Flock Cameras

A lot of people are upset about Flock cameras. I must confess, I don't like them, but I can't see any way to stop them from what they are doing. It is perfectly legal. 

Consider, police can conduct warrantless tails of individuals for days at a time, as long as those tails remain in public areas, public thoroughfares and do not infringe on curtilage, that is, the home and the area immediately surrounding it. 

Flock cameras that are not trained on curtilage are viewing public thoroughfares. It is not a crime to publicly observe individuals who are traversing public areas. That's simple observation, and there is no law against it, nor can there be. If it were a crime, cops could not do warrantless tails, but they can do warrantless tails. 

Heck, game wardens can walk onto private property, install secret cameras and use the evidence derived in court without bothering to get a warrant. It is not considered trespass and the surveillance is completely legal. As long as the cameras are of woods and open fields, not curtilage, there is zero problem. This has been upheld countless times. Flock cameras are just public highway versions of this "Open Fields" doctrine. The Open Fields doctrine is relatively new, having been established during Prohibition, but it has never been overturned. In fact, SCOTUS was the court that created it (Hester v. United States, 1924). It has been reaffirmed, by SCOTUS, as recently as 1984  (Oliver v. United States).  Unfortunately, that's great precedent for Flock.

As I said, I don't like Flock cameras and I have no problem with people who knock them down (which is logically inconsistent of me, I grant), but Flock isn't violating the law.

Democrats: American Taliban

Amnesty International is now up in arms over the Taliban's recent passage of a law allowing child marriage. I have pointed out in previous essays that the Taliban law is not much different from late 19th century US law. In fact, it isn't much different than the current law in several US states. 

But, when you think about it more deeply, the Taliban law is actually not much different from current US federal law. 

All 50 states and Washington, D.C. (51 jurisdictions total) allow minors to consent to STI testing and treatment without parental consent. Meanwhile, 24 states + D.C. explicitly allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services: 

• 16 states allow it under specific circumstances (e.g., married, pregnant, parent, mature minor, or health risk).
• A few states have no explicit policy (providers may rely on general "mature minor" doctrines or other rules).
• 2 states (e.g., Texas in some contexts) have stricter rules, though federal programs can influence this.

Title X Family Planning Program (federal funding for clinics) requires providers to offer confidential services to minors without requiring parental consent or notification. Other federal rules like HIPAA generally treat minors who consent to their own care as having privacy rights over that information.

So, both the Taliban and American federal and state law allow minor children to engage in sex. In America, this is commonly protected activity, something a minor can engage in without parental permission or even parental knowledge. The government will actively work with the minor to make sure the parents never find out. In many cases, any attempt to notify the parents is actually a crime.

Meanwhile, the Taliban require that all sexual activity take place within the social construct of marriage, thereby providing at least a minimal structure of protection and care for the child engaging in sex.

So, explain how America, which allows minors to be used, abused and discarded, is morally superior to the Taliban, which requires minors at least be married and cared for within the confines of marriage.

Apart from the superior care for children expressed in the Taliban law, I honestly don't see that much difference between American practice and Taliban practice.

College as Social Club

All colleges teach the same facts. Course content is the same. There's only so many ways to teach someone how to calculate the area of a circle, then you're done. You can now learn most course content on Youtube. If you are going to college to learn content, you are mostly wasting your time and your money. For some things, like engineering, medicine, the law, you have to have a college degree to practice the profession. But for a lot of subjects, for example, history, English literature, philosophy, etc., college is simply unnecessary. All you need is a library card and interest in the field. 

HOWEVER...

The major advantage of college is the classmates. If you go to an "elite" college, your classmates will be children of Congressmen, your dorm roomate might be the child of a SCOTUS judge or a governor.

If you go to a "good" regional college, your classmates will be running companies or company technical departments, making hiring decisions, etc.

You go to college to make those social connections so your career advances. That's what the tuition pays for. College is a match-maker. It hooks you up with the people who will eventually be moving your industry in your area. 

You just have to realize that going in. When you take a class, you aren't trying to impress the professor. You're trying to impress your classmates, the people who will be important in your profession in ten years. You're making friends now so doors will be open for you later.

THAT is something you can't get through Youtube or Khan Academy. That's why you go to college. It is entirely about socialization now. 

Except as a way to virtue-signal to your colleagues, course content is kind of a side dish, not the centrepiece. College tuition is the annual dues at a country club. You don't go to country clubs for the meals or the golf, you go there to meet the other people in the club.