Oh, and don't get too excited Mollie. Amtrak internet is notoriously unreliable.

Fred, there is still nothing explicitly coercive or restrictive regarding individual behavior about what I'm proposing.

I do get that the use of tax dollars *is* coercive, but then programs like this also have to be looked as a result of competing options. I guarantee people are already proposing stupid and expensive government actions in the wake of Boston. Part of the reason I am floating this is born of cynicism -- I don't hope to stop government, but contain it. Sometimes it's good to have a less bad/expensive option to throw out there.

So let me ask -- what new government security and safety measures would people be willing to pay for? Or are there any?

Just to clarify, with the last line of my last comment I don't mean that it's not important who pays for such a program or how it's done. I just mean that maybe we should refocus on the best way to get people in our communities EMT training rather than having grand discussion about the role of government. Some people have already put forth good ideas along these lines and let's keep 'em coming.

No, I didn't justify Bloomberg's soda ban or anything like it because nothing about this is coercive or restrictive. I am well aware of the failings of government. I do think private action on this is preferable, and to the extent government were to get involved with something like this the more local it is, the better.

How open I am to government action and/or incentives on this depends on how it's done, obviously. I'm sensing more than anything that a lot of this hinges on palpable disgust with the government screwing up everything it touches — a very understandable sentiment! — more than people wanting to have a discussion about whether government could make a difference if, and this is a big if, it did something smart. I think we'd all agree programs like EMT training would be preferable to hiring 1,000s more at DHS, which is regrettably what people are probably clamoring for right now.

But regardless, EMT training is a damn good idea. I'm more interested in seeing it happening than bickering about who pays for it.

Further, there's no real market incentives for what I'm proposing. I'm not saying we need more professional paramedics (maybe we do, I don't know). I'm saying that more ordinary citizens should get EMT training to be prepared for crises. That's not a huge effort to make, but it's still a significant investment in time and effort for people that otherwise have no financial incentive to do so. Of course, it would be great if private efforts produced 100,000 more Americans with EMT training -- and we should encourage that! But the fact I'm open to government efforts to help ordinary citizens get EMT training doesn't exactly make me a statist. The explicit point here is giving people the tools to help themselves, which could reduce government in the long run.

I'm about to hop a train, so naturally Mollie wrote a post lambasting me without giving me adequate time to defend myself.

In any event, I'd already conceded on twitter that I was spitballing and maybe a grant program isn't the best idea. However, I do think that public safety and national defense are one of the few legitimate roles that the government has. And this is an essential priority -- most people don't think that government inefficiency is a reason for the government to deny this responsibility. Does anyone serious argue that the Pentagon's wasteful spending means we should privatize the Army? 

Hate to break it to you, but Jennings is a self-described "lefty." He's not terribly obnoxious about it, though. 

Norm Ornstein is doing AEI's best work? Ummm... that's a spectacularly misguided assessment. 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ornstein-and-manns-false-claims-about-false-balance_665272.html

Let me try and articulate why I dislike Helen Hunt, though to be fair to her I must admit my my aversion is largely visceral. Her squinty earnestness seems to suck the fun out of everything she's in. Something about her demeanor makes her the perfect stand-in for every unadventurous suburban white woman I've ever stumbled across who's politics and cultural sympathies are entirely predictable. The kind of woman you meet in line at the coffee shop, and even though you've just met her you can just tell Carole King's Tapestries is very meaningful to her and that she considers herself more aware than most because just that morning she listened intently to an NPR report on a strike by Bolivian textile workers.

Anyway, I know I'm not the only guy that finds Hunt off-putting. In fact, a a quick Google shows people are hostile toward her in a way that I am emphatically not.

EJ -- well, now we know what we'll put on the sign for our appearence at the Chili cook off next year. Thanks!

Actually, I do mention the New Mexico wedding photography case in the longer piece. But yes, that's a classic example of human rights commissions run amok!

They're getting there. In fact, if you read the piece I talk about Canada's human rights commissions and discuss the parallels.

Heh. A few years back, D.C. started offering some pretty serious incentives to redevelop H St. It's now a pretty happening night spot, with some very nice restaurants and clubs. But you still don't have to travel very far before it gets sketchy.

Ah. I was just staring at your book on my desk! As someone who's no stranger to campus censorship, it looks great.

Not sure how to read that, but I do hope you realize we were joking.  We'd love to meet you and your brother.

Manfred,

Oh, I take no umbrage at the crush you have on my wife. Then again, I'm also 6'5" and personally tend to employ "delectable" in more of the Ed Gein sense of the word. So just factor that into your decision matrix.

Ok, relax. I'm just kidding. (OR AM I?) No, seriously. Bring your brother along. We'd be glad to meet him.

Best,

Mark