Philosophy Learn more about our
organization and the moral basis of capitalism.
Campaigns Find out about the
Center's many activism projects.
Media Center
News mentions, press releases and
speakers.
Feedback
Send us a comment or ask
a question--we want to hear from you!
Contribute This website and the
Center's advocacy programs are not free--we depend on you to support our
efforts. Invest in your freedom today! Donate once or set up a monthly
withdrawal plan--we accept all major cards.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware managed to disgrace himself and the entire United States Congress by successfully sneaking throught the RAVE Act without so much as a minute of debate. Even more disgracefully, Biden's Democratic colleagues—the same group that can't get enough debate over Miguel Estrada—felt no need to speak out against this travesty. Barring a presidential veto, the government will now assume the (unconstitutional) power to seize any property where an individual is using drugs, even if the owner has no knowledge or responsibility for said drug use. And keep in mind, this law will be enforced by John Ashcroft's Justice Department, the same people who executed Mountain Health Care over falsified antitrust charges.
For his "leadership" on this issue, Joe Biden has richly earned a place on my enemies list, right next to Jane Fonda, Daniel Schorr, and Jack Anderson. Oh, wait, that's Richard Nixon's enemies list...
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:04 AM | link
| donate |
Friday, April 11, 2003 :::
Mountain Health Care, R.I.P.
Skip Oliva remembers a victim of antitrust poisoning at Initium.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:23 PM | link
| donate |
Support our troops
Rep. Martin Frost, Texas Democrat, wants to make it easier for non-citizens in the U.S. military to get their citizenship:
The growing ranks of legal permanent residents in our armed forces build on a rich legacy of military service from America’s immigrants. It reflects the tremendous pride and patriotism of our immigrant communities, particularly among Hispanic immigrants.
But right now, U.S. immigration law erects unnecessary and unfair hurdles for these green card troops who want to become citizens in the nation they defend.
Typically, they are among the lowest in pay and in rank, but the naturalization process can cost them thousands of dollars in fees and out-of-pocket travel expenses. And if they’re serving overseas – as many are – the law makes the process even more difficult by requiring legal immigrant servicemen and women to schedule interviews at local INS offices in the U.S. – and to pay their own travel expenses to get here.
Last year, President Bush signed an Executive Order making non-citizens who had been on active duty since September 11th immediately eligible for citizenship. But this does not remove any of the barriers to actually getting citizenship, and it lacks the permanence of statutory law.
That’s why the “Citizenship for America’s Troops Act” is still needed. It waives naturalization fees for green card troops, and allows immigration officials to conduct interviews at consulates, embassies and overseas military installations. It also decreases the service requirement to qualify for citizenship from three to two years.
Sounds good to me.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:57 PM | link
| donate |
How to steal money twice
Lawyers are hardly my favorite profession, but even they have a right to fees they validly earned. Republican senators Jon Kyl and John Cronyn disagree, however, and have introduced the "Intermediate Sanctions Compensatory Revenue Adjustment Act of 2003," a bill which would apply the tax code retroactively to punish lawyers who accept "unreasonable" fees.
If you're wondering why this is a priority for Messrs. Kyl and Cronyn, the answer is contained in the title of Kyl's press release: "Kyl Bill Would Give Billions To States." Specifically, it would give $9 billion to state governments from the notorious federal tobacco settlement that currently belong to private lawyers hired to handle the case. Kyl justifies this by claiming the states really need the money:
“We should not unreasonably enrich trial lawyers at the expense of states suffering severe financial crises. Like any other client, taxpayers in states that participated in the tobacco lawsuits deserve a fair share of the settlement reached. Yet attorneys’ fees in this case far exceed even the most generous standards awarded in other lawsuits of similar magnitude.”
This is all well and good, except the states agreed to pay the lawyers' contigency-based fees, a percentage of the total settlement, and now are Kyl wants to go back on that contract. If the states didn't want to pay such high fees, they should have bargained for a better fee deal before they hired their lawyers.
The bill itself limits attorney fees to 500% of "standard hourly rates," whatever that means, and uses the tax code to punish (i.e. take) compensation in excess of that limit. Once again, Kyl says this is justified because of current state budget shortfalls—the government just needs the money more than the lawyers. At least Kyl can be credited for his honesty in admitting this is about taking private funds for state use.
Then again, the lawyers bear some blame for this. After all, the tobacco settlement itself was not a product of honest legal work, but of government coercion aided and abetted by the trial lawyer profession. In one sense, this is just desserts for the attorneys: money they stole from tobacco companies is being stolen from them. But having said that, the Kyl-Cronyn bill is a violation of contract rights, and it would set a far worse precedent than even the tobacco settlement.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:51 PM | link
| donate |
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, writes in today's New York Times that he was personally aware of the brutality of Saddam's regime, but did not report it, out of fear of recriminations against CNN staff.
"Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard—awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
Jordan goes on to tell a harrowing tale of Iraqi assassination, torture, and dismemberment.
Saddam was so totalitarian that CNN feared for its staff and subjects, yet publicly, it continued to report as if Saddam's brutality did not impact its operation. So much for the press serving as a watch guard against threats to freedom.
The minute Saddam threatened force against CNN, the network should have pulled out of Iraq. CNN should have had the honesty to report that it was impossible to provide provide accurate and complete news inside a totalitarian dictatorship. That would have been important news to know on the concrete level CNN could have provided. Yet instead of reporting relevant facts, CNN knowingly whitewashed for a dictator.
If CNN's judgment permitted it not to tell the whole story in Iraq, one wonders where else it hasn't told the whole story.
UPDATE: This tidbit found on WNYC Radio (dated October 25, 2002):
BOB GARFIELD: I'm sure you have seen Franklin Foer's article in The New Republic which charges that the Western press is appeasing the Iraqi regime in order to maintain its visas -- to be there reporting should a war ultimately break out. What's your take on that?
EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting. We wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would refute the premise of the article.
BOB GARFIELD: Well what is the calculus? In the New Republic article he cites the coverage of Saddam Hussein's birthday by CNN which he deemed to be not a huge news event. Are you tossing bones to Saddam Hussein in order to be there when, when it really matters?
EASON JORDAN: No. I don't think that's the case at all. Now, there is Iraqi propaganda that is news! I mean there is propaganda from a lot of governments around the world that is newsworthy and we should report on those things. Saddam Hussein's birthday is a big deal in that country. We're not reading Iraqi propaganda; we're reporting as an independent news organization.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:32 PM | link
| donate |
Thursday, April 10, 2003 :::
Here we go again...
All of the newspaper boxes have been removed from my neighborhood, which is the Foggy Bottom area bordering the White House and the State Department. The last time this was done was right before the IMF-World Bank protests last year, so I presume today's removal is in anticipation of anti-war protests this weekend.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 5:22 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust news
From the "as if the airlines don't have enough to deal with" department:
Dozens of travel agents are accusing major airlines of violating antitrust laws by colluding to eliminate commissions on ticket sales.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the travel agents claim that 21 airlines conspired to ban commissions to agents who sell tickets for the carriers. An attorney for the plaintiffs says the industry, beginning in 1997, reduced 10 percent commissions to 8 percent.
Two years ago, commissions dropped to 5 percent of the ticket price and in March 2002 many airlines eliminated commissions.
A similar suit, which has class-action status, is pending in a federal court in Wilmington, N.C.
The 49 plaintiffs in the San Francisco suit opted out of the North Carolina case.
This case has an amusing premise: the airlines should be punished for making their operations more efficient, thus reducing the need for intermediaries such as travel agents. When you think about it, the entire travel agent profession has been rendered essentially obsolete through the use of Internet-based reservation systems. This is precisely the sort of "consumer benefit" the antitrust laws theoretically won't interfere with, but at the same time antitrust theory always holds the larger company (i.e. the airlines) to be the guilty party in any transaction where another party is unhappy.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:25 PM | link
| donate |
Arab Reaction
The Washington Post has an article on Arab reaction to the liberation of Iraq. Consider this reaction from Diaa Rashwan, a political scientist at Cairo's Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies:
"The Arab street is very frustrated, and to America, I repeat, I repeat, I repeat, the real war hasn't started yet. We have to be careful with such euphoria. It will only increase the feelings of anger in the Arab world. No Arabs want to welcome an occupying power."
Then there is this:
"I hate it," said Ahmed Samir, the manager of a trading company in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as he watched scenes of Iraqis shaking the hands of American soldiers in Baghdad. "It can only mean they hate Saddam more than they hate the Americans."
Yes, Messrs. Rashwan and Samir, perish the thought that the Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone, and thankful that the US removed him.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:24 PM | link
| donate |
Some useful advice for Chicken Little
Philippe de Croy tells us how to succeed on NPR at the Volokh Conspiracy.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:15 PM | link
| donate |
Wet Blanket Alert
Leave it to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times to integrate the standard altruist whine into the news of our victory in Iraq.
"What is striking, though, is that after people get through complaining to you about their situation, they each seem to have a story about a family member or cousin who was arbitrarily jailed or killed by Saddam's thugs. They are truly glad to be rid of him. America did good in doing that, so now we must build a peace we can be equally proud of.
"But this is such a broken land. Its spirit was broken by Saddam long before we arrived, and now, because of this war, its major cities and iron-fisted order are being broken as well. Killing Saddam alone will not bring America the thank-yous it expects because Iraqis are not yet feeling free. Only replacing Saddam's order with a better order will do that. "There is no freedom because there is no security," said Dr. Mohammed al-Mansuri, the hospital's director. . .
". . .America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the water doesn't flow, if the food doesn't arrive, if the rains don't come and if the sun doesn't shine, it's now America's fault. We'd better get used to it, we'd better make things right, we'd better do it soon, and we'd better get all the help we can get.
America broke Iraq? We now own the place? And it's our job to fix it? You would have to write for the Times to believe that. It was 25 years of Saddam that broke Iraq--Friedman admits as much--and a big chunk of the Iraqi people allowed it to happen. I'm glad the Iraqi people are dancing in the streets, but truth be told, many of the Iraqi people have a lot to answer for.
Now that the US has dethroned Saddam, we owe Iraq a modicum of policing until an interim government is established. Where people are in immanent danger of death due to the war, relief aid to relive that danger is in order. But that's it. Saddam's boot have been removed from the necks of the Iraqi people. The onus on rebuilding Iraq now properly belongs to the Iraqis.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:42 AM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, April 09, 2003 :::
Democracy, whiskey, and sexy
Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream is writing for Al Jezeera. The following is an excerpt of his response to the liberation of Baghdad
"Despite constant discussion of "precision bombing," the US invasion has produced so many dead and wounded that Iraqi hospitals stopped trying to count.
"Red Cross officials have labeled the level of casualties "incredible," describing "dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of women and children" delivered by truck to hospitals.
"Cluster bombs, one of the most indiscriminate weapons in the modern arsenal, have been used by U.S. and U.K. forces, with the British defense minister explaining that mothers of Iraqi children killed would one day thank Britain for their use.
"US viewers see little of these consequences of war, which are common on television around the world and widely available to anyone with Internet access.
Hmmm. Today, the world saw perhaps the most important consequence of the war to date: Iraqis dancing in the streets as a US tank destroyer tore down a statue of Saddam in Baghdad. And it seems a sizable chunk of the population of Baghdad were not the least bit concerned with any of the claims Professor Jenson raised as they chanted "Down with Saddam--God Bless George Bush." One Iraqi man, when asked what he thought the Americans would bring to his country said, with his voice lifting each word to greater prominence, "Democracy, whiskey, and sexy!"
The antiwar movement stands totally discredited, yet they still have their ax to grind and they will use every tool they can muster to grind it. Consider the following expert our good professor gave in an interview about his book:
"After several years of writing dozens of op/eds that expressed very radical ideas (everything from describing the United States as a terrorist nation to sharp critiques of corporate capitalism), I realized I had accumulated a lot of experience and tips about how to take, as the book's subtitle puts it, radical ideas from the margins to the mainstream."
Lots of apologists for dictators draw on the same set of skills, and that's why they are called propaganda artists. The good thing about propaganda though is once the evidence comes out, life never goes well for the propagandist.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:00 PM | link
| donate |
First Class monopoly
The U.S. Postal Service will freeze their stamp rates until 2006 under legislation passed yesterday by Congress. The bill permits USPS to reduce payments to its employee pension system, which is currently overfunded. The nearly $3 billion saved by this move will be used to help pay down the Postal Service's $11 billion debt. In exchange, first-class stamp rates will remain at 37 cents for at least three more years.
A number of industry groups representing mail-heavy businesses (such as nonprofit groups) obviously applauded this action. Yet there seems to be little call among organized lobbyists for the abolition of the Postal Service's first-class mail monopoly—despite the fact opening all mail services to competition would likely lower costs and improve service in the long term. There is currently a presidential commission studying "reform" of USPS, but given the political pull of postal worker unions, any substantial change in the first-class monopoly appears unlikely.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 5:53 PM | link
| donate |
Faith in education
Education Secretary Rod Paige offered the following comments to a Baptist news service:
All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith.
* * *
The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system...In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.
Now, it's unclear from this sentence whether Paige meant to say children in government-run schools should be taught Christian values, but not surprisingly, that's how some people took it. Barry Lynn, the leftist head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, immediately called for Paige's resignation, saying the secretary's remarks were an affront to "diversity." These comments were echoed by American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman, who emphasized diversity is "what makes our public schools great."
The problem with Paige's remarks, however, is not his alleged attacks on "diversity," but his declaration of faith as a means of education. You do not "teach" faith to children; you impose it upon them through coercion. Faith is the systematic denial of the reasoning process by which men thrive. Faith is not a valid means of cognition, yet the secretary's remarks clearly state otherwise.
At the same time, it's pointless to call for Paige's resignation. The Department of Education exists largely to provide government schools—and the teacher unions which control them—with a permanent foothold in Washington, and nothing in Paige's remarks threaten this stranglehold. Indeed, the teachers unions are simply another vehicle preaching a secular Gospel of altruism to the 50 million students they currently hold captive thanks to the government monopoly on education. Unless Secretary Paige is prepared to address that reality, it makes little difference what he says or does otherwise in office.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:19 PM | link
| donate |
Democracy vs. The Pursuit of Happiness
“Why doesn’t democracy grab hold in the Middle East? What is there about the culture and the people and so on where democracy just doesn’t seem to be something they strive for and work for?”, asked an exasperated Rep. Christopher Shays (D-CT) after several hours of testimony on U.S.-Islamic relations.
The mother of all polls--the World Values Survey, a series of questionnaires that ask people in 70 countries (over 80% of the world population) about their values and beliefs--may hold the answer. Summarizing the research, survey director Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan writes in Foreign Policy:
Although nearly the entire world pays lip service to democracy, there is still no global consensus on the self-expression values—such as social tolerance, gender equality, freedom of speech, and interpersonal trust—that are crucial to democracy. Today, these divergent values constitute the real clash between Muslim societies and the West.
::: posted by John Opfer
at 10:33 AM | link
| donate |
Victory?
It's starting to look that way.
Update: American troops topple statue of Saddam Hussein in front of jubilant Baghdad crowd, and in front of the world's television sets.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:27 AM | link
| donate |
When you absolutely, positively need to defeat the Republican Guard...
UPI's Martin Walker discusses the importance of the commercial sector in winning the war in Iraq:
But the real genius of the modern American way of war is the way they have combined their logistics with the best of civilian technology, from communications to information technology. It is one thing to marvel at the way the Vth Corps post office in Kuwait delivers 100 tons of incoming mail a day, quite another to see the massed ranks of PCs in the giant hangars at Camp Doha, with GIs e-mailing home and surfing the Web to see what al-Jazeera or the British media has to say about their war.
The supply systems are stupendous, because the U.S. military has applied the technologies of commercial companies such as Fed-Ex and Wal-Mart to track the use of equipment, locate spare parts through bar codes, and start shipping them forward to the combat troops even before they ask for them. German troops froze for months in their [World War II] Russian campaigns. American troops outside Nasariya were able to take hot showers less than 48 hours after they reached the place—despite the worst sandstorm in a decade.
As a result, the U.S. armed forces defeated the best army in the Arab world with one hand tied behind their back. The U.S. Army did not even field its first team. The 4th Division, the most technologically advanced of all, with a computer in every vehicle and TV camera on the helmet of every squad leader sending real-time images back to headquarters, never even arrived on the battlefield.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:41 AM | link
| donate |
Vagueness abuse
A Vermont legislator wants the state to criminalize “emotional abuse” of children. How does one define emotional abuse? This is what the bill proposes:
“Emotional abuse” means the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish by threats, humiliation, intimidation, or other abusive conduct which is intended to demean, frighten, intimidate, or isolate.
This doesn’t exactly clarify matters. Indeed, this bill could easily be twisted to criminalize any conduct towards a child that the child simply finds unpleasant. Calling this proposal vague would be an understatement. One group opposing the bill, the Home School Legal Defense Association, correctly notes: “Under American law, people should be able to tell when they are breaking the law if they are to be punished by it.” Indeed, all states have ample laws prohibiting (and objectively defining) child abuse on the books already, so it’s hard to see any compelling need to expand the definition in such a conceptually imprecise way.
There’s also a gaping epistemological flaw with this bill’s definition of emotional abuse. Emotion, after all, is simply a reaction to one’s perceptions based on a given individual’s set of value judgments. Obviously, a child’s values tend to be less well defined than those of an adult, but most children over the age of three have a fairly well defined sense of self, not to mention the rudimentary ability to conceptualize. Since not every child acquires the same set of basic values, the definition of “emotional abuse” will vary from child-to-child, something which is not the case with physical abuse.
On the other hand, this bill’s vagueness could be used to the advantage of people trying to raise their children as rational individualists. After all, a child raised with a strong sense of self will likely consider attempts by government schools to “socialize” him to be a profound type of emotional abuse. In other words, coercing a selfish child into sacrificing himself to altruism could be considered a crime under a strict reading of the proposed Vermont bill. Somehow, though, I doubt that’s what this legislator had in mind.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:32 AM | link
| donate |
In an attempt to sneak the “RAVE Act” through the Senate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has just introduced the Act into conference committee as an add-on to the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003 (S151). S151 is a bill about child abduction that has nothing to do with drug policy issues. The “RAVE” Act, in contrast, has not passed a single committee this year. In addition, it was so controversial when it was introduced last year that two Senators withdrew their sponsorship. The “RAVE” Act is a bill that would make it easier for the federal government to punish business owners for the drug offenses of their customers – even if they take steps to stop such activity.
S151 has passed the Senate and House and is now in Conference. If the Democrats are successful in their efforts to attach the “RAVE” Act onto an unrelated bill, it is likely to become law without ever having a public hearing, debate or a vote. Opponents of the “RAVE” Act argue that it would put innocent business owners at risk of criminal prosecution, threaten free speech, be detrimental to public health, and could be used by overzealous prosecutors to target racial minorities or politically unpopular groups.
If enacted, the “RAVE” Act would make it easier for the federal government to punish property owners for any drug offense that their customers commit – even if they work hard to stop such offenses. If enacted, nightclub and stadium owners would likely stop holding events – such as rock or Hip Hop concerts – in which even one person might use drugs. Because of its broad language, the proposed law would even potentially subject people to twenty years in federal prison if one or more of their guests smoked marijuana at their party or barbecue.
CAC opposed the RAVE Act when it was introduced last year in the Senate, and the bill is just as bad today as it was then. This is a naked assault on property rights, and it bears little rational relation to any legitimate government objective, and it certainly does nothing about the drug problem. It simply gives politically-minded prosecutors the ability to manufacture convictions against innocent business owners.
The fact that Senate RAVE sponsors are trying to shoehorn their proposal into an unrelated bill demonstrates just how corrupt the legislative process has become. It used to be an ironclad principle of parliamentary law that a bill addressed only one topic or proposal. The U.S. Congress has long abandoned this rule, and indeed both houses of Congress routinely encourage grafting on unrelated amendments in order to escape public scrutiny over unpopular proposals. Regardless of the RAVE Act’s merits—and there are none that I can see—the proposal itself must nonetheless be debated publicly, and not added on in a closed conference committee meeting.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 11:53 PM | link
| donate |
Philip Morris USA won a victory Tuesday when a Chicago judge Tuesday temporarily blocked part of a multibillion-dollar award it was ordered to pay, which, coupled with comments from another judge, allayed fears the cigarette maker could be forced into bankruptcy.
The downstate Edwardsville, Ill., judge who ordered the award, after finding Philip Morris USA had deceived customers into thinking "light" cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes, indicated he may not force the company to post a $12 billion appeal bond.
"I don't want to put this company out of business. At the same time I'm concerned about protecting this judgment," Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron said during a hearing in Edwardsville, on Philip Morris' request to reduce the bond. He added that he could consider a "guarantee" from Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris's parent, but did not elaborate.
Byron last month ordered Philip Morris USA to pay $7.1005 billion in compensatory damages to smokers and awarded Illinois $3.0 billion in punitive damages.
A $12 billion bond just to appeal a verdict is irrational on its face. Phillip Morris documented that they couldn’t raise more than a $1.5 billion bond, and in fact the entire company was not worth $12 billion. Indeed, the company would likely be forced into bankruptcy if Judge Byron’s unethical (and, in my judgment, unconstitutional) bond order stands. To wage such economic destruction for the protection of an already dubious punitive damage award demonstrates just how irrational portions of America’s justice system are today.
The even sicker part of this is that a number of state governments filed an amicus brief in support of reducing the bond. You may wonder why other states would side with Phillip Morris against Illinois. The answer is simple: if Phillip Morris goes into bankruptcy over the Illinois bond, they would almost certainly miss upcoming payments on the existing national tobacco settlement. At a time when government budgets are in deficit freefall nationally, states cannot afford to lose their hard-stolen tobacco funds. Thus, Illinois effort to steal even more money could create an odd cascade of public financing destruction in addition to the economic disaster which would accompany a Phillip Morris bankruptcy.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 11:42 PM | link
| donate |
Diversity vs. social injustice
Amitai Etzioni, a George Washington University professor, offers this analysis of the University of Michigan's defense of institutional racism (a.k.a. affirmative action):
Michigan's argument does not pass the smile test: It is not something you can argue with a straight face. True, diversity does add something to an educational environment; however, it comes in many stripes. It would do wonders for the freshmen of our elite universities to have among them more poor whites from Appalachia, a few more diehard Christians and maybe a few more students from Muslim nations such as Iran and Kyrgyzstan.
Indeed, research conducted by Stanley Rothman, professor emeritus at Smith College, indicated that the benefits of diversity in higher education are questionable at best, with diversity resulting in increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and increased complaints by students about discrimination.
The weakest link in Michigan's case is proffered by its law school dean, Jeffrey Lehman: "When we teach our students about difficult issues such as whether it's appropriate for police to be able to use race [sic] profiles, when we ask our students whether it's appropriate to decriminalize crack cocaine, the discussion, the analysis, the learning that takes place is better in a racially diverse classroom."
The implication of Lehman's statement is that a white person cannot make a powerful case against racial profiling—or a black student for it. If this argument is upheld, the law school would need gay students for a discussion of civil unions, mental patients to examine involuntary commitment laws, and so on—a truly nutty idea. Moreover, some of the most strident voices for social justice are lily-white.
Michigan and company would do best if they stuck to "old" arguments. Some social groups suffered—and are still suffering—from gross injustices.
I concur with Etzioni's dissection of the diversity rationale, but I dissent from his suggestion that "social injustice" is a valid defense of the Michigan programs. In the end, he's essentially adopting Michigan's moral principle: people should be treated not as individuals, but as a member of a group. Now, Etzioni would not dispute my charge, as he's a "communitarian," who opposes individualist thinking. Still, it's hard to see how social injustice meets Etzioni's own smile test; the argument is essentially that Michigan must racially discriminate because of overall social injustice, not because of specific injustices committed by Michigan itself. This argument was actually advanced by a number of Michigan students who intervened in the lower courts. Their argument was that Michigan's policies were constitutional because America as a whole was so fundamentally racist that minority students could not otherwise succeed in college.
This is all a wonderful orgy of floating abstractions, but there's little direct evidence to support any of these theories. It also ignores the underlying question: how do we eliminate the stigma of racism in college admissions? The answer, as CAC said in its brief, is to treat everyone as individuals, thus rejecting artificial race constructs altogether. Keep in mind, Michigan's policy does not award bonus points to victims of "social injustice," but to any student who has a particular parentage. It's an automatic bonus derived entirely from genetics.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 6:53 PM | link
| donate |
NBA commissioner David Stern told WNBA players Tuesday that unless they settle their contract dispute by April 18, the 2003 season for the women's league will not be played.
"We want to get a deal and work with the players," said Stern, announcing at the same time that his league had voted an additional $12 million to subsidize its women's affiliate. "But if that's not to be, it's not to be. We'll know in the next 10 days if there will be a WNBA season."
Calls by The Associated Press to the NBA Players' Association, which represents the women as well as the men, were not immediately returned.
The contract with WNBA players expired last Sept. 15 and negotiations have gone nowhere. The union is demanding substantial pay increases and free agency among other things.
The key word in this is "subsidize." From the beginning, the WNBA has been a money-losing operation, and the future prospects aren't good regardless of how the labor negotiations turn out. The WNBA players may not want to recognize or admit this, but the NBA considers their women's auxilliary league to be little more than a promotional item, something to keep professional basketball going during the summer months while expanding the NBA's appeal to a larger audience. For the WNBA to be independently viable, it would have to cut the number of teams significantly (from, say, 16 to 8) and commit to a longer schedule with less television exposure. That's how other professional leagues grew their revenue bases over a period of many decades. In contrast, there are some WNBA boosters who seem to believe you can say the magic words "Title IX" and instantly become profitable.
Sadly, the WNBA may be a victim of Title IX more than its beneficiary. After all, Title IX amounts to a government-compelled subsidy of women's sports at the collegiate level. But a nonprofit college is in a far different position than the for-profit businessmen who own the NBA. The Title IX generation just doesn't understand that distinction—they've been led to believe their every whim will be met by a society eager to "overcome" its sexist past. Rather then thank the NBA for at least making a good-faith effort at creating a women's professional league, most of the Title IX brigade will likely resort to condemning the NBA for not giving the WNBA players everything they want in this labor negotiation. It's an ironically sexist message: men have to earn their way, but the women should just have things handed to them without condition.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 6:29 PM | link
| donate |
Ontario, the 51st state?
While Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien maintains his reflexive anti-American position towards the Iraqi war, opposition politicians up north have become increasingly vocal in supporting both U.S. policy and President Bush individually. On March 26, a group called Canadians for Bush was founded to rally for the war and against Chrétien’s Liberal Party government. The group is scheduled to hold a rally this Saturday in Queenston, Ontario, which will feature speeches from Stockwell Day, the chief foreign policy spokesman for the opposition Canadian Alliance party, and several members of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party government. Ontario officials, led by Premeir Ernie Eves, have been especially supportive of President Bush and the war policy.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 4:15 PM | link
| donate |
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Harvard education...
Rep. Buck McKeon, California Republican, thinks Americans pay too much to attend college. Despite the fact McKeon touts himself as a free-market conservative, he is willing to initiate force against those colleges that, in his view, are not “affordable” enough.
McKeon has introduced the “College Affordability in Higher Education Act,” a sweeping new federal mandate that would require all colleges and universities to report their tuition and other attendance costs to bureaucrats at the Department of Education. A school’s costs would then be subjected to McKeon’s “college affordability index,” which he describes as follows:
The college affordability index is a reasonable test to determine if institutions of higher education are keeping their college costs increases within a reasonable rate. For example, a 25 percent increase in tuition and fees is not reasonable, it is scandalous and we can no longer sit idly by and accept such increases as the natural course of things. We can not turn a blind eye to such increases because too many qualified students are not even entertaining the thought of college because they simply can not afford even the tuition of a two year public college.
There is, obviously, nothing “reasonable” about McKeon’s index. After all, a college may have good reason to increase their tuition 25%, such as the need for capital improvements or a sharp rise in labor costs. In any case, it’s not for a government official to decide what’s in a college’s best financial interests to charge students. And the fact that some students can’t afford a particular tuition rate is hardly a national tragedy. There is no “right” to attend a particular school, and certainly no “right” to force a university to charge a particular rate for their services. In the end, McKeon's index is simply the latest in a long line of arbitrary government rules which have little, if any, basis in fact or reason.
McKeon’s bill would trigger “sanctions” against any college that did not comply with his affordability index, sanctions that would bizarrely include declaring the institution ineligible for federal student financial aid programs. Denying loans to students seems an odd way of forcing a college to lower their tuition. Perhaps McKeon also thought sanctions on the Iraqi people would drive Saddam Hussein from power peacefully.
While there are many reasons for the rise in college costs, McKeon should acknowledge that it is the federal government which has caused much of these increases. Government regulation of higher education has dramatically expanded in the last 30 years—think of Title IX—and all regulation brings with it enormous costs which must be born by individual schools. If McKeon had any genuine belief in the free market, he would seek to repeal those rules which impose costs upon colleges before seeking yet another unjustified government intervention into the education market.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:59 PM | link
| donate |
Tar Heels tarnished
Matt Doherty resigned under pressure as head coach of the University of North Carolina men’s basketball team last week. The pressure in this case appears to have come from Doherty’s predecessor, Dean Smith, although before the media school officials have tried to blame UNC players. The popular legend is that UNC athletic director Dick Baddour met one-on-one with several players who criticized Doherty, and subsequent to that Baddour called for Doherty’s resignation in order to prevent multiple players from transferring to other schools. In general, the consensus was that Doherty’s leadership style was far too combative for UNC’s taste.
The facts did not appear to support firing Doherty (and he was effectively fired.) In three seasons, Doherty compiled a respectable 53-43 record. Although UNC did not make the NCAA tournament the past two seasons, Doherty was the national coach of the year in his first season, and UNC was able to recruit a high level of talent in the past year, putting the team in excellent position for next season. Furthermore, Doherty represented UNC well, and there is no evidence of any NCAA or other ethical violations during his tenure. In short, there seems to be little good faith basis for dismissing Doherty with two years left on his current contract.
The most likely explanation for Doherty’s demise was that his mentor, Dean Smith, lost confidence in him. Doherty was criticized, for example, for firing longtime UNC assistant coach Phil Ford upon taking over the program. In reality, however, Doherty simply wanted to bring in his own assistant coaches, something every head coach does, and UNC officials explicitly told Doherty he was free to choose his own staff. Yet Ford’s firing rubbed Smith and other UNC officials the wrong way.
Here’s the problem: With Doherty’s firing, UNC officials are now looking to a number of former Smith assistants to fill the job. In fact, ESPN reports UNC leaders “don't want the Tar Heels to go outside of the Dean Smith family tree.” This obviously limits the coaching search to just a handful of well-known names, such as Kansas coach Roy Williams and NBA coaches George Karl and Larry Brown. This approach also excludes from consideration a number of highly qualified individuals that are available, such as former Illinois coach Lon Krueger.
It would be one thing if UNC were a private institution. But this is a government-run university supported by substantial taxpayer funds. On top of that, the head basketball coach is likely the highest paid employee of the university (Doherty, a relatively inexperienced coach when hired, earned about $800,000 per year.) For the hiring search to be limited to former associates of Smith borders on nepotism, a practice that is illegal in many government programs. At the very least, UNC is tying one hand behind its back in an effort to placate Coach Smith’s desire to perpetuate his particular vision of the basketball program.
Indeed, UNC’s ethical judgment was compromised when they fired Doherty in the first place. To fire a coach with two years on his contract when he had committed no proven malfeasance is highly questionable. UNC’s judgment is even more suspect when one considers Doherty’s claims (unrefuted by UNC) that the school never made any effort to discuss their alleged concerns with him before demanding a resignation letter. For example, Doherty says officials only spoke with players, not with Doherty’s assistants or other basketball staff. Nor did the athletic department every investigate or allege any specific misconduct towards players, despite UNC’s reasoning that it was player discontent which justified the firing.
All in all, this was disgraceful conduct, made all the more outrageous in that it constituted a government action. After all, have you ever heard a case where a professor was fired simply because a handful of students expressed displeasure? Of course not. Most senior professors are granted tenure that insulates them from even justified review. But Doherty was fired without even a chance to complete his contract. It’s hypocritical, actually, when you consider Dean Smith had a 35-27 record in his first three years at North Carolina, a winning percentage nearly equal to Doherty’s. Then again, Dean Smith didn’t have a predecessor who viewed the basketball program as his personal fiefdom either. Hopefully Doherty’s successor will actually be allowed to run the program as he judges best. Both the basketball team and the taxpayers of North Carolina, who are unjustly forced to subsidize the university in the first place, deserve at least that much.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:36 PM | link
| donate |
Monday, April 07, 2003 :::
On Pacifism, Nihilsm and the 'Reality Principle'
From an interview with French philosopher André Glucksmann:
[C]omplacency ... made Hitler possible. This complacency has cost us about 50 million lives. It also worked well for Stalin. ‘Better red than dead!’ Pacifism is a kind of complacency. ...
I could not look at myself in the mirror if Saddam Hussein were still in power because I have been to a demonstration against Bush, and as a result, the people in Iraq had to live in this totalitarian regime for another twenty years.
This interview is so good it has to be read to be believed. "Vive la France!?"
::: posted by John Opfer
at 11:29 PM | link
| donate |
Tyranny vs. Freedom
CAC supporter Yuen Liang wrote an essay defending the moral case for war with Iraq for AsianWeek.com. Besides being a powerful statement justifying America's right to self-defense, Liang added a poignant personal statement--she dedicated her essay to Capt. Scott McDonald. Capt McDonald is a Marine officer currently fighting in Iraq and himself a great friend of the Center.
Thank you Scott, and thank you Yuen.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:27 PM | link
| donate |
Warm Dark Ages May Throw Cold Water on Hopes for Artificial Global Warming
Man-made global warming would be nice, but Harvard researchers suggest our early optimism (or, more generally, alarmism) may be overstated. According to their research, we have yet to warm the planet to the levels seen during the Dark Ages.
According to the British Daily Telegraph, "Claims that man-made pollution is causing 'unprecedented' global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. ... A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists. "
With the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300, one researcher observes, "the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
A comeback for British wine? No wonder the UN wants to fight global warming.
::: posted by John Opfer
at 2:42 PM | link
| donate |
Old Europe is a Senile, Luddite Biddy
Matt Ridley has a good piece in the British Guardian. Brief excerpt:
If you debate the new genetics in Europe and America these days you get asked the same question in two different ways. The average European says, with dread: "How do we stop people doing x?" The average American says with excitement: "When will I be able to do x?" For x, read "test myself for future dementia risk," "change my unborn children's genes," or even "fill my blood vessels with nano-robots to enable me to live to 150".
To the jaded European palate, the American attitude seems silly and irresponsible. Caution should be the watchword for all new technology. I beg to differ. I think the American optimism is necessary and responsible. It is the European pessimists who are in danger of causing real harm. Caution has risks, too.
::: posted by John Opfer
at 12:57 PM | link
| donate |
Sunday, April 06, 2003 :::
On our way to Ford Hall
No blogging today, as we're on our way to Boston to hear Leonard Peikoff speak at Ford Hall Forum.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:55 AM | link
| donate |
The success of the Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism is made possible thanks to
voluntary contributions by people like you. If you would like
to help support the Center's efforts, please make an
online contribution. We accept all major credit cards.
