Converter theft and deterrence easy
I’m responding to last week’s Daily Bruin article (“Police arrest suspect in catalytic converter thefts,” Sept. 4) on the arrest of a suspect in the recent catalytic converter thefts. I had my catalytic converter stolen a couple of years ago from my SUV. Catalytic converters are extremely easy to steal, with high-clearance vehicles (like SUVs and some trucks) more vulnerable.
The catalytic converters from Toyotas are especially easy to remove. The one on my Toyota 4Runner had four simple bolts that anyone with a hand wrench could remove in less than two minutes. The thieves will also wear insulated gloves so they can take the converters while they are still hot.
Converters don’t have any identifying markings on them. This makes recovery of catalytic converters and the arrest and conviction of the thieves difficult. Anyone busted for having a roomful of converters can claim he or she bought them used or got them from a salvage yard. In my own situation, an officer from El Segundo saw the thieves casing out another 4Runner. When the officer looked in their trunk, he found three catalytic converters. I and another 4Runner owner were able to recover our catalytic converters based on markings ““ a dent on his converter and rust and wear markings on mine.
Tips for anyone with with a high-risk vehicle (i.e., high-clearance truck or SUV, especially Toyota): Take your vehicle to a body shop and have them tack-weld the bolts on the catalytic converter. That will probably run you about $20 and will deter most thieves.
Also, have the license number of your vehicle engraved on your catalytic converter so law enforcement officers can identify and contact you in case they come across it. It will help conviction of the thieves, too. Catalytic converter theft has been such a big problem in our city that the El Segundo Police Department now offers free engraving.
If someone does steal your converter, it will be very apparent once you start up your car, because it will sound like you just started up a race car. If this happens go to a body shop, not your car dealer. The dealer will probably charge you around $1,000 for a replacement. A body shop can get one for under $200.
Ron Gee, UCLA ’82
Columnist captures media’s complications
Carla Gharibian gives an accurate overview of the problem of media bias in American politics (“Use different media outlets to overcome bias,” Aug. 24). Degeneration of media and political debate has been going on for some time. It’s dooming our access to necessary information and making it impossible to manage our democracy. Until we understand the underlying dynamics of media and political polarization, efforts for reform will fail.
Political analysts have been studying political polarization ever since the red-blue map popped up after the Gore-Bush election. The hard evidence contradicts much of the popular narrative.
First, media did not create political polarization, though it helps drive it.
Second, parties are not the source either, though, like media, both parties have taken advantage in their desire to divide and conquer the electorate.
Third, subcultural identities (like guns, religion or same-sex marriage) as a cause is pure myth.
Both media and parties are responding to the same divide in the American electorate. We can bridge this divide if we recognize it.
It is ideological and economic and for the past forty years has lined up with geography. Media and political preferences coincide with population density. The urban core prefers liberal media and liberal politics. As we move to the rural areas the preferences are exactly the opposite.
The tipping point between liberal and conservative is in the outer suburbs. This relationship is monotonic and highly robust, as we can see from county voting maps. Mainstream media appeals to urban audiences while conservative media appeals to rural regions. Mainstream TV and print media are predominantly urban media run by urban professionals targeting urban audiences. Note that conservative talk radio and TV found their audience among people who drive more and listen to the radio.
So what explains this? No, it’s not rednecks and religious fanatics, nor gays and minorities, or even country music vs. rap. It’s a simple difference between people who choose to live in cities and those who don’t.
This coincides with people who choose to marry to raise families and desire more open spaces. High-density living favors liberal government spending policies on public transportation, social welfare, housing, education and redistribution to smooth relative economic and social status.
Low-density living favors lower taxes, religious community and more economic self-reliance. The two political parties carved out their constituent territories back in the 1960s and tailored their political appeals accordingly.
Voting patterns at the local level seem to bear this out. Nothing about the 2008 election has changed this. If voters continue to allow themselves to be divided by the media and parties, we can expect the further decline of mainstream media and more disillusion with political parties and government ““ neither of which bode well for our free, democratic society.
The good news is that most Americans value both city and country, culture and open nature. These differences are divisible and can be bridged with understanding and compromise, whereas differences of identity often cannot. Despite this, we’re not likely to change either the campaign or profit incentives facing parties and media, so we shouldn’t expect them to inform us of this reality. After all, it just doesn’t serve their interests.
Michael Harrington
MBA, ’82; Ph.D., Political Science, ’98