The Death of a Blog?

Well, tommorrow is orientation for my three years of law school at Ave Maria School of Law. So this blog will either cease to be updated (as if over a month with no new posts isn't bad enough) or it will change scope and become a chronicle of my thoughts on legal cases. I'm guessing it will be the former, but we can always hope for the latter.

Thanks for reading.

The Ann Arbor City Council Should Resign

Sunday June 7, gave a glimpse of the minds of our local government: They do not even take themselves seriously. The Ann Arbor News deserves credit for their front page coverage of the event. From the story:

But while they publicly endorsed the efforts, the same City Council members who backed "Safe Passage Great Lakes Days" in March mocked its significance in e-mails that flew back and forth during the council meeting.

Greden's March 16 missive prompted a dozen messages in which the four council members made sport of environmental or wildlife protection measures that they had passed.

"If only there were sea turtles in the Huron we could keep the streak going," Hohnke wrote.

"Come on," Teall responded, "we can think of something in the Huron to save ... it's the fish, going upstream, after the Argo dam decision!!"

These comments sound more like jabs from political cartoons than council members' thoughts. There is no excuse for this kind of language during a City Council meeting. Why should residents take anything the City Council does seriously, if the Council itself is not serious?

Leigh Greden previously said "there was nothing to apologize fore, unless anyone was offended" until the story broke. His comments were less extreme and possibly misinterpreted.

Hohnke and Teall - who openly mocked their own resolutions during the meeting - should resign. If neither of them has that much courage, the citizens of Ann Arbor should see to it they are not re-elected.

Advice from McGovern

George McGovern has some advice for Obama. First, "Why not order all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan by Thanksgiving?" Because that would be destabilizing to the region and put in peril the gains for which so many soldiers have fought and died. Second, cut the defense budget in half, allocating the $250 billion saved to "national health care, improved education, a better environment and restoring our infrastructure" and to "build the fastest, safest and cleanest powered railway system in the world."

McGovern seems to have missed that we recently spent triple that amount on just those kinds of programs. This is liberal spendthrift at its worst.

Swine Flu

As Swine Flu, or A/H1N1 if you prefer, fades from the headlines, perhaps next time we should focus not on the fear of a "pandemic" but on the mighty efforts of the various organizations that helped target, treat, and contain the virus.

What is Waterboarding?

I recently stumbled upon this piece by Christopher Hitchens regarding waterboarding that boldly proclaims: Believe Me, It's Torture! But is it? Can something be torture if a reporter voluntarily undergoes it, so that he has the "weight of authority"? Can an editor ask that a reporter to undergo torture? Can this torture, then be broadcast? Can this really be excruciating pain?

I am inclined to say no. If an ordeal can be undergone for little more than commercial gain, then it cannot be called torture. It may be cruel, inhumane, or unbefitting of America - but torture?

Re-building Ethics

A note on the WSJ editorial page called our current situation "a crisis of ethic proportions." The writer, Mr. Bogle, goes on to say, "Substituting 'ethic' for 'epic' is a fine turn of phrase, and it accurately places a heavy responsibility...on a broad deterioration in traditional ethical standards." Rebuilding these standards in an age when "money manager agents...now hold 75% of all shares of public companies" is the solution Mr. Bogle foresees. In reading this, I could not help but be stuck by Pope Benedict XVI's insight in Spe Salvi that "every generation must also make its own contribution to establishing convincing structures of freedom and of good." We must recognize that our grandfathers' and fathers' regulations will not keep us honest, if for no other reason than we must embrace and build them as our own.

The Grass Isn't Always Greener

In some measure, it is human nature to be envious of what others have. But the grass is not always greener on the other side, no matter our perception of it. The passing of David Kellermann, acting CFO for Freddie Mac, is a tragic reminder. In a May 6 article the WSJ notes that "To neighbors and friends, he seemed to live an enviable life. His wife and daughter sometimes stopped by the office to have lunch with him" and "They just had one of those relationships that everyone wants to have in life".
Privately fulfilling and publicly successful - what more could a guy ask for?

Yet he worked in an environment that had "near-constant management upheaval" since 2003, he harbored doubts that he was ready to be CFO, and his sense of humor slowly slipped away from him.

Mr. Kellermann's tragic passing should give us pause when we glibly lay blame on executives of any title.

Who to Trust?

In relation to Steve Rattner, President Obama's auto industry adviser, and the New York pension investigation, the WSJ noted it was "growing evidence of corruption by officials who use their power over public pension funds to shake down private companies. This is the same political class that has been blaming banks for "greed" in the financial crisis. The pension fund scandal exposes the myth of the superior virtue of the public and nonprofit worlds. Greed is universal. And the opportunity for corruption is enormous when political discretion is tied to vast sums of public money."

The love of money is the root of evil. Americans should not be so naive as to believe that because an individual is a "public servant" they are immune to the pressures and temptations of the private, "for profit" world. The reality is, all people seek profit. We should therefore limit the amount of power, money, and blind trust we give to our "civil servants".

Follow Up: The Price of Gas

It has been far too long since I made the original post, but better late than never.

Earlier, I noted that Gasoline prices weren't that much different between Bush's inauguration and the days leading up to President Obama's official day. Turns out, that analysis has held true. According to the Energy Information Administration, a better source than facebook flair (which did get it right, however), the national average price for regular gasoline was $1.46 on January 22, 2001. At the change over, January 19, 2009, the national average was $1.83. This is a difference of 37 cents per gallon or 3.1%. So although it was a wild ride in the interim, the overall change was within normal inflationary rates.

Once again, Presidents really don't impact the economy and Congress controls the purse strings.

A Torture Rebuttle

As my previous posts discussed what I see as the short comings in the NY Times coverage of the torture memos, I believe I should offer another side which handles the issue more clearly.

First up we have "The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture" by Mr. Rivkin, Jr. and Mr. Casey. This Op-Ed out shines both Times pieces in a number of ways. First, it quotes from the memos. Four two or three-word phrases and two sentences of thirty or more words. For example, the authors quote a critical Red Cross report that asserted techniques were designed to "forcefully bang the head and body against the wall." The authors then counter this assertion by pointing out the shoulder blades are actually the point of impact and go on to quote the memos themselves, which state, "the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action." The authors of this op-ed do not pontificate from a preconceived position, but rather engage the material.

Second, we have "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror." This op-ed confronts many issues, including proponents reasons for believing the memos should be released (we're not using them so why keep them secret, they were ineffective, the ACLU sued so they had to be made public), the effects this could have on the intelligence communities moral and their future ability to rely on opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel. The responses to each of these issues are quite strong and would actually lose credibility, if it were not for the authors credentials. The authors assert the techniques "were used selectively against only a small number of hard-core prisoners who successfully resisted other forms of interrogation, and then only with the explicit authorization of the director of the CIA." How can the authors claim to know that the techniques were used "selectively" and only with "explicit authorization"? I would have thought it was simply a Republican talking point, if the authors were not Gen. Hayden and Mr. Mukasey, director of the CIA and Attorney General, respectively.

In short, the WSJ offerings directly engage the material with quotes and counter arguments while being more logically and directly composed.

More NYTimes and Torture

The same day I read the editorial discussed below, I found this article as well. Why did I read another New York Times piece after the dismal editorial? I still hoped the paper, being the leader that it is, could redeem itself and the first paragraph was quite engaging. It reads, "INSECTS have been conscripted as weapons of war, tools of terrorism and instruments of torture for thousands of years. So should we be surprised by the news that the C.I.A. considered using these creatures to instill fear in Abu Zubaydah, a terrorist suspect? Yes, and here’s why."

The article, entitled "The Scary Caterpillar," promised to address a specific question and get started right away. I should have seen it coming; the article fell flat on its face.

The first three paragraphs offer a history of insects as weapons of war or torture, from the Paleolithic period to the 19th century. This would be all well and good, except the final, striking sentence of the opening paragraph demands that the question be answered right away. Such a detour into the past is out of place.

Mr. Lockwood finally gives his answer more than halfway through the piece: "This appears to be the first case in which insects would have been used to inflict psychological terror." Presumably other nations or regimes have not used a prisoner's worst fear(s) against them, insect or otherwise. Also, the threat of physical suffering via insects would be a powerful psychological card to play for early strong-man regimes and a tool during interrogations. So even in a specific, insect only context, the claim is weak at best.

Why does Mr. Lockwood find psychological torture so abhorrent? Because the terrorists might psychologically torture us! They could claim to release the mosquito-borne Rift Valley fever. But if we don't place physically harmless insects in a cramped cage with a leader of theirs, then they won't threaten or use biological attacks. Never mind that they flew planes into our buildings, that they kill innocent civilians and children via suicide bomber, and that they kidnap our journalists and behead them. Never mind that the "chances of this happening are slim," that the "terrorists might even be bluffing," and that reports of the disease would have to be confirmed before anyone would take the threat seriously. The fact that "terrorism - and torture - can be psychological" is reason enough not to use a prisoner's fears against him.

Ridiculous.

The New York Times on Torture

Following the release of the CIA torture memos and reading some of the commentary, I headed over to NYTimes.com to get their take on the issue. I knew that they would be less than supportive, and I desired serious insight and reflection on the topic from the opposing side.

April 19th saw an editorial titled "The Torturers' Manifesto," which was 19 paragraphs in length. Given the amount of detail disclosed, I assumed the Times would have much to say. Surprisingly, there were zero direct quotes from the memos. Only two paragraphs mention a total of four techniques. Instead, because "the dangers do not end with the torture memos," they change topics half way through to discuss "President Bush's decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans." The editors believed this was important enough to dedicate 21% of the piece to the topic.

How long has the liberal establishment, and the Times by extension, railed against the Bush policies of torture? Couldn't they dedicate an entire editorial to the practices and policies? Is warrantless wiretapping worthy of being discussed in the same piece?

This is further highlighted by a failure to actually engage the memos. With no use of direct quotes to support them, the editors assert that the memos employ the language of "dungeon masters," are "sickening," and are "clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners." With zero direct references, why should I accept their assertions?

I sought the New York Times as an intelligent, alternate, voice but found a group that holds to their preconceived conclusions and who simply "do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans' rights as Mr. Bush did."

The world is my oyster...

In America today, our culture seemingly promotes teenagers not growing up. This is most evident in the ornament of teen culture - cell phones. A current ad, touting it's minutes package, has the teenage girl saying "so I can talk all I want" with the father chiming in with "exploding no heads" - referring to the amount on the bill.

Teens should pay their portion of cell phone bills (and other expenses, like car payments & insurance) and especially overage rates that they incur. Without these seemingly trivial expenditures, adolescents will not learn the costs of life. These steps are present to help mature into full adulthood slowly, taking on more and more responsibility as they move forward through life. If our culture continues on insisting that parents shield their children from every obligation and responsibility we will find the new generation suddenly thrown into the world without adequate preparation. How then will they succeed?

Don't Eat Babies, Tax Emails!

I’m on a roll today. Even though I should probably save this for another day, I just can’t stop.

This country needs money. The Obama administration is deficient spending through our noses. The rich, businesses of all sizes, and gas and oil companies, to name a few, are being taxed to oblivion. The troops need money, Obama’s plan for universal health care is not going to be cheap, the goal to have everyone in this country with a college degree is going to cost some serious dough. We need money, plain and simple. This is my proposal: enact a taxation on email.

According to one site, 210 billion emails are sent per day. Let’s assume, for the sake of numbers, that 1/2 of those are sent to or from America. That means that 105 billion emails every day would be available for taxation. If Uncle Sam charged just $.05 per email, he would acquire 5.3 billion dollars a day. In just 149 days, about five months, the entire stimulus package of $787 billion could be completely paid for in little more than it costs to send a text message. Perhaps the taxation plan could offer discounts or tax deductions for emails sent within between family members or coworkers to keep business costs feasible, and the stimulus could still be paid for within a year.

Think of all the other advantages of an email taxation: no spam, no email chain-letters, and fewer company advertisings (like Amazon’s “Since you bought that, we know you’ll love this!” emails). If you work in a customer-service based industry, you’d get fewer stupid-question emails, since people would be more likely to research their question before emailing it. There are so many advantages to treating emails like they are text messages!

You could do any one of these things:
Pay for Bush’s bank bailout of $700 billion within five months
Full pay for the new $3.6 trillion budget within Obama’s first term (1.7 years)
In 5.6 years, the entire $10.8 trillion Federal deficit would be $0

If you’re reading this Obama, just know that instead of socialistically taxing only the wealthy, you could communistically fairly tax us all a measly $.05 per email.