article in the journal Nature, cast serious doubt about the accuracy of EIA's forecasts.

The UT team conducted its own analysis of natural gas production at all four of the US's major shale gas formations (the Marcellus, Haynesville, Fayetteville, and Barnett), which together account for two-thirds of America's natural gas output. Then, they extrapolated production into the future based on predicted market forces (the future price of gas relative to other fuels) and known geology. Their analysis suggests that gas production will peak in 2020, 20 years earlier than the EIA predicts. What's more, the UT researchers project that by 2030, gas production levels will be only half of EIA's prediction.

The difference in opinion stems from a difference in the scale of the analyses. The UT team's grid for each shale play studied was at least 20 times finer than EIA's, according to Nature:

Resolution matters because each play has sweet spots that yield a lot of gas, and large areas where wells are less productive. Companies try to target the sweet spots first, so wells drilled in the future may be less productive than current ones. The EIA's model so far has assumed that future wells will be at least as productive as past wells in the same county. But this approach, [UT-Austin petroleum engineer Ted] Patzek argues, "leads to results that are way too optimistic".

Why do these numbers matter? The federal government, states, and the private sector all base their energy investments—research and development, infrastructure construction, etc.—on forecasts of where our energy will come from in the future. If natural gas really is super-abundant, there may be less urgency to invest in renewables like solar and wind to replace coal plants as they age or are regulated out of existence. But if there's less recoverable natural gas than we think, we'll need to change our strategy to avoid coming up short on power 20 years down the line. At the same time, there are international repercussions: Many countries are taking cues from the United States on how to develop their own natural gas resources, so what happens here will shape those plans as well. And a series of massive natural gas export facilities are already being proposed across the US to ship our gas overseas; what will happen to global markets if those run dry prematurely?

Because they rely on informed guesses about future market conditions, these forecasts can never be bulletproof, and the UT study doesn't close the book on how much natural gas the US really has in store. But it's an important reminder that we should treat politicians' promises about fossil fuel wealth with skepticism.

Tea Partiers Ignore Michele Bachmann's Call for Rally Against "Amnesty"

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 12:23 PM EST
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Tea Party Patriots cofounder Jenny Beth Martin (left) in front of the Supreme Court in 2012

On November 20, minutes after President Barack Obama delivered a speech explaining his executive action on immigration reform that would protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took to Fox News and called on tea partiers everywhere to come to Washington to protest.

Bachmann, the head of the House tea party caucus who is retiring from Congress in weeks, implored the audience to help her fight the "amnesty." She urged them to "melt the phone lines" to congressional lawmakers. And she declared she would be leading a protest on Capitol Hill. "I'm calling on your viewers to come to DC on Wednesday, December 3, at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol," she proclaimed. "We need to have a rally, and we need to go visit our senators and visit our congressman, because nothing frightens a congressman like the whites of his constituents' eyes…We need the viewers to come and help us."

The next day, the Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest remaining tea party groups, sent out an urgent survey to its members. The email, signed by cofounder Jenny Beth Martin, said the group—which has worked closely with Bachmann in the past to organize other rallies at the Capitol—was trying to determine whether such a rally would be a good use of its resources. The email asked these "patriots" to indicate whether they would respond to Bachmann and come to Washington to protest the president's actions on immigration. Apparently, the answer was no. The Tea Party Patriots did not sign up for this ride.

With the tea party not heeding Bachmann's call, her "high noon" rally was downgraded to…a press conference. So on Wednesday, Bachmann appeared on the Capitol steps—joined by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)—and spoke to a passel of cameras and about 40 protesters. Here's a picture of the crowd:

tiny protest
Stephanie Mencimer

What happened to her big protest? Bachmann's office did not respond to a request for comment. A TPP spokesman said in an email that the "gathering in Washington is not a Tea Party Patriots event per se, but we are fully in favor of it and have encouraged our supporters in the area to come out if they can."

The lackluster response to Bachmann's high-noon call is a far cry from five years ago, when the congresswoman made a similar appeal on Fox for a protest against Obamacare. She asked for tea partiers to hit Capitol Hill and tell legislators "don't you dare take away my health care." And the fledgling tea party movement responded enthusiastically. The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity dispatched dozens buses full of activists—29 just from New Jersey. FreedomWorks, then headed by former House majority leader Dick Armey, organized more. Glenn Beck promoted the event. Thousands of people showed up, as did the entire GOP House leadership. The momentum generated from that rally helped the GOP in the 2010 midterm elections.

Bachmann, after a failed run for the White House, is spending her last days on the Hill writing listicles for BuzzFeed. And even before her final day as a congresswoman, Bachmann, with this non-rally, seems a has-been.

Tell Me, Chuck: What Should Dems Do To Win Back the Middle Class?

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 11:16 AM EST

A longtime reader writes: "Hope you'll weigh in on Edsall on Schumer and the Dems 'destroying' the party over Obamacare."

Well, OK. But I don't have an awful lot to say. Basically, Sen. Chuck Schumer thinks it was a mistake to focus on Obamacare in 2009. Instead, Democrats should have focused like a laser on the economy, and in particular, on helping the working and middle classes. Instead, Dems passed yet another social welfare program that mostly helps the poor, demonstrating yet again that they don't really care much about the middle class.

Yesterday, Tom Edsall weighed in on this. He didn't really take a political position of his own, but he did present a bunch of evidence that Schumer was substantively correct. That is, Obamacare really does help mainly the poor, and Democrats really have done very little for the middle class lately.

So what's my view? Well, I've written about this before, and I'd say that on a technical level Edsall is exactly right. On the upside, Obamacare does help the working and middle classes a bit, partly because its subsidies are available even to those with relatively high incomes and partly because of its other provisions. For example, its guarantee that you can get affordable coverage even if you have a preexisting condition is something that helps everyone. If you're middle class and you lose your job, that provision of Obamacare might be a lifesaver.

Still, there's no question that Obamacare helps the middle classes only at the margins. Most of them already have employer health coverage, and the ones that end up buying coverage through the exchanges get only small subsidies. I happen to think that Obamacare will eventually be the foundation for a program of universal health care that genuinely appeals to everyone, the same way that Social Security does, but that's in the future. It doesn't really help Democrats now.

So I agree with Edsall about the technical distribution of Obamacare benefits. And I also agree with Schumer that Democrats need to do more to appeal to the working and middle classes. So that means I agree with their basic critique. Right?

Nope. Not even slightly. You see, the core of the critique isn't merely that Democrats should do more for the middle class. It's specifically that Democrats should have done more in 2009 for the middle class. But this is the point at which everything suddenly gets hazy. What should Obama have done in lieu of Obamacare? Paul Krugman has it exactly right:

When people say that Obama should have “focused” on the economy, what, specifically, are they saying he should have done?....What do they mean? Obama should have gone around squinting and saying “I’m focused on the economy”? What would that have done?

Look, governing is not just theater. For sure the weakness of the recovery has hurt Democrats. But “focusing”, whatever that means, wouldn’t have delivered more job growth. What should Obama have done that he actually could have done in the face of scorched-earth Republican opposition? And how, if at all, did health reform stand in the way of doing whatever it is you’re saying he should have done?

In broad terms, I agree with Schumer's critique. Democrats need to do more to appeal to the working and middle classes, not just the poor. But Schumer is maddeningly vague about just what that means. And as it relates to 2009, in particular, he's full of hot air. In the first few months of the year, Obama passed a big stimulus. He rescued the auto industry. He cut everyone's payroll taxes.

Should Obama have done more? Oh my, yes. His pivot to the deficit in mid-2009 was dumb. And by far the biggest smoking gun of unfinished business was something to rescue underwater homeowners. But let's be serious: even if Obama had supported a broad rescue effort, it wouldn't have mattered. Congress wasn't on board, and I doubt very much that anything could have gotten them on board. The politics was just too toxic. Never forget that the mere prospect of maybe rescuing underwater homeowners was the issue that set off Rick Santelli's famous CNBC rant and led to the formation of the tea party movement. I wish things were otherwise, but bailing out underwater homeowners was simply never in the cards.

Beyond that, Democrats have a much bigger problem than even Schumer acknowledges. It's this: what can they do? That is, what big ticket items are left that would buy the loyalty of the middle class for another generation? We already have Social Security and Medicare. We have Obamacare. We have the mortgage interest deduction. What's left?

There are smallish things. Sometime people point to college loans. Or universal pre-K. I'm in favor of those things. But college loans are a stopgap, and the truth is that the rising price of college for the middle class is mainly a state issue, not a federal one. And universal pre-K simply doesn't yet have enough political support. (It's also something that would most likely benefit the poor much more than the middle class, but leave that aside for the moment.)

So I'll ask the same question I've asked before. I'm all in favor of using the power of government to help the middle classes. But what does that mean in terms of concrete political programs that (a) the middle class will associate with Democrats and help win them loyalty and votes, and (b) have even a snowball's chance of getting passed by Congress? Expansion of Social Security? Expansion of Medicare? Bigger subsidies for Obamacare? Universal pre-K? A massive infrastructure program? Let's get specific, and let's not nibble around the edges. Little programs here and there aren't going to make much difference to the Democrats' political fortunes. Nor will heroic but vague formulations about rescuing unions or raising taxes on the wealthy by a few points.

So tell me. What should they have done in 2009 that was actually feasible? What should they do now? Let's hear it.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

After 45 Years, "The Velvet Underground" Stands the Test of Time

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 6:00 AM EST

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground—45th Anniversary Super Deluxe Edition
Polydor/Universal Music Enterprises

Following the radical and overpowering White Light/White Heat, the Velvet Underground's third, self-titled, album initially seemed like a lesser effort, but it has more than stood the test of time. With cofounder and main creative foil (or foe) John Cale out of the band, leader Lou Reed assumed complete control, crafting a set of relatively understated songs that range from rockin' ("What Goes On") to surprisingly gentle ("After Hours").

At six discs, 65 tracks, and five hours of music, this behemoth collection offers plenty to savor (although casual fans might prefer the two-disc distillation). If three different mixes of the original album suggests overkill, the mono version does reveal different textures to the music, while a fourth disc of sessions for an abandoned fourth album contains a slew of genuine gems, including the raucous "I'm Gonna Move Right In," a touching "She's My Best Friend," and an early look at the Reed standard "Rock & Roll."

The final two discs, featuring live performances from November 1969, are simply terrific, highlighted by the exuberant "We're Gonna Have a Real Good Time Together," a 30-minute-plus take on "Sister Ray" and the anthemic "Sweet Jane." Nearly a half-century later, the raw heart and tender soul of the Velvet Underground are wondrous indeed.

How Monsanto's Big Data Push Hurts Small Farms

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 6:00 AM EST

Ask an agribusiness exec about sustainable agriculture, and you'll likely get an earful about something called "precision agriculture." What is it? According to Yara, the fertilizer giant, it's technology that "enables farmers to add the specific nutrients needed for their crop, in exactly the right amount, at the right time."

That is to say, instead of using intuition and experience to decide how much fertilizer or pesticides to apply, farmers rely on sensors, satellite data, and the Internet of Things to make such choices. In addition to selling farmers agrichemicals, Yara also sells a "knowledge platform, supported by tools for precision farming," including "an online service providing advice on the physical mixing characteristics of Yara's foliar products with agrochemicals."

Yara isn't the only industry titan to move into the information-peddling business. Genetically modified seed/pesticide giant Monsanto envisions itself transforming into an information-technology company within a decade, as a company honcho recently told my colleague Tim McDonnell. A year ago, Monsanto dropped nearly $1 billion on Climate Corp., which "turns a wide range of information into valuable insights and recommendations for farmers," as Monsanto put it at the time.

But will Big Ag's turn to Big Data deliver on the environmental promises made in the press releases and executive interviews? McDonnell lays out the environmental case succinctly:

The payoff for growers can be huge: Monsanto estimates that farmers typically make 40 key choices in the course of a growing season—what seed to plant, when to plant it, and so on. For each decision, there's an opportunity to save money on "inputs": water, fuel, seeds, custom chemical treatments, etc. Those savings can come with a parallel environmental benefit (less pollution from fertilizer and insecticides).

These are real gains. No one who has seen fertilizer-fed algae blooms in Lake Erie—or had their municipal tap water declared toxic because of them—can deny that the Midwest's massive corn farms need to use fertilizer more efficiently. Des Moines, Iowa, surrounded by millions of acres of intensively fertilized farmland, routinely has to spend taxpayer cash to filter its municipal drinking water of nitrates from farm runoff. Nitrates are linked with cancer and "blue-baby syndrome," which can suffocate infants.

But as Quentin Hardy suggested in a recent New York Times piece, Big Data on the farm can also steamroll an extremely effective conservation practice: crop diversification, which can slash the need for fertilizer and herbicide, as a landmark 2012 Iowa State University study showed. Big Data, Hardy argued, gives farms incentive to both get bigger and plant fewer varieties of crops.

His argument is twofold. First, the precision ag tools being peddled by the agribusiness giants are quite pricey:

Equipment makers like John Deere and AGCO, for example, have covered their planters, tractors and harvesters with sensors, computers and communications equipment. A combine equipped to harvest a few crops cost perhaps $65,000 in 2000; now it goes for as much as $500,000 because of the added information technology.

When a farmer invests that much in a technology, there's an "incentive to grow single crops to maximize the effectiveness of technology by growing them at the largest possible scale," Hardy writes. "Farmers with diverse crops and livestock would need many different systems," and that would require yet more investment in information technology.

Hardy finds evidence that the shift to information technology is already accelerating a decades-long trend of ever-larger Midwestern farms focusing more and more on churning out just two crops: corn and soy. "It's not that smaller farms are less productive, but the big ones can afford these technology investments," a US Department of Agriculture economist tells him.

One farmer Hardy talked to owns a family farm in Iowa that grew from 700 acres in the 1970s to 20,000 acres today. "We've got sensors on the combine, GPS data from satellites, cellular modems on self-driving tractors, apps for irrigation on iPhones," the farmer tells Hardy. 

The recent plunge in corn and soy prices might only exacerbate the trend. All that gear and information allows the farm to operate at a high level of efficiency and at a vast scale, making it more likely to eke out a profit than smaller operations in a time of lowball crop prices. As a result, over the next few years of expected low crop prices, the farmer with 20,000 acres in Iowa expects his farm to expand at the expense of "farmers who don’t embrace technology," he tells Hardy.

But economies of scale and efficiency don't automatically translate to less use of toxic chemicals and pollution. Big Data may help monocrop farmers use less fertilizer and pesticides per acre harvested than they had been before, but if they drive out more diversified and less chemical-intensive operations, the result might not be as clear-cut as the agribusiness companies suggest.

Tom's Kitchen: A Chili to Unite Vegans and Purists (in Anger)

| Wed Dec. 3, 2014 6:00 AM EST
Bowl of red? You could call it that—at your own risk.

During a recent frigid snap, I found myself with a cold chill I couldn't get rid of, a pound of (grass-fed, local) ground chuck thawing in the fridge, and a fierce appetite. The thought of burgers didn't hit the spot, nor did pasta with meat sauce. My mind reached to the depths of my Texas childhood and found a primordial craving I hadn't thought of in years: chili.

Now, chili is as bitterly contested and regionally variegated a dish as cassoulet in France or paella in Spain. Like those dishes, its origin is in dispute. Some partisans insist it must not contain beans (the Texas "bowl of red" school); others demand that it do. Tomatoes are another flashpoint. Serious chili requires chunks of beef, not the ground stuff. Etc.

I usually have patience for such debates. This time, I cast them aside and got busy. I decided to add beans, critics be damned, to stretch the dish out, because I wanted plenty of leftovers. I considered starting with a mirepoix—the French trinity of onions, carrots, and celery—but decided that carrots in chili would be too hippie. (I stuck with celery though, on the theory that it would be barely noticeable).

I knew that to distinguish it from a generic meat sauce, I'd need lots of cumin and paprika, and was relieved to find both in my cupboard. But in another affront to chili tradition, I decided to ignore regular paprika and tap my little jar of that wonderful smoked Spanish version known as Pimenton de la Vera, which added a nice dimension to the mix.

And to complement my main dish, I was happily surprised to find that I had all the ingredients for a simple cornbread—to me, the ultimate accompaniment to chili. (Cornbread is another highly divisive topic, and one for another column.) What follows is a recipe that I predict will unite in fury two disparate groups: vegans and chili partisans. It's also a really good quick dinner. Enjoy!

Quick Chili

Enough high-quality fat, such as olive oil, lard, or bacon grease (I used the latter) to generously cover the bottom of a large pan
1 medium onion, chopped
2 stalks of celery, chopped
3 cloves of garlic, smashed, peeled, and minced
1 pound ground beef, preferably grass-fed
(At least) 1 teaspoon of cumin, freshly ground if possible
1 teaspoon oregano (thyme works to, as does the combination of thyme and oregano)
1-2 bay leaves
1 teaspoon of paprika, smoked or otherwise
1 teaspoon of sea salt
½ 28-ounce can whole plum tomatoes (reserve other half for another use, like salsa)
1 regular 15-oz can of red beans, such as kidney beans, or a cup of dry beans, cooked
Plenty of fresh-ground black pepper
A dash of apple cider vinegar, optional
Something green, like chopped green onion tops or chives, to garnish

Place the pan over medium heat and add the fat. When it's hot, add the onions and celery and cook, stirring occasionally, until they're soft. Add the garlic, cumin, oregano, bay leaves, paprika, and salt, and let it cook, stirring to prevent the garlic from burning, for another minute or two.

Add the meat, and cook, stirring occasionally, until it's brown, around 10 minutes. Add the half-can of tomatoes (along with juices) and cook, stirring, and using a wooden spoon to break up the tomato chunks.

Turn the heat to low, and let the tomatoes simmer, gently, for 20 minutes or so. After it's thickened a bit, add the beans along with about half of their liquid, bring to a boil, and let it simmer, again for 20 minutes or so. Give it a veritable cascade of fresh-ground pepper. Taste for seasoning. (I like my chili highly flavorful, but not spicy-hot—just spicy enough to tickle the back of my throat. Then I serve fiery condiments at the table.) After adding a little salt, I found that a dash of apple cider vinegar balanced the flavor.

Classic chili garnishes include chopped green onions (white and green parts) as well as grated cheese. I decided against cheese, on the grounds that the chili seemed rich enough, and I had no green onions on hand. Garlic chives from the garden did the trick.

Serve with cornbread, a green salad, and your favorite hot sauce. I used my beloved home-made salsa macha.

Stop-and-Frisk Fades Away Under New Mayor, Crime Goes Down Anyway

| Tue Dec. 2, 2014 10:04 PM EST

The mayor of New York City wants you to know that violent crime is down, down, down:

Robberies, considered the most telling indicator of street crime, are down 14 percent across New York City from last year. Grand larcenies — including the thefts of Apple devices that officials said drove an overall crime increase two years ago — are also down, by roughly 3 percent.

And after a record-low 335 homicides in 2013, the city has seen 290 killings in the first 11 months of this year, a number unheard-of two decades ago. “When I came into this job, people always talked about last year — last year was an amazing year in this city in terms of bringing down crime,” Mr. de Blasio said. “We saw what was possible. The city’s crime rate continues to go down.”

Previous police commissioners have insisted that New York's mass stop-and-frisk program was an essential part of the city's fight against violent crime. "No question about it," said Ray Kelly last year after a federal judge struck down the program. "Violent crime will go up." And mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed: If you try to so much as reform stop-and-frisk, he warned the city council, you're "playing politics with people’s lives." But as you can see from the chart on the right, stop-and-frisk did indeed go down and violent crime did not go up. Instead it went down. Just like it has for the past 20 years.

It almost makes you think that something else entirely must be going on. But what?

POSTSCRIPT: Yes, I'm crowing a bit here. I predicted a year ago that Bill de Blasio couldn't really do anything to screw up New York City's progress in reducing violent crime, and it turns out I was right. So there.