Democrats and Republicans are now competing for who can direct the most cruelty at convicts.

That is not very effective for reducing crime. What succeeded in the 1990s was partly the elimination from lead from gasoline in the late 70s, and partly an increase in income on the average for poor people in the 90s, which helped them get by without crime.

We can't get rid of any more lead from gasoline, because none remains in gasoline, but we might be able to make life easier for poor people by electing more progressive Democrats.

At the border with Mexico, US border thugs arrest humanitarians under Arizona's trespassing laws, while right wing fanatics shoot holes in their water tanks. The fanatics are proud of their harassment even when they are convicted of it.

This is in addition to the nonfree app that is the only way to apply for an asylum appointment. Mark my words, if the US government gets away with doing this to asylum seekers, doing it to Americans will be next.

A student riding home in a school bus noticed that the driver had blacked out, because he did not have a snoop-phone. He ran to the driver and stopped the bus without an accident, while everyone else was too distracted.

If this were the worst danger caused by having a snoop-phone, I would not consider it much reason to refuse one. But they hurt nearly all their users in a number of ways.

A UK thug paralyzed Jordan Walker-Brown with a taser, and justified that based on the "belief" that the latter had some sort of weapon. If he did have one, he had not pulled it out.

The thug was tried for causing gross bodily harm, but Walker-Brown said he knew the thug would not be convicted.

Two London thugs have been fired for punching and kicking a teenager while arresting per, and then lying about it.

Please don't refer to a teenager as "a child" — that is propaganda for constraining their lives.

In my view, it should be a crime for uniformed thugs to kick or punch anyone, of whatever age, absent clear and strong justification. Even an adult!