Archive for 2014

STANDING UP AGAINST INJUSTICE: UVA Prof Wants University To Apologize To Wrongfully Punished Fraternities.

University of Virginia professor Robert F. Turner and his son, Thomas E. Turner, a junior at the university, are calling for U.Va. officials to apologize to the fraternities and students “wrongfully punished” by the administration after the Rolling Stone magazine published a since-discredited story about a fraternity gang-rape at the school.

The Turners, who say they have no connection with Greek life, wrote an op-ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch asking the university — specifically naming U.Va. President Teresa Sullivan — to publicly apologize for its decision to ban fraternity events without any investigation.

“[W]hat message did Sullivan send about basic fairness and the due process of law?” the Turners asked. “Neither of us has any connection with the Greek system, and we understand that they are not popular with some faculty members and administrators. But it is precisely when the alleged crime is so heinous, and the accused unpopular with those in authority, that we must guard against emotion-driven efforts to bypass fundamental due process.”

The Turners wrote that they understood why Sullivan made the decision to ban Greek life for several months due to “pressure from outraged faculty and other community members,” but also said that was “no excuse.”

Denying due process because of emotionally driven outrage is not the way to get justice, rather, it’s an impediment to justice. But this is how universities now find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to combating campus sexual assault.

Especially when they have spines made of jelly — or, in the case of President Sullivan, seize on a hoax to advance a pre-existing agenda.

YEAH, THAT’S NOT EXACTLY BY ACCIDENT: Roll Call: Confusion Surrounds Conflict of Interest Cases in Congress.

Congressional investigators closed the 113th Congress with two reports touching on one of the murkiest subjects in the ethics manual: financial conflicts of interest.

Investing in companies tied to their home districts can help members understand the impact federal government decisions have on the private sector, but those ventures sometimes create a risk to their reputation.

“A congressman should zealously represent his constituents — he just can’t be one of them,” said Craig Engle, head of the political law group at Arent Fox LLP. He served as general counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for five years, counseling candidates laws related to elections and holding office, before moving to private practice.

“If you really want to make money, be a businessman,” he said in an interview. “If you want to make a difference, be a congressman. But you can’t be both at the same time.”

House rules prohibit members from using their seats to build their personal fortunes. The Code of Ethics bars people in government service from dishing out special favors and privileges, or accepting special benefits that might influence their job performance.

Following tricky decisions related to corruption allegations against Democratic Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada and Maxine Waters of California, the House Ethics Committee acknowledged that the House needs clearer guidance on conflict of interest rules.

Uh huh.

JOHN MCGINNIS & MIKE RAPPAPORT: How to End the Government Shutdown Option: Budget impasses have a way of working out badly for the GOP. Here’s a way to avoid the next crisis.

The GOP almost always bears the blame for a shutdown, because the smaller-government message of Republicans is easily portrayed as aiming to deprive the public of government services. President Clinton faced off against House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, and Mr. Clinton won. President Obama dueled with the Republican House in 2013 and Mr. Obama won.

The advantages to the political party that favors higher spending—i.e., the Democrats—reflect the existing legal regime. But the next Congress can change the law (the most relevant one being the Antideficiency Act) so that the public suffers less inconvenience when the political parties cannot agree on spending levels. In case of a government shutdown, the government would continue to spend on discretionary programs at a level close to the amount authorized by the previous year’s budget. A reasonable default target might be 95%.

Such a law could be a political game-changer. The public would be less likely to suffer serious inconvenience with spending at this default target, and a 5% solution would strengthen the leverage of the party favoring less spending, i.e., the GOP. A 5% cut would in any event be closer to what Republicans ultimately want. They could hold out for a deal preferable to the default, since there would be very low costs imposed on the public in the interim.

A budget reform law should also include provisions to deter a president from increasing the political costs of a government shutdown. Pursuing what is known as the Washington Monument strategy, the executive branch often closes down popular government services such as the Washington Monument or White House tours, claiming that it lacks the funds to keep them open.

The law could discourage this strategy by requiring each agency of the federal government to reduce spending in the way that would be the least disruptive and costly to the public. The government should also be prohibited from taking certain specific actions, such as furloughing employees, that are known to cause significant disruptions to the public.

Indeed.

TRIBALISM AND “PEAK LEFT.” “For various reasons, the elite progressive world is much more insulated than its right-wing counterpart. In fact, the divide between the left’s view of the world (and consequently its rhetoric) and the way the rest of the country views things seems to be increasing, fueling an unhappy cycle. Recognizing the tribal dynamics at work within its own movement may be the left’s first step toward correcting this—if it’s willing to take it.”

HATE SPEECH BEARS FRUIT? Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead. “A man who had posted an online video threatening to kill police and FBI agents tried to use his car to run down officers seeking to arrest him on Tuesday so, fearing for their lives, they shot and killed him, authorities said.”

OUCH: “Ms. Mogilevsky is a recent graduate of Northwestern University who is younger than my oldest daughter. My daughter graduated college summa cum laude in 2011 and, unlike Ms. Mogilevsky, has (a) a husband and (b) a job. Whereas my daughter’s job involves teaching reading and writing to the the children of Haitian immigrants, Ms. Mogilevsky considers it her job to lecture adults about what terrible misogynists we all are.”

This sort of mockery and failure-shaming is precisely the correct response to self-indulgent social-justice warrior types, pretty much all of whom are mockable, and failures.

EVERYTHING WE DON’T KNOW about minimum-wage hikes. I know one thing: When something gets more expensive, people tend to buy less of it.

HOW EBOLA ROARED BACK.

READER BOOK PLUG: From reader Michael Z. Williamson, Wisdom From My Internet.

YES, EVEN THE NAME OF THE “AFFORDABLE CARE ACT” WAS A CALCULATED LIE: Obama Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable. “Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.”