GooseTales

Can The Washington Post Read?

From Today's Washington Post editorial...

"But the detention and interrogation regime that Mr. Bush wants Congress to sanction is almost as bad as the one the Supreme Court forced him to set aside in the Hamdan case . . . . But they were not 'lawful' -- at least not as the Supreme Court has articulated the law."

Now, perhaps I'm missing something (I am just a lowly 2L), but I thought that Hamdan determined the military commissions set up to be unconstitutional and that Hamdi found the detentions to be constitutional.  I don't remember Hamdan being ordered released.  In fact, the Court's opinion specifically says "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm." (Slip Opinion at 72.)  Justice Kennedy in his concurrence notes without objection that "regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue, the Government claims authority to continue to detain him based on his status as an enemy combatant." (Slip Opinion at 11, Kennedy, J. concurring.) 

Furthermore, Justice Breyer in his concurrence states "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary." (Slip Opinion at 1, Breyer, J. concurring.)  This is exactly what the President is doing.

I've read through Hamdan and have found no place where the Court makes a ruling on the legality or Constitutionality any interrogation efforts or policies.

Did The Washington Post not read Hamdan (admittedly, it's quite long) or do they just not care?

An Abdication of Personal Responsibility

Well, I can't say that I'm too surprised by this.  Students across the country will want for sodas during their lunch breaks (though diet soda will be available) under a new agreement among soda companies, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and former President Bill Clinton.  It makes sense in some ways--it looks good for PR purposes and it probably cuts off potential lawsuits.  I think the suits are frivolous and I doubt the soda industry would ever lose one.  While I understand why they made this decision, I have to say the capitulation is a little disappointing.  It continues the abdication of personal responsibility that American society has experienced since probably the free-love era of the 1960s.  Ever since the boomers rebelled against society's rules, they've thrown off the requirement that people live with the consequences of their decisions.  This mentality is present in a lot of areas today, you see it in criminal defenses all the time.  This is just another one where everyone says... "It's not my fault."

Earlier related thoughts.

Ummm, not too smart?

Far be it from me to question the judgment of pirates, but... this hardly seems like a fair fight even with RPGs.  What the hell were they thinking?

Eliminate Tests in School?

I always regarded those bumper stickers, "As long as their are tests, there will be prayer in schools," as humorous.  Who knew that there are teachers that would advocate completely eliminating testing?

That's just what Colman McCarthy who teaches at School Without Walls, Wilson High School (DC), and Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School (MoCo) is advocating.  It's ironic that I read this op-ed in The Post with It's Academic (a high school quiz show in DC/MD) on in the background. 

I have never given a test. I respect my students too much to demean them with exercises in fake knowledge.

Ummm, okay.  Exercises in fake knowledge?  When did knowing history, math, how to read, or other things become "fake knowledge?"  I always though knowing history was a good (that whole, those who don't know it are doomed to repeat it thing).  Then again, perhaps for someone who teaches "nonviolence," a return to the days of Hitler and Stalin would be preferable as we could persuade them with compassion and appeasement.

I can only hope that the damage McCarthy is doing to his students is being undone by those other teachers who do care that their students learn the material.  In life, your ability to perform is paramount.  Your boss isn't going to care if you're a good person when you consistently cost the company money making mistakes.  The boss cares that you know how to do your job.

American society has plenty of people who were academic whizzes in high school but were so driven by the lure of a high grade-point average that their spiritual lives remained stunted. I worry about students who make too many A's.

Oh my.  Now, I am concerned.  I mean, after all, I received more than my fair share of As in high school.  I had no idea my "spiritual life" was stunted.  I'm not even sure what that means.  No time for the arts?  No, I took art, enjoy museums, and can name several artists.  No time for music?  No, I played in the orchestra for eight years and only gave it up when I stopped taking so many tests in college (and my grades dipped in college... hmmm).  I stopped volunteering?  Well, no, I tutored and volunteered in various groups in both high school and in college.  Where exactly was my spiritual life stunted?

To compensate for my no-testing policy, I assign tons of homework.

Oh, Thank God.  You do have some way of measuring achievement.  Here I thought you just allowed your students to sit in class and talk about love-fests, Woodstock, and peace. 

The assignments? Tell someone you love him or her. Do a favor for someone who won't know you did it. Say a kind word to the workers at the school: the people who clean the toilets, cook the food, drive the buses and heat the buildings. And a warning: If you don't do the homework, you'll fail. You'll fail your better self, you'll fail to make the world better, you'll fail at being a peacemaker.

Oh, never mind. 

I know of no meaningful evidence that acing tests has anything to do with students' character development or whether their natural instincts for idealism or altruism are nurtured.

Well, see, this would be problematic, if that was the purpose of the test.  Tests are designed to measure your understanding and knowledge of important concepts... you know, math, science, history, those kinds of things.  They aren't supposed to develop your character.  Your character is supposed to be developed at home, at church, and at school.  It's not the job of the test to do that.  It's the job of the teacher, the parent, the pastor.  (I'd argue, mostly the parent, but in this day and age, they aren't always the best role models.)

I have large amounts of evidence that tests promote the opposite: character defects. After having two of my high school classes read Mathews's column, I asked the students: If during a test the opportunity came to cheat, with no fear of being caught, would you? A majority of hands went up. A few students dismissed the question as naive. Not cheat if you could get away with it? Get real.

Okay, now this bothers me but it has nothing to do with the test.  This is a character defect that has been allowed to develop not because students take tests and are expected to learn the material but because those who teach, nurture, and guide students have failed in their responsibilities.  McCarthy commits the classic logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc. He assumes that because his students have been shown to not regarding cheating as morally corrupt and revealed a character flaw it is because of the test.  I doubt this very seriously.  There is no evidence to support this.  Just because the two occur at the same time does not imply causation.

You'd think as an educator, McCarthy would know better.  Maybe he was too busy learning character to learn the real purpose of education.

Other people's thoughts: here and here.

They'd All Lose Their Jobs

It's a good thing that we don't do this here.  London's mayor, Ken Livingston, has been suspended for four weeks for damaging "the reputation of his office."  Now, I'll admit, what he said was pretty offensive.  He compared a Jewish newspaper report to a concentration camp guard.  However, if being "unnexessarily insensitive and offensive" to a reporter was grounds to be suspended in DC, I'm afraid all of our local and national politicians would be left to find new careers.

Readers of Eugene Volokh, a law prof at UCLA and First Amendment expert discuss.

MoCo Playing Politics with Suit Against FDA

It looks like election time is coming up. Dougie Duncan has had the County file suit against the FDA because the FDA rejected a request to grant a waiver allowing the county to reimport drugs from Canada.  Drugs in Canada are often much less expensive than in the United States because they are subject to price controls set by the Canadian Government.  Duncan applied for the waiver after the County Council passed a bill requiring him to start the program last fall.  The Council originally passed a bill establishing the program in 2004 over Duncan's objection.  Currently, U.S. law forbids the reimportation of prescription drugs because their is no way to confirm their safety or original origin.  Critics of the FDA's position say that this is ridiculous that drugs from Canada are safe.  The drugs are so safe that in a 2003 letter to The Washington Post a Health Canada Assistant Deputy Minister said, "The Government of Canada has never stated that it would be responsible for the safety and quality of prescription drugs     exported from Canada into the United States, or any other country for that matter."  Oops.

This case seems pretty sure to lose as a federal judge through out a similar suit filed by Vermont late last year.  Recognizing the losing position that the state was in, the Attorney General decided not to appeal last November.  The Post points out that the suit was filed as Duncan prepares his run for the Governor's mansion and he tries to broaden his appeal to seniors and liberals.

The Motley Fool has a great article on why programs like this are destined to fail.  First, the Canadian market is substantially smaller than the U.S. market and drug companies don't need to sell to Canada.  They can take two actions: (1) limit the quantity of drugs they sell to Canada based on historical demand or (2) stop selling to Canada altogether.  I guarantee you, if drug companies take either of these actions, the Canadian government will make the exportation of prescription drugs illegal and MoCo won't have anyone to buy the drugs from.  There are signs that some drug companies are already moving in this direction.  Pfizer, for example, cut off several Canadian wholesalers in 2004.  Canada, itself, has taken some steps by cracking down on Internet pharmacies that sell to American customers.

Of course, some have called for reimportation on a national level, but that would likely guarantee action by drug companies and Canada both.  Even without action, a 2003 study from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that even if fully implemented, reimportation "would probably not produce     substantial savings to the federal government," and did not score the bills'     importation provisions as generating savings.

WaPo on Cigarette Taxes

In the second of three Washington Post editorials today with which I agree, the Post calls on Maryland legislators and the Governor to support an increase in the state tobacco tax.  Now, this is something I can get behind.  No, not because I'm a non-smoker (though I am), but because it's good public policy. 

First, the tax is a participatory tax, it effects only those who engage in a certain behavior and with proportion to the amount they participate in it.  Now, perhaps some will argue it's a regressive tax, as I think the poor and uneducated are somewhat more likely to smoke.  Well, yes, maybe it is, but if it encourages them to put their money toward something else more worthwhile (an IRA maybe? savings?), then that's a good thing. 

Tobacco taxes are largely Pigouvian taxes.  Such taxes are designed to cause firms (or in this case, individuals) to modify their behavior.  However, the modification that is desired is not random.  They are desired because the behavior that the firm or individual engages in places costs on society that are larger than the cost borne by the firm or individual alone.  In other words, when you smoke it costs society more than the money you pay for increased medical bills, cigarettes, etc.  Other costs, such as higher overall medical costs and increased incidents of asthma and other respiratory ailments among non-smokers, are not internalized (paid for or considered by smokers).  To make smokers take those costs into account when determining how much they are going to smoke, society imposes a tax.  The tax on cigarettes is far below the level required to achieve the optimum amount of smoking.  Now, contrary to what some might thing, from an economic perspective that isn't zero.  Regardless, the tax increase is a good thing.

That the state has the ability to spend the money on issues related to health care and to combat the societal costs of smoking just doubles the benefit of the Pigouvian tax.

First editorial (on the ports deal) analysis is here.  I apologize for the heavy load of serious posts today.

A Washington Post Trifecta

OK, I know.  I said no serious posts, but isn't it pretty clear that I'm a crazy rule breaker?  I mean half of my posts are at least quasi-serious.  I can't help it I guess, I'm just addicted.  So sue me, or better yet, just skip the posts you don't like.  No one is forcing you to read them.  Hell, based on my traffic numbers nobody is forcing you to read the blog at all...

So, the Washington Post editorial board did it today.  For perhaps the first time in modern history, the Post knocks it out of the park with three editorials with which I agree.  I know, it's shocking.  The few of you who know me or know who I am, know that the Post is about my least favorite favorite newspaper.  I read it, because it's, for the most part, well written, but it's not aligned with my preferences for the most part.

The first editorial is the one with which I agree most.  It points out that all of the concern over the deal to sell the management of some U.S. ports to a company based in the UAE is much ado about nothing.   Some key points from the editorial...

At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai.

Ah, those pesky little facts, don't you just hate it when they get in the way of a good story?  Turns out security isn't handled by the company currently managing the ports or by the company planning to buy the port management rights.  In reality, port security is handled by the U.S. government, just like it should be.  Now, whether they do a good job of that is another question.  Container security seems particularly troubling from what I've read.  Unfortunately, the deal to sell to Dubai World Ports won't do anything to help the security situation, but it seems unlikely to help either.  But, but, DWP is foreign!  Big freaking deal!  The ports are run by a foreign company already.  A foreign company based in an allied country.  Just like the company that is buying that company.

What an allied country you say?

Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Sounds like an ally to me.  I mean, what more do we want from them?  It seems like they're one of the most cooperative countries in the Middle East when it comes to fighting terrorism.  What message does it send if we don't reward countries that support our goals?  As for democracy, they seem to be moving that way.  They have separate secular court system (though still maintain an Islamic court system for family and religious matters).  They announced indirect elections for half of the parliament.  Sure, they have a long way to go, but they are far ahead of some of their neighbors.  The Post closes with this exact point...

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States?

I was going to discuss the other two editorials as well, but this post has become tremendously long on it's own.  I'll follow up later today on the other two, if I get the chance.  Until then, you can read them here (cigarette taxes) and here (Harvard's close-mindedness).

Danish Cartoons

Following on threats to other bloggers (fellow Montgomery County resident Michelle Malkin, among others) for posting the cartoons that have inflamed the Muslim world, InstaPundit has posted two of the cartoons today.  He did so to show solidarity with his fellow bloggers that have seen their sites attacked and received threats.  He promises more cartoons will follow if those threatening the bloggers continue their actions.

Malkin offers superb coverage of the fallout from the cartoons' publication.  She has posts up about death threats to the cartoonist (including from an Indian state-government minister), firey protest photos, and map of demonstrations.

Malkin also offers some coverage of a protest at the Danish Embassy in D.C. yesterday.  For myself, I am constantly wondering if those protesting, burning embassies and consulates, and placing bounties on the heads of individuals over cartoons see the irony in using violence to insist that Islam is a religion of peace.  Good job making your point guys.

Porn and Public Computers

So, DCist is discussing a recent Montgomery County, MD decision to retrain officers after they attempted to stop a library patron from downloading pornography on a library computer.  (Washington Post story.)Now, admittedly, I'm early in my legal career (as a student and all), but it seems to me that this really shouldn't be a problem.  Some commentors over there think that it's a question of what is permissable for the government to censor and what is not.  I haven't looked at the Supreme Court rulings related to the attempts to allow filters and what not, but here's my thought process...

The government can't stop you from looking at porn.  They can't stop you from buying it (with certain limitations on child porn and other such things under the community standard rule or other such limits courts have approved).  However, I don't know of any ruling that requires the government to provide access to pornography.  Do libraries stock every book printed?  I doubt it.  Do they pick and choose the books they put on the shelf?  I imagine they do. 

In my mind, if the county chooses to disallow access to porn on its library computers, it's no different than not stocking Playboy or Penthouse on the shelves (which I doubt they do).  Yes, you have a right to buy it and view it if you so choose, but you don't have the right to force anyone else to provide it for you.  If someone wants to explain in the comments why this is wrong, feel free.  Like I said, I could be completely wrong, but those are my initial thoughts.