Category: Ranting

Making pretend with capitalism

I mostly stayed away from The Internets over the Thanksgiving holiday, so I have little to say on whatever hot topics are in the news now until I have time to catch up. However, I did stumble on an thought-denying article by Dr. James Dobson title “Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage”. I’m not going to run through the eleven arguments because I think one will suffice to discredit Dr. Dobson’s effort, unless one chooses not to think. Consider argument number six:

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business.

And how about the cost to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients? Try selling that to a neurosurgeon or an orthopedist who has to pay increased premiums for malpractice insurance. The entire health care system could implode.

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.

I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Dobson is either lying or ignorant. Although the Dr. associated with a PhD is no guarantee of intelligence, I’m betting on lying. Perhaps millions of new dependents would become eligible for coverage, but I suspect the insurance industry is capable of handling the extra load. From paying attention in my Finance classes during my undergraduate education, I remember something about risk. Insurance companies provide customers with risk management. If a customer wants health insurance, an insurance company will accept some of that risk. But here’s the key: they expect compensation from the insured for managing that risk, appropriate for the level of risk.

Dr. Dobson’s concern regarding HIV-positive patients customers is particularly misguided. Ignore Dr. Dobson’s ridiculous implication that HIV infection correlates to same-sex marriage specifically, and homosexuality in general. Also, assume for a moment that estimates by some analysts predicting a threefold increase in premiums are accurate. Isn’t it obvious that the insurance companies are demanding more compensation to manage more risk? And if the threefold increase in premiums isn’t sufficient and insurance companies can’t stay in business, the fault will rest with the insurance companies unable to manage risk, not HIV-positive patients customers seeking coverage. We should expect them to go out of business, understanding that competent businesses will soon replace them. It’s called capitalism.

Just as amusing is Dr. Dobson’s assertion about the cost to American businesses. Forget everything after his initial “concern” for American businesses. Maybe this is perfect time to get American businesses out of the health care business and let it be a transaction between individuals and health care insurers/providers. But that’s just a suggestion. Given Dr. Dobson’s apparent misrepresentation of business, I don’t expect much.

Dr. Dobson’s remaining arguments are equally absurd. Read them if you’ve finished reading everything else on The Internets.

Update: Fixed a few grammatical mistakes and added text about the HIV+/homosexuality correlation. Kip explained this perfectly in the comments.

All politics is activist

In his most recent article for Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro offers a rebuttal to the “sky is falling” analysis pro-choice supporters foresee. Consider:

If Roe were overturned, the people in each state would decide abortion policy for themselves. Voters in California would decide abortion policy in California; voters in Alabama would decide abortion policy in Alabama. Some states would likely restrict abortion heavily; others would allow free access to abortion. Instead of a broad national answer dictated by the Supreme Court, we would have a plethora of answers dictated by the people.

I actually agree with Mr. Shapiro on this point. Federalism is an amazing experiment, producing a broad spectrum of data points on the issues facing our nation. However, perhaps a refresher of Mr. Shapiro’s words during last year’s presidential campaign could provide some insight.

With the judicial branch acting to usurp legislative power on this issue, a federal amendment is no longer optional but is a necessity in order to protect marriage.

I suspect Mr. Shapiro would defend the difference in his statement with a deeper analysis of judicial activism, but I’m not buying it. This is little more than federalism when it’s convenient and agreeable. Whose words to better refute Mr. Shapiro than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote this about the FMA when it first appeared.

You can’t favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes.

Should I read anything into the obvious conundrum of Mr. Shapiro’s argument? He supports federalism for abortion, with the expectation that it would remain legal in most, if not all, states? But he thinks federalism isn’t sufficient for same-sex marriage? Either I’m reading it wrong and he’s only left his federalist pro-life argument at an early stage that would eventually lead to a constitutional amendment defining a fetus as a human being from conception, or he’s more worried about the negative impact of same-sex marriage than abortion. How is that logical? One caveat: convince me without resorting to the alleged judicial activist disparity, since the legislators in this are just as activist.

Some thinking required

Yesterday, I wrote about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. I discussed the economic stupidity of the scheme, making it clear how I thought it should work. In the comments to that post, I received the following from BrStarr:

So you don’t care if Boston, New York or LA gets blown up?

Who do you think pays enough taxes so that you farm belt people can have your huge subsidies?

Winn-Dixie?

I responded, though sadly only in comments, since BrStarr left no contact information.

Read through the archives and you’ll find that it’s no secret that I live in the Washington, DC metro area, which I do not believe is in the farm belt. I acknowledge that I face greater risk living here. As such, my cost to insure my life, health, and property will likely go up, if the private insurance market is paying attention. I accept that, as well as believing that the farm belt should not have to pay it since they don’t live here and didn’t force me to live here. And if I showed you my tax bill, you’d realize that I’ve “earned” the right to get a “favor” from Congress. I’d rather have lower taxes and a private insurance market, but that’s the crazy libertarian in me.

As to the other points, no, I don’t want to see Boston, New York, or LA blown up. I’ve been to all three cities and like them well enough that I’d like to be able to revisit them.

And I don’t like farm subsidies. I’d rather pay the price at the supermarket than at the Treasury. Either way, I’m paying. Crazy me, I think the market can do it better. Also, as a vegan, I benefit little from subsidies for beef, chicken, milk, etc. Again, my personal choices. And the private market could handle them.

Today’s lesson: don’t call me a hypocrite until you have facts. Have a day.

I should’ve added that the leap in assumptions to go from me saying that terrorism risk insurance should be private to believing I’d belittled the threat of destruction to three of our largest cities is gargantuan, but no matter. Criticism with no basis is easy to dismiss when I know I’m right. But I’d be a fool to think I’m always right. I know that I’m sometimes misguided due to imprecision or accusing too broadly. Sometimes, I’m sure I’m even wrong. That’s okay. I’m writing as much to figure out what I believe as I am to inform and convince.

If I just wanted to enjoy my writing without criticism, I wouldn’t have comments. They’re open on every post, and I welcome responses. If I’ve said something stupid, inaccurate or incomplete, I’m willing to listen to alternatives. I’ll respond if appropriate. As much as I want to influence opinion, I want to learn more. Read through the archives and I think you’ll notice the same progression in my thinking and expressing that I’ve noticed.

I know my opinions challenge some who read this site, and you express it from time to time. I don’t expect anyone to comment just to comment. But if you think you have a better way of looking at something, say so. The ideas and principles are more important to me than being right all the time.

Who didn’t see this coming?

In what will likely be sold as fiscal sanity, but is in reality only a calculated political conclusion that eliminating tax cuts raising taxes is more acceptable than eliminating wasteful spending, the Senate Finance Committee decided not to extend dividend and capital gains tax cuts.

Facing a stalemate over one of President Bush’s top economic policy goals, the Senate Finance Committee yesterday gave up efforts to extend deep cuts to the tax rate on dividends and capital gains and approved a $60 billion tax measure largely devoted to hurricane relief and tax cuts with bipartisan appeal.

The measure, which could pass the Senate today, marks the latest in a string of legislative setbacks for Bush, who has repeatedly called on Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent and has taken particular pride in the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2008.
…

“The fact is, these are a confluence of challenges that require a confluence of choices,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who forced Republican leaders to back down on the dividends and capital gains extensions when she argued such cuts would primarily benefit the wealthy as Congress was moving to cut programs for the poor.

A confluence of challenges indeed. Perhaps she and her fellow Senators should look in the mirror to find the biggest source. But benefiting the wealthy? Sure, but they’re hardly alone. I’m not wealthy, yet those tax cuts affect me by helping me become wealthy. It’s might be helpful for the Senate to remember that I’m doing the work to make myself wealthy, not the multitude of spending nonsense they offer. Might it be better to start with spending than with taxes?

When Republicans start co-opting the economic language of Democrats, little hope remains.

No Vengeance, Know Justice

Last week, President Bush said that the United States does not torture. Given the significant evidence to the contrary, this was an interesting position to take. I give him enough credit that I don’t think he’s too stupid to understand what he’s saying. Unfortunately, that reflects poorly upon him, because I can come up with no other explanation than the notion that President Bush lied. Perhaps he doesn’t think he’s lying, but only in a “depends on the definition of ‘is'” manner. That makes US national security adviser Stephen Hadley’s admission clarification troubling. Consider:

“The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law,” the national security adviser said. “But… you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there’s going to be a devastating attack on the United States?”

He insisted that it was “a difficult dilemma to know what to do in that circumstance to both discharge our responsibility to protect the American people from terrorist attack and follow the president’s guidance of staying within the confines of law.”

This administration hasn’t found it difficult to decide what to do. The president’s guidance, based on a memo redefining torture, attempts to deny habeas corpus to detainees, and refusal to offer any information on where we house prisoners, make it very clear that any treatment short of death is acceptable. In the cases where death occurs, there’s plausible deniability because we’ll blame it on a few renegade soldiers. I don’t see the confusion here and I think Mr. Hadley’s statement confirms that the president doesn’t, either.

More importantly, Mr. Hadley’s September 7th dilemma is crap. We knew something was in the works before then, but failed to act through government bureaucracy and ineptitude. Our security officials missed the link, whether it was ignoring FBI memos warning of suspicious activity or presidential avoidance in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The intelligence gathering system worked as designed. Somehow, Mr. Hadley and everyone involved with this administration seems to forget that. That they do and that their immediate, unapologetic response is to beat the shit out of captives, whether convicted of a crime against the United States or not says a lot about President Bush’s leadership and adherence to American ideals.

The proper response isn’t even hard. Senator John McCain introduced an amendment legally binding the United States to existing policy on prisoner treatment, which President Bush explained was already our method. The amendment passed the Senate overwhelmingly, but it’s stuck in the House due to Vice President Cheney’s insistence that the CIA be exempted. Why do they need to be exempted? The question aswers itself.

I’ve stated before that “enhanced interrogation techniques” torture is not only immoral, it’s also stupid policy. So consider Sen. McCain’s argument against torture:

“I hold no brief for the terrorists,” he said. “But it’s not about them. It’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.” [emphasis mine]

Aside from the most fervent anti-American hack, no one denies that the terrorists we face are scum. I knew that immediately on the morning of September 11, 2001. Like a million of my fellow citizens, I fled Washington, D.C. that day, fearful of what else might be on its way. On September 13th, I went back to work. In those two days, and in the following days and weeks, I witnessed what every person in America witnessed in our collective response to the unthinkable. We’re not scum. We’re better than those who murdered so many of our citizens and those who wish to murder again. We behaved in a way consistent with our ideals then. We didn’t need memos, we didn’t need guidance. We just did. We should again. The only unknown is whether or not the Bush administration will rejoin the rest of us before tarnishing our great country any further.

Economics education should be mandatory

The Senate gets it wrong investigating recent oil profits, and the press exacerbates the problem. Consider:

The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry’s huge profits Wednesday at a Senate hearing where lawmakers said they should explain prices and assure people they’re not being gouged.

There is a “growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage,” Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said as the hearing opened in a packed Senate committee room.

“The oil companies owe the country an explanation,” he said.

Lee Raymond, retiring CEO of ExxonMobil (XOM), said he recognizes that high gasoline prices “have put a strain on Americans’ household budgets” but he defended his companies huge profits, saying petroleum earnings “go up and down” from year to year.

“Huge profits” is also in the article’s title. “Huge” is a relative term; saying profits are huge doesn’t make it so. There are other places to get detailed numerical analysis of the fallacy of “huge” profits, but near the end, the article cites James Mulla, chairman of ConocoPhillips, in pointing out that the company’s $3.8 billion profit is a 7.7% profit margin. How is that “huge”? Just like price, volume factors into the final equation. The article should not say “huge”.

I’m not surprised, though, because even our senators seem oblivious to basic business knowledge. If Sen. Domenici really wants an explanation, he can read the financial statements for every public oil company, just like investors do. Here’s a quick test for the Senators: Is ExxonMobil priced correctly at $57.84 per share? How about ConocoPhillips at $66.90 per share? Like profits, one piece of information is all you need to know the answer, right?

Ding dong ding dong .. mmmkay

By now everyone knows that Denver residents approved Initiative 100, legalizing possession of up to one ounce of marijuana within the city limits. This is, of course, mostly symbolic since state laws against possession will still trump Initiative 100. We all know how the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” nanny statists will view this, so shock at continuing arrests and disregard for this message from the voters would be pointless. Remember, it’s all about the will of the people unless the will of the people don’t do what’s in their best interests. The people don’t get to offer input into what’s in their best interest, either, but no matter. “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” continues.

Personally, I agree with the gist of the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” message, although I’d change it to reflect that I merely don’t get the fascination with drugs, or even alcohol. That doesn’t mean I expect to deny it to you. As long as you don’t endanger me, I don’t care, so I think drugs should be legal and would’ve voted for Initiative 100. With all the issues facing our society, prohibition laws make no sense. Possession of one ounce of marijuana is trivial when considering other dangers. Legalize all of it and end the nonsensical battle.

While in Blacksburg over the weekend, I read the student newspaper, The Collegiate Times, for a bit of nostalgia. I always do this and I’m always amused at how bad it is. It was awful when I was a student. A reporter interviewed me for a story on a student organization I was involved in at the time and misquoted me after I e-mailed my response to her questions. Seemingly everyone involved was some combination of lazy and/or incompetent. Now, more than seven years later, nothing has changed. From Friday’s edition, this editorial tackles the passage of Initiative 100 in Denver. Consider [sic’s everywhere]:

News of such a measure brings about issues of legalizing marijuana in general. Denver should not have allowed such a measure to pass, even its mayor and the state of Colorado agree with that. The new procedure essentially stops people in Denver from being punished for carrying small amounts of marijuana. State law still allows for fines and speaks nothing to buying, selling or smoking the drug that has been known as a gateway drug to other addictive ones.

By passing such a procedure, the city of Denver may have gotten more than it bargained for. Then again, perhaps they really are attempting to become the next Amsterdam. If possession of marijuana becomes legal, what is to stop arguments of legalization of prostitution, heroin or any other illegal drugs?

In a country full of people who cannot even handle alcohol, legalizing marijuana is ludicrous. The United States arguably has some of the strictest laws pertaining to alcohol; however, drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries, if not all.

What all of this boils down to is this: Making a vice more accessible, even legal, only ensures that it will become more harmful. Allowing people in one city to carry less than an ounce of marijuana literally removes the deterrence of carrying drugs in general. Not only that but a measure such as the one that has just passed in Denver, push the movement of legalizing marijuana in general.

That seriously could be the only reason something such as this has happened. In Telluride, Colo., the same measure as in Denver was narrowly turned down. It seems as though the purpose of introducing these procedures in localities that are so close to one another can only be to eventually challenge the state law itself.

The United States simply isn’t ready for the legalization of marijuana. This country cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, how can citizens expect to be able to handle marijuana? While it seems as though state law may trump the measures being taken in Denver, the overall effects of such things are the real problem. Legalizing possession in Denver pushes the movement towards general legalization in Colorado and basically paves the way for legalized marijuana all over the United States. Without a doubt the road the followers of this movement are headed on must be stopped.

I’m ashamed that poorly reasoned, grammatically ignorant screeds pass for thinking at Virginia Tech. There are so many lapses of logic that it’s hard to decide where to begin. Is it the ridiculous notion that government officials are a better arbiter of standards than the governed? Could it be that the editors invoked the “slippery slope” argument without providing any justification for how that would happen, or even why it’s a “bad” outcome?

No. It’s the low level of intelligence needed to believe that “strictest laws pertaining to alcohol/drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries” forms a strong pretext to criminalize drugs more until the people finally get it that drugs. are. bad. and they can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so Thank God the government is looking out for them. The editors provide no support for their generalizations. No statistics, no theories, no anecdotal evidence. They offer nanny statism at its core: if we give you freedom, you’ll only fuck it up, so trust us that we know better. No, thanks.

Yet, the editors don’t stop there. Somehow America cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, so how can citizens be able to handle marijuana? First, prove that Americans can’t handle alcohol. I might agree generically, although I come to the conclusion that allowing Americans to drink earlier, where parents and society can teach moderation, would be more effective than “protecting” them from themselves with strict laws. I don’t agree, though, that a blanket statement of fact is sufficient in this argument. Prove it with at least one fact. Surely one is available.

More importantly, the editors failed to prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol. Again, prove it. State at least one fact indicating that legalization of alcohol is reasonable but legalization of marijuana is not. It can’t be the gateway drug nonsense, either, unless you prove that, too. Wishing it so doesn’t it make it true. Cause and effect.

Finally, what kind of government do the editors believe we have? Granted, that’s mostly rhetorical because the clear implication in that editorial is that the federal government mandates best. But consider the federal part of federal government. Isn’t it reasonable to allow a locality to decide that it wants to try this experiment? If it doesn’t work, it’ll stop and presumably won’t spread to other places. If it succeeds, the next locality has proof that it can be done without destroying society. In that regard, the editors are correct in assuming that it could spread all over America, but that’s not a bad outcome if the experiment proves a success. But that’s just my crazy notion that I’ll err on the side of freedom unless the facts reveal that as unwise.

Frustration beats exhaustion every time

More news from the “circumcision cures all” front:

Female sexual partners of circumcised men are less likely to contract Chlamydia trachomatis infections than are those of uncircumcised [sic] men, a study shows.

The most common bacterial cause of sexually transmitted infections, C. trachomatis can cause severe reproductive complications in women and is associated with increased risk of cervical cancer.

The relationship between male circumcision and C. trachomatis infection in the female partner has not been explored, Dr. Xavier Castellsague, at Institut Catala d’Oncologia in Barcelona, and colleagues point out in the American Journal of Epidemiology for November.

That didn’t stop Reuters from reporting it with the headline “Circumcised men less apt to transmit Chlamydia,” did it. Only in the seventh (of eight) paragraph do we learn this trivial piece of information:

Only among younger women and women with a history of consistent condom use was there no association between circumcision and C. trachomatis detection.

I’m willing to grant the younger women aspect as relatively obvious, since younger people in general encounter less disease. But history of consistent condom use? Do you think that might have something to do with protecting women (and men) from venereal infections? Is it so hard to point a nod in the direction of personal responsibility?

I’ve made the point, but I’ll do so again. I’m not opposed to adult circumcision, but responsibility must be included in the decision to engage in sexual activity, whether the choice be trust in the sexual partner, whether to use a condom, or whether the male wants to be (or should be) circumcised. But those are sexual choices, appropriate for adults. Infants obviously don’t need to make those choices, nor should they have those choices made for them. The decision to undergo circumcision should remain with the adult male who will face the consequences.

Choices matter in life. If a man chooses to remain intact “despite” the apparent scientific evidence, and then engages in behavior resulting in venereal infection (which he has to catch from somewhere, mind you – women are responsible how in this discussion?), so be it. If he then engages in activity resulting in his female partner (what does the study say about male partners – not an irrelevant question, I think), contracting his venereal disease, that’s a result of their choices. Personal responsibility matters. Circumcision may be a reasonable choice for the adult male, and that’s certainly the role of science in this discussion, but reporting on that shouldn’t be skewed.

Of course, what I’ve pointed out isn’t the only bias going on here, right? Remember the title of the Reuters article (“fans” of Reuters know where this will end up): “Circumcised men less apt to transmit Chlamydia.” What does the study’s abstract say about the study? Consider:

Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of acquiring and transmitting a number of venereal infections. However, little is known about the association between male circumcision and the risk of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the female partner. The authors pooled data on 305 adult couples enrolled as controls in one of five case-control studies of invasive cervical cancer conducted in Thailand, the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, and Spain between 1985 and 1997. Women provided blood samples for C. trachomatis and Chlamydia pneumoniae antibody detection; a type-specific microfluorescence assay was used. Multivariate odds ratios were computed for the association between male circumcision status and chlamydial seropositivity in women. Compared with women with uncircumcised [sic] partners, those with circumcised partners had a 5.6-fold reduced risk of testing seropositive for C. trachomatis (82% reduction; odds ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05, 0.58). The inverse association was also observed after restricting the analysis to monogamous women and their only male partners (odds ratio = 0.21, 95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.72). In contrast, seropositivity to C. pneumoniae, a non-sexually-transmitted infection, was not significantly related to circumcision status of the male partner. These findings suggest that male circumcision could reduce the risk of C. trachomatis infection in female sexual partners.

And what do you know, the title of the study is “Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in Female Partners of Circumcised and Uncircumcised [sic] Adult Men.” I guess the facts just get in the way of sticking your arm up and screaming “Ooooh, ooooh, look what information I have! I haven’t read it all but you won’t believe it!”

The potholes will lead to the sinkhole

Major League Baseball’s return to D.C. in 2005 made me happy. I saw the Phillies live seven times at RFK Stadium this year and couldn’t have been happier. (I could’ve been if we’d won one of the two we lost when I saw them, because then we could’ve played the Astros for the Wild Card, but such is life for a Phillies phan.) Area residents rallied behind the Nationals, showing an exuberance for the team many suspected would develop more slowly over the next few seasons. Major League Baseball made the correct decision, but it was the inevitable decision. D.C. could not be logically excluded over Las Vegas or Portland, and everyone but the D.C. City Council knew it. They were the group that Major League Baseball held hostage negotiated with, though, which is why the District now faces this mess:

The District government filed court papers yesterday to seize $84 million worth of property from 16 owners in Southeast, giving them 90 days to leave and make way for a baseball stadium.

By invoking eminent domain, city officials said last week, they hope to keep construction of the Washington Nationals’ ballpark on schedule to open in March 2008. The city exercised its “quick take” authority, in which it takes immediate control of the titles to the properties.

Under law, the property owners and their tenants must vacate the land within three months unless a judge declares the seizure unconstitutional.

In papers filed in D.C. Superior Court, city attorneys said: “The Properties subject of this action . . . are taken for an authorized municipal use, namely the construction and operation of a publicly owned baseball stadium complex.”

This is crap, of course, because authorized doesn’t mean legitimate, but when was the last time that stopped a government from invoking eminent domain? I hope the property owners have good negotiators to achieve a reasonable price. And attorneys when this ends up in court because the city won’t pay a reasonable price. That’s just me thinking government should serve the public. I could be wrong.

I’m not, naturally, so I’ll move on to this:

Some activists have argued that the stadium is a private project for Major League Baseball, but District leaders say the $535 million project will create significant tax revenue [sic]. Developers have snatched up land just outside the stadium plot in anticipation of a waterfront revival, and the city is planning to create a “ballpark district” featuring restaurants and retail.

Their goal as a Major League Baseball franchise is to win baseball games, but that’s only one goal. The Nationals are a business. Their most important goal is to make a profit. (The owners of the Phillies ran the team for years to not lose money. Big difference. But I digress.)

One way they do earn a profit is by enticing fans to pay money to come to the ballpark. As a business the team controls its expenses for wages, overhead, maintenance, and whatever other expenses a baseball team encounters. How is acquiring use of a ballpark not inherent in their business? What makes the local government better at managing the ballpark than the team that plays there (or a separate private entity)?

It’s inappropriate for the city government to build a stadium solely to generate tax receipts. That isn’t the government’s purpose. It’s not why citizens entrust the government to issue debt, which is what D.C. will do to finance the stadium. Government’s purpose in this case is to provide functioning infrastructure, law enforcement, and tax policies. The team should take care of the rest. Until the city gets the revenue from the stadium, it shouldn’t pay the costs.

This should be obvious to the city, but its eyes are too glued to the golden calf of tax receipts. But how golden is it? Tax receipts generated by the Nationals arrival in D.C. fell short of expectations this year.

The District government appears likely to fall short of its goal of earning $10.5 million in tax revenue [sic] from sales at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium for Washington Nationals games, even as the team is on pace to earn larger profits than estimated just four months ago.

The city’s potential tax shortfall from revenue generated by sales of tickets, parking, concessions and merchandise could be more than $500,000, according to financial officials, who expect to have final numbers at the end of the month.

Meanwhile, the Nationals, still owned by Major League Baseball, exceeded expectations by selling 2.7 million tickets in their inaugural season and will earn a $25 million profit, about $5 million more than the team projected at midseason, team officials said.

Why should anyone who pays taxes to the D.C. government believe the District’s projected tax receipts for the new ballpark district?

Can Children’s Services invoke Eminent Domain?

You’re going to be shocked, but I have an opinion on this story:

A Roman Catholic high school has ordered its students to remove their online diaries from the Internet, citing a threat from cyberpredators.

Students at Pope John XXIII Regional High School in Sparta appear to be heeding a directive from the principal, the Rev. Kieran McHugh.
…

Officials with the Diocese of Paterson say the directive is a matter of safety, not censorship. No one has been disciplined yet, said Marianna Thompson, a diocesan spokeswoman.

It’s a private school, so no civil rights are being abused. That doesn’t make it right. It’s not even the most appropriate response a learning institution could pursue. Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation offered this, which is too logical and obvious for the school, I suppose:

“But this is the first time we’ve heard of such an overreaction,” he said. “It would be better if they taught students what they should and shouldn’t do online rather than take away the primary communication tool of their generation.”

The real issue for me in this is the likely reason the school believes this is within its bounds. The parents who enroll their kids in Pope John XXIII Regional High School probably signed something giving the school the ability to make this decision for their children. But why do parents feel this is good parenting? Better to learn early that parents own children.

This is a high school, where the “kids” are within a few years of adulthood. Sooner rather than later they’ll be making decisions on their own, involving themselves in relationships and activities with the same potential consequences that the school aims to protect with this policy. Shielding them from the world before turning them loose is an abdication of a basic purpose of education. Parents signing this away is worse.

I’d say I’m surprised, but I’ve written enough about that concept to know that it shocks only the foolish.