Further to my earlier post on Atul Gawande's article about the fraught nature of end-of-life decisions and the importance of thinking and talking about them frankly and early... it turns out that Sarah Palin's death panels lie not only scotched the provision in the healthcare bill that would have reimbursed doctors for having these conversations with seniors, but it also leads a third of seniors to still believe that a "government panel" will make end of life decisions for them.
Beyond all the policy problems the death panels lie caused, the fact that people still believe it has the potential to cause all sorts of extra anxiety in the elderly who believe it. They may be less likely to talk to their doctors about end-of-life issues, or might seek to conceal symptoms to avoid being subject to the imaginary death panels.
I've said this before, but I think it continues to be important to point out that when people in power lie to make citizens afraid of the government, there are serious, serious consequences, almost none of which are borne by the liars or others in power. As a political "tactic," the death panels lie worked quite well for the right - it made it much harder to pass healthcare reform (and made the bill that passed less potent than it might ahve been), it clearly turned a number of voters away from Obama and the dems, but this comes at a cost - which may well be that some number of terminally ill people go untreated, or are incorrectly treated, or suffer much more anxiety and pain in their last months than would have happened if Palin and others had told the truth.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Glenn Beck's Gold Scam
If you follow Glenn's advice and buy gold from Goldline, you're getting so badly ripped off that gold would have to nearly triple in price just to make back your investment. The Big Picture explains here
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
As usual, Senators find "waste" in programs helping kids, no waste in defense
The New York Times reports that:
four senators this spring refused to approve a $425 million package of federal grants for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America after staff members looked at the organization’s tax forms as part of a routine vetting process and were surprised to learn that the organization paid its chief executive almost $1 million in 2008 — $510,774 in salary and bonus and $477,817 in retirement and other benefits.
The Senators, which include Republicans Chuck Grassley and Tom Coburn (the article doesn't list the other two), apparently are worried that federal dollars are footing the bill for the nonprofit's salary largesse. Of course, nobody seems to be concerned that the taxpayers are footing the bill when defense contractor Raytheon (where 90% of its income, or $22 billion, comes from government contracts) pays its CEO $15 million a year, or that Lockheed (70% of revenue, or about $35 billion, from government contracts) paid its CEO $24 million.
Of course, to members of a party that likes to mock things like nonprofits or community organizing, presumably any idiot can run an organization like the Boys & Girls clubs, which oversees 4,000 clubs with 50,000 employees and $1.4 billion in revenue. Of course "[a] nearly $1 million salary and benefit package for a nonprofit executive is not only questionable on its face but also raises questions about how the organization manages its finances in other areas", as Coburn said about the Boys & Girls club. But in real, old-fashioned "private industry" like defense contracting, it's important to have somebody who makes $24 million, or about 25 times what the Boys & Girls Club pays, running the show. You'd never have any question about how defense contractors "manage their finances," especially when Raytheon and Lockheed combined for over $9 million in lobbying congress in the second half of 2009 alone...
Lee not Custer
A heartbreaking, long, but incredibly important piece by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker (here) on how our current medical system excels at fighting disease but critically fails at helping terminal patients decide when to focus on improving the days they have left.
The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And, in a war that you cannot win, you don’t want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don’t want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knew how to fight for territory when he could and how to surrender when he couldn’t, someone who understood that the damage is greatest if all you do is fight to the bitter end.
More often, these days, medicine seems to supply neither Custers nor Lees. We are increasingly the generals who march the soldiers onward, saying all the while, “You let me know when you want to stop.” All-out treatment, we tell the terminally ill, is a train you can get off at any time—just say when. But for most patients and their families this is asking too much. They remain riven by doubt and fear and desperation; some are deluded by a fantasy of what medical science can achieve. But our responsibility, in medicine, is to deal with human beings as they are. People die only once. They have no experience to draw upon. They need doctors and nurses who are willing to have the hard discussions and say what they have seen, who will help people prepare for what is to come—and to escape a warehoused oblivion that few really want.
Gawande describes what doctors can do to help people through these decisions:
I spoke to an oncologist who told me about a twenty-nine-year-old patient she had recently cared for who had an inoperable brain tumor that continued to grow through second-line chemotherapy. The patient elected not to attempt any further chemotherapy, but getting to that decision required hours of discussion—for this was not the decision he had expected to make. First, the oncologist said, she had a discussion with him alone. They reviewed the story of how far he’d come, the options that remained. She was frank. She told him that in her entire career she had never seen third-line chemotherapy produce a significant response in his type of brain tumor. She had looked for experimental therapies, and none were truly promising. And, although she was willing to proceed with chemotherapy, she told him how much strength and time the treatment would take away from him and his family.
He did not shut down or rebel. His questions went on for an hour. He asked about this therapy and that therapy. And then, gradually, he began to ask about what would happen as the tumor got bigger, the symptoms he’d have, the ways they could try to control them, how the end might come.
The oncologist next met with the young man together with his family. That discussion didn’t go so well. He had a wife and small children, and at first his wife wasn’t ready to contemplate stopping chemo. But when the oncologist asked the patient to explain in his own words what they’d discussed, she understood. It was the same with his mother, who was a nurse. Meanwhile, his father sat quietly and said nothing the entire time.
A few days later, the patient returned to talk to the oncologist. “There should be something. There must be something,” he said. His father had shown him reports of cures on the Internet. He confided how badly his father was taking the news. No patient wants to cause his family pain. According to Block, about two-thirds of patients are willing to undergo therapies they don’t want if that is what their loved ones want.
The oncologist went to the father’s home to meet with him. He had a sheaf of possible trials and treatments printed from the Internet. She went through them all. She was willing to change her opinion, she told him. But either the treatments were for brain tumors that were very different from his son’s or else he didn’t qualify. None were going to be miraculous. She told the father that he needed to understand: time with his son was limited, and the young man was going to need his father’s help getting through it.
The oncologist noted wryly how much easier it would have been for her just to prescribe the chemotherapy. “But that meeting with the father was the turning point,” she said. The patient and the family opted for hospice. They had more than a month together before he died. Later, the father thanked the doctor. That last month, he said, the family simply focussed on being together, and it proved to be the most meaningful time they’d ever spent.
One point - the health care reform bill included funding in Medicare that would reimburse doctors for the time spent having these conversations with patients. This provision was tagged by the right as the infamous "death panels" and was taken out of the bill.
The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And, in a war that you cannot win, you don’t want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don’t want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knew how to fight for territory when he could and how to surrender when he couldn’t, someone who understood that the damage is greatest if all you do is fight to the bitter end.
More often, these days, medicine seems to supply neither Custers nor Lees. We are increasingly the generals who march the soldiers onward, saying all the while, “You let me know when you want to stop.” All-out treatment, we tell the terminally ill, is a train you can get off at any time—just say when. But for most patients and their families this is asking too much. They remain riven by doubt and fear and desperation; some are deluded by a fantasy of what medical science can achieve. But our responsibility, in medicine, is to deal with human beings as they are. People die only once. They have no experience to draw upon. They need doctors and nurses who are willing to have the hard discussions and say what they have seen, who will help people prepare for what is to come—and to escape a warehoused oblivion that few really want.
Gawande describes what doctors can do to help people through these decisions:
I spoke to an oncologist who told me about a twenty-nine-year-old patient she had recently cared for who had an inoperable brain tumor that continued to grow through second-line chemotherapy. The patient elected not to attempt any further chemotherapy, but getting to that decision required hours of discussion—for this was not the decision he had expected to make. First, the oncologist said, she had a discussion with him alone. They reviewed the story of how far he’d come, the options that remained. She was frank. She told him that in her entire career she had never seen third-line chemotherapy produce a significant response in his type of brain tumor. She had looked for experimental therapies, and none were truly promising. And, although she was willing to proceed with chemotherapy, she told him how much strength and time the treatment would take away from him and his family.
He did not shut down or rebel. His questions went on for an hour. He asked about this therapy and that therapy. And then, gradually, he began to ask about what would happen as the tumor got bigger, the symptoms he’d have, the ways they could try to control them, how the end might come.
The oncologist next met with the young man together with his family. That discussion didn’t go so well. He had a wife and small children, and at first his wife wasn’t ready to contemplate stopping chemo. But when the oncologist asked the patient to explain in his own words what they’d discussed, she understood. It was the same with his mother, who was a nurse. Meanwhile, his father sat quietly and said nothing the entire time.
A few days later, the patient returned to talk to the oncologist. “There should be something. There must be something,” he said. His father had shown him reports of cures on the Internet. He confided how badly his father was taking the news. No patient wants to cause his family pain. According to Block, about two-thirds of patients are willing to undergo therapies they don’t want if that is what their loved ones want.
The oncologist went to the father’s home to meet with him. He had a sheaf of possible trials and treatments printed from the Internet. She went through them all. She was willing to change her opinion, she told him. But either the treatments were for brain tumors that were very different from his son’s or else he didn’t qualify. None were going to be miraculous. She told the father that he needed to understand: time with his son was limited, and the young man was going to need his father’s help getting through it.
The oncologist noted wryly how much easier it would have been for her just to prescribe the chemotherapy. “But that meeting with the father was the turning point,” she said. The patient and the family opted for hospice. They had more than a month together before he died. Later, the father thanked the doctor. That last month, he said, the family simply focussed on being together, and it proved to be the most meaningful time they’d ever spent.
One point - the health care reform bill included funding in Medicare that would reimburse doctors for the time spent having these conversations with patients. This provision was tagged by the right as the infamous "death panels" and was taken out of the bill.
Friday, July 23, 2010
National Debt and Global Power
Economist Tyler Cowen, writing about the US national debt, makes the following point-
At some sufficiently high debt-gdp ratio, it becomes a foreign policy issue and a big one. Postwar UK had a high debt to gdp ratio, and to this day it is a fine place, but that debt meant the end of England as a world power, for better or worse. The U.S. for instance used financial issues to push England around and they basically had to give up on their overseas commitments. A very high debt ratio here would mean the end of the U.S. as a global world power, again even if gdp does OK. A global power needs the option of spending a lot more, quickly, without asking for anyone's permission. Your mileage on a U.S. retreat from the global policeman role will vary, but it's the elephant in the room which hardly anyone is talking about.
This is a really critical point that I'm very surprised national security conservatives aren't making (possibly because most "conservatives" don't actually care about the debt or deficit, only about cutting taxes). It is generally accepted that good credit - the ability to borrow money quickly at reasonable rates - has been historically the single most important factor for countries that want to project power. It was the basis behind the expansion of the British empire in the 1800s, and conversely was a key cause of the implosion of the French monarchy in the 1780s.
The reason is pretty straightforward- most countries tax/spend systems are generally inequilibrium - you take in roughly as much money through taxes, fees, tariffs, etc. as you regularly spend on general operations. However, foreign crises often require quick, heavy expenditures of money- oftentimes double or more the regular cost of running the state. It's not feasible to get that money through taxes - you can't just double the taxload on your citizens in a year and not expect disaster- even very patriotic people who are totally on-board for the war are going to be unable to part with doubled taxes without succumbing to financial catastrophe. Consequently, you have to be able to borrow.
Some of that borrowing can come from a state's own citizens through the sale of war bonds, which are just loans by citizens to the government. Even during World War II, the very peak of war bond sales in a very widely supported war, my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the government's sale of $185 billion in war bonds covered less than half the cost of the war.
Consequently, the government will typically have to reach out to financial institutions and the general credit markets for loans necessary to fight wars, and credit market participants (particularly those in other countries) will not make loans that they think will not be paid back.
In the event of an attack on the country or similar event, I can imagine a surge of patriotism causing defense contractors to operate on IOUs, or soldiers to fight without paychecks, but that will not work over a long war, and will certainly not work for an unpopular war.
All of this is to make the point that, if a government has bad credit, even if it's a large, rich country, it is very difficult to project power. The US's status as a superpower is to some degree based on its navy, airforce, and sizeable standing army, which historically has been generally paid for out of regular revenues. However, the real American power is the threat that, if necessary, we can greatly increase our military spending to put more people in uniform, and more vehicles and weapons on the ground and in the air - as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even now, with two ongoing conflicts, the US military numbers about 1.5 million troops. During World War II, we had 13 million in uniform. That kind of increase in scale would involve serious borrowing, which would not be viable if lenders didn't believe that the US would be able to pay back the loans - and a really high debt, like what's carried by, say, Greece, makes lenders very wary.
This is not to say that I support the deficit hawks' positions that we need to immediately freak out about the debt. The current national debt is only about half of US GDP - a far cry from the rates held by Italy, Greece, Japan, etc. However, it does have a couple repercussions-
1.) Americans, particularly those that care about the US remaining a global power, need to consider the effects of the national debt on our credible ability to borrow in the future to finance military operations.
2.) Given that much of our current military operations are funded by borrowing, which is adding to the debt, we need to think about military borrowing as a finite resource, like oil reserves, and we should weigh the value of adding to the debt to meet current foreign challenges against the need to have credit available for military operations in the future. Think of it this way - the national debt is kind of like a credit card with a limit - does it make sense to run up the card now on wars that aren't strictly necessary, when we might in the future need to use that card for something absolutely vital for our survival?
At some sufficiently high debt-gdp ratio, it becomes a foreign policy issue and a big one. Postwar UK had a high debt to gdp ratio, and to this day it is a fine place, but that debt meant the end of England as a world power, for better or worse. The U.S. for instance used financial issues to push England around and they basically had to give up on their overseas commitments. A very high debt ratio here would mean the end of the U.S. as a global world power, again even if gdp does OK. A global power needs the option of spending a lot more, quickly, without asking for anyone's permission. Your mileage on a U.S. retreat from the global policeman role will vary, but it's the elephant in the room which hardly anyone is talking about.
This is a really critical point that I'm very surprised national security conservatives aren't making (possibly because most "conservatives" don't actually care about the debt or deficit, only about cutting taxes). It is generally accepted that good credit - the ability to borrow money quickly at reasonable rates - has been historically the single most important factor for countries that want to project power. It was the basis behind the expansion of the British empire in the 1800s, and conversely was a key cause of the implosion of the French monarchy in the 1780s.
The reason is pretty straightforward- most countries tax/spend systems are generally inequilibrium - you take in roughly as much money through taxes, fees, tariffs, etc. as you regularly spend on general operations. However, foreign crises often require quick, heavy expenditures of money- oftentimes double or more the regular cost of running the state. It's not feasible to get that money through taxes - you can't just double the taxload on your citizens in a year and not expect disaster- even very patriotic people who are totally on-board for the war are going to be unable to part with doubled taxes without succumbing to financial catastrophe. Consequently, you have to be able to borrow.
Some of that borrowing can come from a state's own citizens through the sale of war bonds, which are just loans by citizens to the government. Even during World War II, the very peak of war bond sales in a very widely supported war, my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the government's sale of $185 billion in war bonds covered less than half the cost of the war.
Consequently, the government will typically have to reach out to financial institutions and the general credit markets for loans necessary to fight wars, and credit market participants (particularly those in other countries) will not make loans that they think will not be paid back.
In the event of an attack on the country or similar event, I can imagine a surge of patriotism causing defense contractors to operate on IOUs, or soldiers to fight without paychecks, but that will not work over a long war, and will certainly not work for an unpopular war.
All of this is to make the point that, if a government has bad credit, even if it's a large, rich country, it is very difficult to project power. The US's status as a superpower is to some degree based on its navy, airforce, and sizeable standing army, which historically has been generally paid for out of regular revenues. However, the real American power is the threat that, if necessary, we can greatly increase our military spending to put more people in uniform, and more vehicles and weapons on the ground and in the air - as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even now, with two ongoing conflicts, the US military numbers about 1.5 million troops. During World War II, we had 13 million in uniform. That kind of increase in scale would involve serious borrowing, which would not be viable if lenders didn't believe that the US would be able to pay back the loans - and a really high debt, like what's carried by, say, Greece, makes lenders very wary.
This is not to say that I support the deficit hawks' positions that we need to immediately freak out about the debt. The current national debt is only about half of US GDP - a far cry from the rates held by Italy, Greece, Japan, etc. However, it does have a couple repercussions-
1.) Americans, particularly those that care about the US remaining a global power, need to consider the effects of the national debt on our credible ability to borrow in the future to finance military operations.
2.) Given that much of our current military operations are funded by borrowing, which is adding to the debt, we need to think about military borrowing as a finite resource, like oil reserves, and we should weigh the value of adding to the debt to meet current foreign challenges against the need to have credit available for military operations in the future. Think of it this way - the national debt is kind of like a credit card with a limit - does it make sense to run up the card now on wars that aren't strictly necessary, when we might in the future need to use that card for something absolutely vital for our survival?
The GOP's Agenda - Stop, Repeal, Delay, Reject, Subpoena
Given current polling, there's a significant possibility that the Republicans will take over at least one house of congress (with the House much more likely than the senate). Today from leading conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation, and conservative celebrity/congresswoman Michelle Bachman, we get an idea of what they might do if given the reins:
The Heritage Foundation has a new political action arm, which is urging conservatives to take action on the following issues (via Yglesias):
Take Action: Big-government global warming legislation will destroy jobs and weaken the American economy. Tell your Senators to reject any energy legislation that would harm the economy.
Take Action: Senators cannot fulfill their constitutional duty of “Advice and Consent” with incomplete information. Tell the Senators on the Judiciary Committee to delay a vote on Kagan’s confirmation until they have received and evaluated all the relevant documents.
Take Action Now: In June, Congressman Steve King of Iowa filed a petition that would force the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on repealing Obamacare. We must repeal Obamacare, now! Tell your Member of Congress to sign the petition to repeal Obamacare.
Take Action Now: Senators must know that America should not enter into a treaty that weakens our defensive capabilities and sovereignty. We need to stop the New START Treaty, now! Sign the petitionto make your voices heard.
Michelle Bachman, an actual member of congress who, via her hordes of followers (she actually raised more $ this past quarter than did Sarah Palin), lets slip what she thinks the GOP should do if they win the house:
“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”
Because of course, the main thing standing in between our current situation and a happy, prosperous US with a cleaned-up gulf and full employment is a lack of subpoenas and hearings.
The Heritage Foundation has a new political action arm, which is urging conservatives to take action on the following issues (via Yglesias):
Take Action: Big-government global warming legislation will destroy jobs and weaken the American economy. Tell your Senators to reject any energy legislation that would harm the economy.
Take Action: Senators cannot fulfill their constitutional duty of “Advice and Consent” with incomplete information. Tell the Senators on the Judiciary Committee to delay a vote on Kagan’s confirmation until they have received and evaluated all the relevant documents.
Take Action Now: In June, Congressman Steve King of Iowa filed a petition that would force the U.S. House of Representatives to vote on repealing Obamacare. We must repeal Obamacare, now! Tell your Member of Congress to sign the petition to repeal Obamacare.
Take Action Now: Senators must know that America should not enter into a treaty that weakens our defensive capabilities and sovereignty. We need to stop the New START Treaty, now! Sign the petitionto make your voices heard.
Michelle Bachman, an actual member of congress who, via her hordes of followers (she actually raised more $ this past quarter than did Sarah Palin), lets slip what she thinks the GOP should do if they win the house:
“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”
Because of course, the main thing standing in between our current situation and a happy, prosperous US with a cleaned-up gulf and full employment is a lack of subpoenas and hearings.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The concrete benefits of the US - Israel relationship
I have periodically questioned, on this blog and in conversations, what kind of concrete benefits the US gets from its relationship with Israel. By concrete benefits I mean outside of those that stem from historic, cultural or religious similarities - ie, why is Israel the top recipient of US foreign aid, and why do we care more about their policy preferences than we do about those of similarly sized Western democratic nations like the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, etc.?
That question has been sharpened in the past couple years, as the Netanyahu government has engaged in policies that are at times contrary to US interests and have also been at times openly hostile to other US allies like Turkey.
David Frum gives some good answers:
First, as the patron of the region’s pre-eminent military power, the United States gains leverage and status. Arab states that cooperate with the United States (e.g. Egypt) get what they want from Israel. Arab states that do not cooperate (e.g. Syria) do not get. The US can deploy Israel’s power to rescue other US clients from enemies (as the Israelis rescued King Hussein of Jordan from the PLO in 1970) or to accomplish strategic missions that the US would rather not dirty its own hands with (the destruction of nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, the assassination of terrorist leaders).
Second, Israel is a huge source of information to the US – and the most valuable live-fire test laboratory for US military equipment and doctrine. One of the decisive moments of the Cold War, for example, occurred during the skies over Lebanon in 1982. During the Yom Kippur war of 1973, only 9 years previous, Soviet ground-to-air missiles had wrought havoc upon Israeli aircraft. This time, Syria scrambled its air force to meet Israeli planes: 150 against 150, the largest air battle of the jet age. In just a few minutes, the Israelis downed 86 Syrian craft, suffering no casualties of their own. Microelectronics had triumphed in the test of battle. Soviet histories generally credit this event as the shock that jolted the Soviet elite into realizing that it must try some kind of “perestroika” of its ossifying economic system.
Third: the demonstration effect of the superiority of Western ways in interstate competition. Israel in 1950 had an income per capita not very much higher than that of neighboring Syria. Today, Israel has a GDP per capita comparable to that of most European countries, and higher than that of Saudi Arabia. It has sustained democracy under military onslaught. It is a science and technology leader. The Arab world may not like Israel, but its success sends a powerful “If you can’t beat them, join them” message. And of course part of “joining them” is emulating Israel’s close relationship with the United States.
I think the third is by far the most relevant (the second is not terribly important at the moment, as we have our own two hot wars in which to test our equipment). It's not a perfect argument though. Israel has a lower per capita GDP than the Gulf sheikdoms, and is not much higher than Saudi Arabia (although I would wager that the Israeli median per capita gdp is much higher than in those nations). In addition, as Turkey continues to grow as a regional power with rising incomes, as a muslim nation it will work as a much better model for countries in the region than will Israel.
That question has been sharpened in the past couple years, as the Netanyahu government has engaged in policies that are at times contrary to US interests and have also been at times openly hostile to other US allies like Turkey.
David Frum gives some good answers:
First, as the patron of the region’s pre-eminent military power, the United States gains leverage and status. Arab states that cooperate with the United States (e.g. Egypt) get what they want from Israel. Arab states that do not cooperate (e.g. Syria) do not get. The US can deploy Israel’s power to rescue other US clients from enemies (as the Israelis rescued King Hussein of Jordan from the PLO in 1970) or to accomplish strategic missions that the US would rather not dirty its own hands with (the destruction of nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, the assassination of terrorist leaders).
Second, Israel is a huge source of information to the US – and the most valuable live-fire test laboratory for US military equipment and doctrine. One of the decisive moments of the Cold War, for example, occurred during the skies over Lebanon in 1982. During the Yom Kippur war of 1973, only 9 years previous, Soviet ground-to-air missiles had wrought havoc upon Israeli aircraft. This time, Syria scrambled its air force to meet Israeli planes: 150 against 150, the largest air battle of the jet age. In just a few minutes, the Israelis downed 86 Syrian craft, suffering no casualties of their own. Microelectronics had triumphed in the test of battle. Soviet histories generally credit this event as the shock that jolted the Soviet elite into realizing that it must try some kind of “perestroika” of its ossifying economic system.
Third: the demonstration effect of the superiority of Western ways in interstate competition. Israel in 1950 had an income per capita not very much higher than that of neighboring Syria. Today, Israel has a GDP per capita comparable to that of most European countries, and higher than that of Saudi Arabia. It has sustained democracy under military onslaught. It is a science and technology leader. The Arab world may not like Israel, but its success sends a powerful “If you can’t beat them, join them” message. And of course part of “joining them” is emulating Israel’s close relationship with the United States.
I think the third is by far the most relevant (the second is not terribly important at the moment, as we have our own two hot wars in which to test our equipment). It's not a perfect argument though. Israel has a lower per capita GDP than the Gulf sheikdoms, and is not much higher than Saudi Arabia (although I would wager that the Israeli median per capita gdp is much higher than in those nations). In addition, as Turkey continues to grow as a regional power with rising incomes, as a muslim nation it will work as a much better model for countries in the region than will Israel.
Gingrich suggests the U.S. look to Saudi Arabia as a model of religious freedom
Following on Sarah Palin tweet that "peace loving Muslims" should "refudiate" plans to build a moderate mosque and cultural outreach center in lower Manhattan (not actually on the ground zero site, or even across the street, or frankly even viewable from ground zero) because of course Muslims = terrorists, perennial presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich has also voiced his opposition to this, and apparently all, mosques:
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.
The reason that there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic absolute monarchy with no religious freedom. Gingrich here makes the serious logical error that the proper reaction to Saudi illiberality is illiberality of our own.
Gingrich's critical mistake, which is shared by Palin and many others, is his belief that the US is philosophically opposed to Islam, and not repression. To oppose Islam is to oppose millions of our own citizens and hundreds of millions of peace-loving people worldwide, many of whom have no problem with the U.S. It is also to turn our backs on the religious liberty that is a bedrock value of this country.
Thirty years ago, Gingrich's hero Ronald Reagan knew that the best way to fight the repression and illiberality of Soviet Russia was to highlight freedom and liberty in the United States, echoing the same strategy employed by FDR when fighting Nazi repression. It is time for Gingrinch, Palin and co. to realize that the best way to fight the lack of liberty elsewhere is to champion it here.
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.
The reason that there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic absolute monarchy with no religious freedom. Gingrich here makes the serious logical error that the proper reaction to Saudi illiberality is illiberality of our own.
Gingrich's critical mistake, which is shared by Palin and many others, is his belief that the US is philosophically opposed to Islam, and not repression. To oppose Islam is to oppose millions of our own citizens and hundreds of millions of peace-loving people worldwide, many of whom have no problem with the U.S. It is also to turn our backs on the religious liberty that is a bedrock value of this country.
Thirty years ago, Gingrich's hero Ronald Reagan knew that the best way to fight the repression and illiberality of Soviet Russia was to highlight freedom and liberty in the United States, echoing the same strategy employed by FDR when fighting Nazi repression. It is time for Gingrinch, Palin and co. to realize that the best way to fight the lack of liberty elsewhere is to champion it here.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Back
Apologies to my readers for the lack of posts lately, I had a sort of crisis in confidence in blogging which I'll hopefully be able to articulate in a later post.
In the meantime, a great article by Jonathan Rausch that looks at family patterns in red states and blue states (like the fact that single-parent families, earlier pregnancies, rates of divorce, etc. are much higher in red states), and the implications for gay marriage.
Rausch, drawing on the work of other social scientists, theorizes that in red states, the moral tradition is that "families make adults." Thus, early marriages (often shotgun) and the addition of children are the crucible that form adults. Thus, the focus in red states is on having children within a marriage as main moral driver. This norm, however, creates some problems:
Moral traditionalism fails to prevent pre-marital sex and extra-marital childbirth. Demands for abstinence delay sexual activity, but not much, and often make early pregnancy more likely by reducing the use of contraception This increase in early pregnancy precipitates more early marriages, which are more likely to end in divorce. It also precipitates more unwed parenthood. Premature family formation, in turn, derails education and limits earning potential and increases stress on families. The resulting sense of social breakdown fuels more calls for moral traditionalism. More sex prompts more sermons and more emphasis on abstinence. The cycle repeats.
In blue states, the moral norm is reversed - adults form families, after having achieved their education and made some headway into careers, and the key moral driver is making responsible choices.
Mature adults form families to express and nurture commitment to each other and their children, and to share human capital which both partners have already amassed. Sex comes before marriage, and marriage comes before children, and indeed children need never come at all. The decisions to have sex, marry, and have children are thus distinct and separate. What counts is not the linkage but the timing (not too early, at least not without birth control!). The crucial moral requirement is not that the decisions be linked or made synchronously, but that they be made responsibly.
Rausch sees these differences in moral norms for relationships as a critical piece of determining where support or opposition to gay marriage lies:
In Blue World, gay couples fit the paradigm perfectly. They are responsible adults trying to live more stable, more responsible lives, and trying to improve the prospects of any children they may have. Who could ask for anything more?
In fact, in Blue World, marriage is incomplete if it excludes gay couples! Excluding them sends all the wrong signals about family and responsibility. It would make a hypocritical nonsense of what it is that marriage is supposed to be all about.
In Red World, things look very different. The Red project is to maintain the linkage between sex, marriage, and procreation. In Red World, de-linkage has wrought all kinds of social problems.
Same-sex marriage, in this view, is in some sense the ultimate symbolic assault on what is left of the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation.
It should be clear from my blog what side of this divide I'm on, but it's interesting to think about why so many people, particularly those who are not traditionally religious or homophobic bigots, feel threatened by gay marriage.
In the meantime, a great article by Jonathan Rausch that looks at family patterns in red states and blue states (like the fact that single-parent families, earlier pregnancies, rates of divorce, etc. are much higher in red states), and the implications for gay marriage.
Rausch, drawing on the work of other social scientists, theorizes that in red states, the moral tradition is that "families make adults." Thus, early marriages (often shotgun) and the addition of children are the crucible that form adults. Thus, the focus in red states is on having children within a marriage as main moral driver. This norm, however, creates some problems:
Moral traditionalism fails to prevent pre-marital sex and extra-marital childbirth. Demands for abstinence delay sexual activity, but not much, and often make early pregnancy more likely by reducing the use of contraception This increase in early pregnancy precipitates more early marriages, which are more likely to end in divorce. It also precipitates more unwed parenthood. Premature family formation, in turn, derails education and limits earning potential and increases stress on families. The resulting sense of social breakdown fuels more calls for moral traditionalism. More sex prompts more sermons and more emphasis on abstinence. The cycle repeats.
In blue states, the moral norm is reversed - adults form families, after having achieved their education and made some headway into careers, and the key moral driver is making responsible choices.
Mature adults form families to express and nurture commitment to each other and their children, and to share human capital which both partners have already amassed. Sex comes before marriage, and marriage comes before children, and indeed children need never come at all. The decisions to have sex, marry, and have children are thus distinct and separate. What counts is not the linkage but the timing (not too early, at least not without birth control!). The crucial moral requirement is not that the decisions be linked or made synchronously, but that they be made responsibly.
Rausch sees these differences in moral norms for relationships as a critical piece of determining where support or opposition to gay marriage lies:
In Blue World, gay couples fit the paradigm perfectly. They are responsible adults trying to live more stable, more responsible lives, and trying to improve the prospects of any children they may have. Who could ask for anything more?
In fact, in Blue World, marriage is incomplete if it excludes gay couples! Excluding them sends all the wrong signals about family and responsibility. It would make a hypocritical nonsense of what it is that marriage is supposed to be all about.
In Red World, things look very different. The Red project is to maintain the linkage between sex, marriage, and procreation. In Red World, de-linkage has wrought all kinds of social problems.
Same-sex marriage, in this view, is in some sense the ultimate symbolic assault on what is left of the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation.
It should be clear from my blog what side of this divide I'm on, but it's interesting to think about why so many people, particularly those who are not traditionally religious or homophobic bigots, feel threatened by gay marriage.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul and Civil Rights
Earlier this week, GOP Senate nominee for Kentucky Rand Paul stated on Rachel Maddow's show that he does not support the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he doesn't believe that the government has the constitutional authority to tell businesses that they can't discriminate. Paul says he's not a racist, and I'll take him at his word, but Time magazine notes:
Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.
So, according to Paul, the federal government has authority to nationally ban abortion, ban drugs (and support invasive police actions to deter drug use), and support local business interests, but does not have the power to tell businesses engaging in interstate commerce that they can't discriminate by race. Interesting to see where he draws his lines...
Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.
So, according to Paul, the federal government has authority to nationally ban abortion, ban drugs (and support invasive police actions to deter drug use), and support local business interests, but does not have the power to tell businesses engaging in interstate commerce that they can't discriminate by race. Interesting to see where he draws his lines...
Monday, May 17, 2010
More on Miranda rights and terrorism
A friend writes regarding my post this past weekend on Miranda rights and terror suspects. My response is interwoven with his comments:
I disagree with your Miranda post.
As a preliminary matter, you vastly underestimate the degree to which injecting a lawyer into an interrogation changes its dynamics. First, a lawyer's first instruction to his or her client--even if the lawyer plans to advise the client to cooperate--is to stop talking. Generally, the lawyer will then sit down with the client, figure out how much information the client has, in order to then plan a negotiating/proffer session with prosecutors. This wastes valuable time, and it tends to make any proffered information less valuable. This is a critical point, and indeed there is already an exception to the Miranda rule for public safety.
Second, giving a lawyer to a suspect inherently changes the power dynamics of the situation. All of a sudden, the suspect feels less vulnerable, more powerful, and this perhaps makes him less likely to volunteer helpful information about other terrorists. This second point is part of what Miranda is supposed to prevent. But, in this type of situation, Miranda is over inclusive. Miranda's purpose, as you mention in your post, is to protect against coerced confessions. By completely changing the power dynamic of an interrogation, however, it not only tends to prevent inculpatory statements, it also prevents law enforcement from quickly obtaining information that might lead to the apprehension of other terrorists.
I think that this overstating the degree to which timeliness is critical in these cases. Sure, in some cases, we're going to want information immediately in the proverbial "ticking time bomb" situation, or to try to roll up a terrorist network before it gets wind of an arrest. We've already got the public safety exception to Miranda for that. Beyond those situations, I don't see a need for expanding the public safety exception for terrorists, because a decent attorney is also going to know that there's a limited shelf-life to the defendant's useful information, and push for quick disclosure lest the information become stale and worthless as a bargaining chip.
Unfortunately, over time Miranda has come to be perceived as a good in itself--a shibboleth of sorts. But remember that Miranda is only a prophylactic rule for judicial efficiency. Prior to Miranda, court's had too much difficultly determining whether a particular inculpatory statement was truly voluntary. So, for the sake of efficiency, the Supreme Court came up with Miranda: Unless a suspect is informed of his or her rights, courts will presume that the statement was coerced. Obviously, investigators can elicit information from suspects without the interrogation necessarily being coercive. Furthermore, even without the Miranda rule, courts would continue to engage in a case-by-case analysis of whether a particular inculpatory statement was truly voluntary or whether it was coerced.
Looking at my post, I see that I've made the mistake of conflating Miranda with the substantive underlying rights - which is something that I've criticized of others in the past. My point was not so much to idolize the Miranda warning itself, but to try to push back against erosions of the 5th and 6th amendment protections for defendants, which I think are the actual targets when people complain about Miranda. I've read that the Miranda warnings themselves have been empirically shown to not be terribly useful, because anybody who actually understands the underlying rights asks for those rights anyway ("I wanna see my lawyer"), and people who don't understand that they have a real right not to incriminate themselves or a right to ask for an attorney typically don't internalize those rights from the brief speech read off the back of a card from a cop's wallet. What is vitally important is that we not coerce confessions or inculpatory statements from the innocent. This is especially critical in terrorism cases, where an inadvertant or coerced (false) inculpatory statement can lead the suspect, particularly if he is not a citizen, into the legal netherworld of Gitmo, military tribunals, etc.
Therefore, you can see this being a win-win. On the one hand, investigators would be freed from having to read terror suspects their Miranda rights (thus eliminating the risk that the suspect will clam up, wasting valuable time), but, on the other hand, courts would continue making case-by-case determinations about the admissibility of particular inculpatory statements, protecting the terror suspect from improper coercive measures.
Finally, and most important perhaps, there's the political point. Unless us liberals can show that the criminal justice system is flexible enough to handle terror suspects and successfully (but not coercively) elicit information from them about other terrorists, we will continue to be beaten by the radicals, like Giuliani and Cheney, who want terror suspects--including American citizens--declared enemy combatants and water-boarded. So, ultimately, if the public safety exception to the Miranda rule needs to expanded (with legislative approval) in order to save the public's perception that the judicial system can handle terror suspects, I think that's the proper course.
I disagree with this. I think that the most important part for liberals to stand firm on is the empirically correct point that our existing institutions, when properly utilized, are in fact better at detecting, preventing, prosecuting and punishing terrorists than the militarization, torture and disregard for civil liberties advocated by the right. When we waver on this point, as Holder (and by extension Obama) seem to be doing by advocating a roll-back of Miranda, we give credence to the argument that the rule of law and the fight against global terrorism are incompatible.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Revising Miranda
I don't really understand the reasoning behind AG Holder's suggestion that there need to be exceptions to the Miranda regime for terror suspects:
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
Police investigating regular crimes (drug gangs, the mafia, etc.) and federal agents investigating terrorism are looking for the same two things when they question a suspect 1.) a confession that the suspect did it, and 2.) information about other people involved or other ongoing plots.
These two pieces of information have very different effects for a suspect who is in fact guilty. Giving the confession is bad for the suspect, because it will land him in prison. However, giving information about other plotters is good, because it can perhaps lead to immunity or a reduced sentence for cooperation.
Miranda rights also effect these two types of information differently - the right to remain silent comes out of the 5th amendment right to not have to incriminate yourself. If you know something about other bad guys (so long as your knowledge doens't incriminate you) you don't have any right to be silent as to that knowledge. The right to an attorney during questioning really just heightens the right to be silent - your attorney will probably tell you not to incriminate yourself, but will probably tell you to rat out your co-conspirators so that you can save yourself.
One conception of terrorists is that they're totally irrational (or at least totally disinterested in their own survival or wellbeing compared to their mission to kill/terrify Americans). If that's the case, then no amount of wheedling, deal-cutting, etc. is going to get information out of them, with or without a lawyer and with or without a reminder that they should remain silent. If this conception of terrorists is right, then Miranda rights are at worst pointless for real terrorists, and are important for the cases where an innocent person is suspected.
However, to the extent that some terrorists are self-interested, rational actors who might be interested in saving their own skin, Miranda is still not a problem from a national security standpoint. When Miranda applies, the suspect is already arrested. This means that he's neutralized for the time being, and even if for some reason he's cut loose, it's highly unlikely that any terror cell will take him back for fear that he's become an informant. This means that, for national security purposes, it doesn't really matter if the interrogators get a confession out of him or not - merely arresting him eliminates him for the foreseeable future as a terror threat. Consequently, if, because of Miranda, he doesn't incriminate himself, it's not really a national security loss.
Moreover, for this type of self-interested terrorist, having a lawyer present is going to help national security goals because the lawyer will advise the suspect to rat out his comrades in hope of getting some kind of leniency. Unlike the "mob lawyers", for example, there aren't (as far as I know) "terrorist lawyers" who have some kind of economic integration with Al Qaeda such that they would advise their clients to clam up for the good of the conspiracy. Most terror suspects are represented by legal aid or public defenders who don't have any kind of loyalty to al Qaeda's goals, and will just try to represent their client zealously, which, in criminal law, typically means finding a way to cut the best plea bargain possible with the prosecutors.
Summing it up, this means that in reality, Miranda rights are at worst a non-issue with terror suspects, and in some situations could speed along cooperation with investigators. Miranda is also critical when the suspect is innocent. So I don't really see any reason why they need to be changed, unless the real reason is something more sinister - the government wants to keep lawyers out of the process so that they can continue unsavory interrogation practices like torture and rendition that lawyers would (justifiably) fight.
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
Police investigating regular crimes (drug gangs, the mafia, etc.) and federal agents investigating terrorism are looking for the same two things when they question a suspect 1.) a confession that the suspect did it, and 2.) information about other people involved or other ongoing plots.
These two pieces of information have very different effects for a suspect who is in fact guilty. Giving the confession is bad for the suspect, because it will land him in prison. However, giving information about other plotters is good, because it can perhaps lead to immunity or a reduced sentence for cooperation.
Miranda rights also effect these two types of information differently - the right to remain silent comes out of the 5th amendment right to not have to incriminate yourself. If you know something about other bad guys (so long as your knowledge doens't incriminate you) you don't have any right to be silent as to that knowledge. The right to an attorney during questioning really just heightens the right to be silent - your attorney will probably tell you not to incriminate yourself, but will probably tell you to rat out your co-conspirators so that you can save yourself.
One conception of terrorists is that they're totally irrational (or at least totally disinterested in their own survival or wellbeing compared to their mission to kill/terrify Americans). If that's the case, then no amount of wheedling, deal-cutting, etc. is going to get information out of them, with or without a lawyer and with or without a reminder that they should remain silent. If this conception of terrorists is right, then Miranda rights are at worst pointless for real terrorists, and are important for the cases where an innocent person is suspected.
However, to the extent that some terrorists are self-interested, rational actors who might be interested in saving their own skin, Miranda is still not a problem from a national security standpoint. When Miranda applies, the suspect is already arrested. This means that he's neutralized for the time being, and even if for some reason he's cut loose, it's highly unlikely that any terror cell will take him back for fear that he's become an informant. This means that, for national security purposes, it doesn't really matter if the interrogators get a confession out of him or not - merely arresting him eliminates him for the foreseeable future as a terror threat. Consequently, if, because of Miranda, he doesn't incriminate himself, it's not really a national security loss.
Moreover, for this type of self-interested terrorist, having a lawyer present is going to help national security goals because the lawyer will advise the suspect to rat out his comrades in hope of getting some kind of leniency. Unlike the "mob lawyers", for example, there aren't (as far as I know) "terrorist lawyers" who have some kind of economic integration with Al Qaeda such that they would advise their clients to clam up for the good of the conspiracy. Most terror suspects are represented by legal aid or public defenders who don't have any kind of loyalty to al Qaeda's goals, and will just try to represent their client zealously, which, in criminal law, typically means finding a way to cut the best plea bargain possible with the prosecutors.
Summing it up, this means that in reality, Miranda rights are at worst a non-issue with terror suspects, and in some situations could speed along cooperation with investigators. Miranda is also critical when the suspect is innocent. So I don't really see any reason why they need to be changed, unless the real reason is something more sinister - the government wants to keep lawyers out of the process so that they can continue unsavory interrogation practices like torture and rendition that lawyers would (justifiably) fight.
Flag Football and Gender Discrimination
Apparently, in Florida, Flag Football has appeared as a competitive, varsity girl's highschool sport, with five thousand girls playing statewide on 75 teams. One would think that "women's sports experts" would applaud the fact that schools are providing another avenue for students to exercise and bridge one of the few remaining gender divides in sports.
Not so.
Various "experts" quoted in the Times article believe that flag football shouldn't count as a girl's sport under Title IX because there's no opportunity to play in college:
No one is saying flag football isn’t a great sport to play,” said Neena Chaudhry, the senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, which has brought several cases against high schools alleging violations of Title IX, the federal law mandating gender equity in education. “But I do think it’s relevant to ask questions about whether girls are getting the same kind of educational opportunities as boys.”
...
Ms. Hogshead-Makar, who also serves as the senior director for advocacy at the Women’s Sports Foundation, said girls missed the educational benefits if they did not take a sport seriously.
“That’s one of the things that makes sports such an important experience,” she said. “You’re always striving to get to that next rung.”
Ms. Hogshead-Makar said flag football’s time should be up. “We’ve had 10 years of girls who have not been given other sports opportunities,” she said.
This is ridiculous. High school sports aren't funded as part of some kind of NCAA farm league. An NCAA study found that only about 5-10% of high school athletes go on to play sports in college. The vast majority of high schoolers that play sports do it for the exercise, the cameraderie, and because they like the game - not because it's a path to a scholarship or because they're "striving to get to that next rung."
While it doesn't have a college level for elite athletes, there are tons of recreational flag and touch football leagues around the country. I play on one in New York, a co-ed league that has nearly 100 teams and sells out every season. That may not be of interest to sports experts, who are probably elite athletes (Hogshead-Makar is a 3 time Olympic medalist in swimming), but for the 90-95% of high school athletes who don't go on to play college sports, flag football is just as good as any other sport.
I understand the concern that schools might be trying to weasel out of the Title IX requirement that they spend money equally on boys and girls sports, but, judging by the article, Florida flag football seems to be a totally bona fide sport - they've got real teams, practices, coaches, statewide playoffs. The complaint here, that Florida doesn't have any varsity boys sports that don't have an NCAA equivalent, is pretty meaningless.
Trying to scuttle a popular program that has kids off the couch, exercising and learning skills that they can use in rec leagues and with their families for the rest of their lives in order to pick a fight about non-existent discrimination is worse than pointless because it undermines attempte to fight real discrimination.
Not so.
Various "experts" quoted in the Times article believe that flag football shouldn't count as a girl's sport under Title IX because there's no opportunity to play in college:
No one is saying flag football isn’t a great sport to play,” said Neena Chaudhry, the senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, which has brought several cases against high schools alleging violations of Title IX, the federal law mandating gender equity in education. “But I do think it’s relevant to ask questions about whether girls are getting the same kind of educational opportunities as boys.”
...
Ms. Hogshead-Makar, who also serves as the senior director for advocacy at the Women’s Sports Foundation, said girls missed the educational benefits if they did not take a sport seriously.
“That’s one of the things that makes sports such an important experience,” she said. “You’re always striving to get to that next rung.”
Ms. Hogshead-Makar said flag football’s time should be up. “We’ve had 10 years of girls who have not been given other sports opportunities,” she said.
This is ridiculous. High school sports aren't funded as part of some kind of NCAA farm league. An NCAA study found that only about 5-10% of high school athletes go on to play sports in college. The vast majority of high schoolers that play sports do it for the exercise, the cameraderie, and because they like the game - not because it's a path to a scholarship or because they're "striving to get to that next rung."
While it doesn't have a college level for elite athletes, there are tons of recreational flag and touch football leagues around the country. I play on one in New York, a co-ed league that has nearly 100 teams and sells out every season. That may not be of interest to sports experts, who are probably elite athletes (Hogshead-Makar is a 3 time Olympic medalist in swimming), but for the 90-95% of high school athletes who don't go on to play college sports, flag football is just as good as any other sport.
I understand the concern that schools might be trying to weasel out of the Title IX requirement that they spend money equally on boys and girls sports, but, judging by the article, Florida flag football seems to be a totally bona fide sport - they've got real teams, practices, coaches, statewide playoffs. The complaint here, that Florida doesn't have any varsity boys sports that don't have an NCAA equivalent, is pretty meaningless.
Trying to scuttle a popular program that has kids off the couch, exercising and learning skills that they can use in rec leagues and with their families for the rest of their lives in order to pick a fight about non-existent discrimination is worse than pointless because it undermines attempte to fight real discrimination.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
An interesting idea
Bryan Caplan suggests separating prisoners (who are already separated by gender) into "weight classes" in order to minimize prison rape.
Monday, May 10, 2010
"Terrorist" vs. "Suspected Terrorist" continued
Building on the earlier post today, this kind of thing drives me nuts-
While complaining about Elena Kagan's decision to deny access to military JAG recruiters at Harvard Law School (because the military violates Harvard's anti-discrimination policy for employers), Ed Whelan of National Review Online says this:
At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.
No Ed, the lawyers donated their legal services to people suspected of being terrorists, not terrorists. That extra word "suspected" makes a big difference. The lawyers I know who have been involved with accused terrorists are doing it to make sure that the government proves that the suspects are in fact terrorists - and not people with the same name as a terrorist, or people who were picked up in a village in Afghanistan that a lot of other terrorists live in, or something like that.
It's easy to think that only actual terrorists get arrested, and that this problem only affects others, and they probably have it coming to them for being involved with terrorists... but that's often not the case.
When I was a senior in college, about 6 months after 9/11, I was coming back from a spring break trip to Italy. Going through passport control, the customs agent stopped me, and started asking a bunch of detailed questions. Apparently I passed, so he let me through. I asked him why I had gotten extra scrutiny, and he told me that apparently there was somebody with my name on a watch list. Now, I have a very anglo name, and I'm white, blonde and unsuspicious-looking enough that tourists regularly stop me for directions in NYC. I can't help thinking what my encounter would have been like at that time if I looked different, or had a different name, or didn't speak English, or was just flustered and couldn't explain myself well. That's why we need to give suspects rights, and lawyers to defend those rights.
While complaining about Elena Kagan's decision to deny access to military JAG recruiters at Harvard Law School (because the military violates Harvard's anti-discrimination policy for employers), Ed Whelan of National Review Online says this:
At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.
No Ed, the lawyers donated their legal services to people suspected of being terrorists, not terrorists. That extra word "suspected" makes a big difference. The lawyers I know who have been involved with accused terrorists are doing it to make sure that the government proves that the suspects are in fact terrorists - and not people with the same name as a terrorist, or people who were picked up in a village in Afghanistan that a lot of other terrorists live in, or something like that.
It's easy to think that only actual terrorists get arrested, and that this problem only affects others, and they probably have it coming to them for being involved with terrorists... but that's often not the case.
When I was a senior in college, about 6 months after 9/11, I was coming back from a spring break trip to Italy. Going through passport control, the customs agent stopped me, and started asking a bunch of detailed questions. Apparently I passed, so he let me through. I asked him why I had gotten extra scrutiny, and he told me that apparently there was somebody with my name on a watch list. Now, I have a very anglo name, and I'm white, blonde and unsuspicious-looking enough that tourists regularly stop me for directions in NYC. I can't help thinking what my encounter would have been like at that time if I looked different, or had a different name, or didn't speak English, or was just flustered and couldn't explain myself well. That's why we need to give suspects rights, and lawyers to defend those rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)