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?

Nearing Completion

Well, I've finished up 3 exams so far this semester and have one left to go.  That means that I'm one three hour exam away from completing my first year of law school.  All in all, it's been a rewarding experience.  Sure, the cases about dog bits, breaking damns, knifemakers, the Trident building, exploding packages, trains, etc, get old, but it wasn't that bad.  Beyond that, I've made some great friends.  It's funny, despite the things that have gone wrong in the last year, I have to say the last two, overall have been a hell of a success.

Professionally: I found a new job when I needed to and it paid more than I was making.  Less than three months later, I was hired away with a nice bump in salary and more time off for school.  Since then I've been approached about another job with another bump in salary, but had to pass.

Academically:  After having decided I would try to go to law school three years ago and being rejected by the only school I applied to.  Last year, I applied to another local school on a whim at the deadline, and through a little extra work managed to get accepted.  I posted a GPA higher than anytime since high school in the first semester, placing me near the top of my class (also for the first time since high school).  I applied for transfer after an agonizing decision process and have now been accepted to the law school that rejected me the first time.

Personally: Well, we all know that it hasn't been perfect here.  Despite the one glaring downpoint, all-in-all, it's pretty damn good.  I've made more close friends in the one year of law school than I did in four years of college.  They've been great for studying, hanging out with, debating things, and were a source of support and strength when I needed it.  My health is so much better than it was.  I look a lot better and feel a lot better than I did in the past.  Consequently, in the last six months I've been on dates with more women than in the previous 27 years of my life.  Now, none of those have worked out, but I'm not worried about that right now.  Plenty of time for serious relationships.  Of course, if you know any single women... don't hesitate to send them my way.

So, it's had its ups and downs, but who am I kidding?  I'm happier than I've been in a long time.  So, I'll just keep moving forward, enjoying life, having fun, studying hard, and hopefully making my life a success.

Have you seen this man?

I thought this article in the Post this morning was fascinating.  Not being a native Washingtonian, I didn't know the story of Brad Bishop, a foreign service officer with the State Department who bludgeoned his wife, mother, and three sons to death in Bethesda before driving to North Carolina and burning the bodies in a bathtub.  He's disappeared 30 years ago this week after committing the crimes and despite reported sitings around the world, he remains at large today.  He would be 69, if he's still alive.

Public Health and Obesity as a Choice

So, yesterday morning, I went to the buy-the-pound deli/salad bar place in my building to grab breakfast.  I ordered an egg-white omelet with ham, onions, green peppers, and wheat toast without butter.  While I waited a few minutes for my breakfast to be made, I watched as people went and collected their breakfasts from the various options on the breakfast bars.

Is it any wonder so many Americans are obese or overweight?  Without fail, people selected the donuts and giant muffins that were located right next to all sorts of fresh fruit.  They selected scrambled eggs with sausage and cheese in them.  They went for the cheese omelets, fried potatoes, biscuits and gravy, bacon, and sausage.  Turkey sausage was available, but didn't look very popular.  Beyond that, as if the fried potatoes weren't bad enough, people were putting cheese sauce on top of them.  Heaping plates of 1,000+ calorie breakfasts were flying out the door.  In the three or four minutes I was there, I saw only one person (a thin woman) go for the fresh fruit or cottage cheese.  I saw at least 10 times that many (mostly not thin) hit up the bar for various high-fat, high-calorie breakfast foods.

I'll admit my breakfast isn't the greatest one in the world for you.  On top of what I picked up from the restaurant (?), I also had some 1% Cottage Cheese and FF low-calorie yogurt.  It probably was about 600 calories, but was well-rounded and high in protein.

I wonder how any lawyer could see what I saw and then somehow think that they are justified in suing McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and other companies for making Americans fat.  If people want to know why Americans are fat, they need only look in the mirror.

On a personal note, I am formerly obese and I know how hard it can be to lose weight, I tried for years before dropping over 125 lbs.  It was the best decision I ever made and I couldn't have done it without the support of those close to me.  I never blamed a single company for my being fat, it was always my fault and I knew it.  I was also the only one who could change that.

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.

Smoking, ICC, and More...

I'm engaged an interesting multi-headed debate over Montgomery County policy over at AtlasBlogged.

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.

The Law & the ABA

Okay, it's another serious or quasi-serious post.  I know, I promised myself I wouldn't do it, but since I have a forum and it's not like anyone is reading this anyway, I'm going to break my own rule (again).  I'll try not to make it a regular thing.

So, the ABA is chastising President Bush for not following the law.  Though, as far as I'm know there are people on both sides of the political spectrum, who aren't sure whether or not any law has been broken.  Apparently, the ABA has decided from on high that they are the almighty arbiter of all that is and is not the law and that the terrorist surveillance program or whatever you want to call it is illegal.  (I dislike the term domestic spying as, quite frankly, I think it's erroneous.  My flight from NYC to London is international even when I'm standing in line at JFK.  To imply that somehow because one end of the conversation is domestic and the eavesdropping may [I don't think we know this for sure] take place in the US it is a domestic call, is just plain wrong in my view.)

Well, Thom Lambert over at Truth on the Market, in an off-topic post is blasting the ABA.  Not so much for this vote, but for their action earlier in the week which makes them look incredibly hypocritical.  In deciding to push affirmative action standards, the ABA voted that only results will count if schools want to maintain their accreditation (which is critical, you can't really be a successful law school without it).

The ABA went so far as to say:

The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 211.

So much for all that follow-the-law bravado, heh?

Piling On

As if it wasn't bad enough growing up as an ugly duckling now we have to deal with this.

Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood.

Well, I certainly wasn't prom king or on the football team or anywhere near the most attractive guy growing up.  I avoided most school dances and the ones I went to, well, we just won't go there.  Now, to find out I'm statistically more likely to be a crook?  Maybe, I should just run for President.  After all, they'll never let me sit for the bar exam now.