AnnotatedOpinions.com

Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo 3d issued a general order in November that prohibited soldiers under his command from becoming pregnant or impregnating another soldier. . .  

“I consider the male soldier as responsible for taking a soldier out of the fight,” said Cucolo. But critics still accused him of being insensitive to women, perhaps even pushing some toward abortion. . . [AO: May I suggest a difference between male and female soldiers? Female soldiers under Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo’s command can never eliminate the potential for “making a soldier pregnant” when they engage in sexual intercourse whereas the male soldiers can ensure this by fraternizing with non-soldiers. See the difference? It’s an order that effectively bars female soldiers from engaging in sexual intercourse but allows male soldiers to do so.]  

Gen. Raymond Odierno, commanding general in Iraq, has since issued a superseding general order that does not list pregnancy as a punishable offense. . .  

The general’s ham-handed effort to attack fraternization in a war zone has become grist for comedians. But the seriousness of the topic goes beyond pregnancy to the rapes and other sexual assaults that also have become more prevalent with today’s male and female soldiers working and living in closer proximity. [AO: Right. because, according to the Inquirer, the way to put an end to rapes and sexual assaults is to bar people from becoming pregnant. Good luck with that.]  

Still, the number of [rape and sexual assault] cases going to courts-martial did increase last year to 38 percent of the 832 investigated cases that were brought before commanders. That compares with 30 percent of 600 investigated cases in fiscal 2007. The difference between the number of allegations and court cases shows that the military has the same difficulty as civilian authorities with sexual assault charges, especially when it’s a case of “he said, she said.” [AO:
Perhaps if civilians were bared from becoming pregnant that would address the problem of rape and sexual assault in the civilian population. Ok, maybe not. But the Philadelphia Inquirer’s logic would suggest as much. Might I suggest then that there is a problem with the editorial board’s logic?]

The administration should have abandoned the feckless nation-building strategy of the Bush years and refocused on the main mission: neutralizing al-Qaeda while avoiding instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan. . .  

Even in the best scenario, the Taliban will never be eradicated from Afghanistan, and likely will become part of its government. The United States should accept that and withdraw before we squander any more lives and money. . .  

The current nation-building quagmire of Afghanistan is just fomenting more militancy and does not need to be escalated. Deep down, Obama knows it. Rather than squandering more blood and treasure, the president should have concentrated on neutralizing al-Qaeda and dissuading the inevitable Taliban government from harboring the group.  

[AO: On the one hand, the writer wants President Obama to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan before we “squander any more lives and money.” Yet he argues that what is required is a strategy that focuses on “neutralizing al-Qaeda.” How will we neutralize al-Qaeda after we’ve withdrawn our troops to avoid “squandering lives and money?” Moreover, what does the writer think the US military has been trying to do to al-Qaeda for the past eight years if not neutralize it? Might I suggest that maybe, just maybe, with a more soldiers we might be able to accomplish our goal or at least improve our chances of accomplishing our goal of neutralizing al-Qaeda? ]

As the Obama administration continues struggling with how to close Guantanamo, it finds itself with few options. The recent announcement of plans to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees in federal court is a positive step, but it also reminds us that little headway has been made on most of the Guantanamo detainees. About 75 are deemed too dangerous to release, and 90 are suitable for transfer but have no place to go.  

Without any good choices, rehabilitation has emerged as a possible alternative. . .  

Every debate about whether President Obama can close  guantanamo by his self-imposed January deadline considers the “deradicalization” option, particularly for the 97 Yemenis who make up nearly half the remaining detainees. U.S. officials are actively considering sending the Yemenis to Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program, which seemed tremendously successful until earlier this year, when some “rehabilitated” former Guantanamo detainees joined al-Qaeda groups in Yemen. . .  

[AO: I have what I think is a pretty basic question: Why are we rehabilitating terrorists? In other words, if an individual is a terrorist and that individual has committed acts of terrorism against America or another country, shouldn’t that person be tried and locked up? Why release such dangerous people without even trying them? Why reeducate . . . er, rehabilitate them?  

On the other hand, if these people are terrorists only in terms of their thoughts or aspirations and have not committed any acts of terrorism, should we really be sending them to reeducation camps in Saudi Arabia for have the wrong thoughts?  

I came away from reading this opinion with many questions. Overall, I am conflicted over terrorist rehabilitation. Should terrorists get a second chance without paying for their crimes? Can a terrorist ever be sufficiently rehabilitated to be safe for release into the general public? ]  

Let’s weigh the advantages and disadvantages of President Obama’s decision to bring five of the plotters of the 9/11 attacks onto American soil to try them in civilian courts in New York City.

First, the disadvantages: major security issues, free publicity for Islamic jihadists, the risk of revealing sensitive intelligence, a cost to the public in the tens of millions of dollars, and the delaying of justice for many years.. [AO: We’ll take these one at a time.

Major security issues: What is the concern here? Is the concern here that they will escape or that other terrorists will attempt to free those on trial? Or is the concern that terrorists will attack New York? Any concern that the terrorists will escape is baseless. We tried Omar Abdel-Rahman and Zacarias Moussaoui, neither escaped or was freed. We’ve tried members of organized crime in civilian courts without any escapes. When, in fact, was the last time a high profile defendant escaped from a courthouse?

If the concern is an attack on the court house or New York, then I am confused. Why would terrorists want to attack the courthouse to kill one of their leaders? Why would terrorists wait to see where these detainees are being moved to before striking New York? Does anyone really believe that there are individuals out there who, but for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists being moved to trial in New York, would not attack us? Apparently these individuals are ok with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being held at Guantanamo Bay but moving him to U.S. soil crosses a line that triggers their terrorist actions? 

Free publicity for Islamic jihadists: Actually, no. This is an opportunity to show the world how evil and vile these terrorists are. This is another opportunity to expos their twisted minds and sick beliefs. Those who think that this provides free publicity to jihadists must have missed Osama bin Laden’s press releases.

Risk of revealing sensitive intelligence: Again, we’ve done this before with other terrorists. Our justice system can try terrorists without creating intelligence problems.  

The cost to the public: The cost to the public is the cost of justice. Every criminal costs the public when he or she is placed on trial. Some costs more than others. Our system of justice, which is part of who we are, is what these jihadists are fighting against. Let’s not allow them to change who we are. 

Delaying of justice: Of course it will take time to resolve all the issues in this case. Like any big and important case, the wheels of justice will turn slowly. But this cannot be a reason not to hold a trial. Like the cost issue, the prospect of delayed justice cannot determine whether a case is brought to trial. Think about all the big financial cases involving large multinational corporations or the organized crime cases. These cases costs millions of dollars and takes years to resolve. Yet these in terms of importance to our national interest, financial and organized crime cases are nothing compared to these terrorists trials. If we can afford to try large multinationals and organized crime figures, we can afford to try these terrorists.]

Texting while driving is . . . a terrible scourge. Despite extreme enforcement difficulties, state legislatures are rushing to ban the practice. But they might want to broaden their focus.   

Driving while toddled should certainly be felonious. Few things are more distracting than a screaming toddler in the back seat, except perhaps two or three. You’re constantly turning around and yelling, or pretending you’re going to stop the car right there and not go to Grandma’s at all. . .  

Cities bristle with distractions: bike messengers, construction workers, pedestrians, traffic signals . . .  

Seat belts are distracting, as are all those lights and buzzers telling you your doors are open . . .  

Now, you might be thinking that the slope down which we’re skidding is awfully slippery, and that we shouldn’t even start. You might think that no one really wants to crash, and if there is good evidence that texting or talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous, people will control their own behavior.   

I find your naivete charming. As George Washington famously said to Congress, or perhaps to his slaves, American patriots understand that real change can only be accomplished by thorough and pervasive coercion.  

[AO: This satirical column, misses an important point. See, the writer argues that legislatures should not ban texting or driving while talking on a cell phone because when people realize the danger, they will control their own behavior. This is because people don’t want to crash since crashing can lead to injury and monetary loss (damaged car, etc.). But, the reason why legislatures are taking these actions, or at least the reason they should take these actions, is not necessarily to protect the driver who is texting or speaking on the phone but instead to protect other drivers and pedestrians who are not. In other words, to protect the innocent victims.  

This is comparable to drunk driving. People know that drinking and driving can lead to serious injury and financial loss. But they do it anyway. Often, those who suffer as the result of someone choosing to drink and drive are innocent pedestrians or another driver. As a result, the state steps in to protect the innocent by giving the police the right to arrest drunk drivers. This is the argument that applies to texting.  

There is another point worth mentioning. These decisions by the legislature are base in part on the extent to which the activity, drunk driving, texting, etc. is necessary. In short, they are unnecessary activities for combination with driving. Many of the examples the writer cite, driving while toddled, existence of cities, using a seatbelt, are necessary in and of themselves or provide sufficient benefit to warrant allowing them while driving. Drunk driving, texting why driving or speaking on a cell phone while driving is not a necessity. ]

President Obama has pledged “to explore each and every avenue that will lead to job creation and economic growth.” One avenue would be redirecting nearly $300 billion in unspent federal stimulus funds to metropolitan areas, where most of the people, jobs, and gross domestic product in this country are found.  

While states hoard federal money to do little more than plug yawning budget gaps, cities are more likely to use it to create jobs in the short term and drive economic growth in the long term.   

[AO: This is all well and good. And indeed, the writer makes a strong argument for directing stimulus funds to cities rather than states. However, I couldn’t help but worry about some underlying assumptions. One of these assumptions, it seems, is that state governments are somehow not integral part of state such that states can be left to wallow in debt while cities thrive or at least make ends meet. This is unlikely. If funds bypass the state level, state governments are likely to reduce their support to cities, especially since states have to balance their budget.  

While directing funds to cities might enable them to fund projects in the very near term (say 12 months), their fiscal situation is sure to deteriorate during that period or very soon after when state governments takes steps to limit the resources they provide as a result of their debt. There are no easy answer here so while the writer’s argument is strong, it doesn’t appear to be the silver bullet they make it out as.]

Whatever Afghanistan strategy President Obama chooses will hinge on whether U.S. officials can work with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.  

U.S. frustration at Karzai’s failure to rein in corruption, which feeds Taliban gains, has been building. It peaked over the blatant rigging of the presidential election in August.  

Vice President Biden and Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, have confronted Karzai in public, with no results. So it’s been fascinating to watch the impact of the softer approach tried on Obama’s behalf by Sen. John Kerry (backed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s phone calls). . .   

Here’s what’s so crucial about Kerry’s intervention: If the Nov. 7 elections are indeed held, Karzai will almost certainly win them. So it is essential to repair the U.S. relationship with him, which has gone very sour. . .  

A walk in the woods in which Obama listens closely, then lays out what Karzai must deliver, may be just what the U.S.-Afghan relationship needs.  

[AO: Trudy Rubin, writing in the Inquirer, argues that because Kerry’s softer approach worked, the US should adopt that approach is future interactions with Karzai. She seems to think that if we do not do so, Karzai will almost certainly embrace regional warlords.  

But before inking the lesson from Kerry’s intervention is the notebooks, perhaps one observation is in order. Deciding to accept the Nov. 7 elections was a win-win for Karzai. He will, as Rubin puts it, “almost certainly win” the runoff elections. Perhaps the real lesson to be learned is from the diplomatic effort that was required to get Karzai to agree to elections he was almost certain to win. In other words, considering what it took to get Karzai to agree to this, what will it take to get him to agree to something that is not entirely to his benefit? My guess is that the softly, softly approach may not be enough in future dealings with Karzai.]

Let’s say your boss brings in doughnuts to work every day. An unlimited supply, and you’re allowed to eat as many as you want. For free. Chances are that you and the people in your office will pig out, just like Homer.  

Now let’s say your boss tries to restrict your doughnut eating by rationing the doughnuts – maybe one per person – or by charging for them. Chances are that the folks in your office will eat fewer doughnuts.  

Now the issue here is not that by eating more doughnuts you will be less healthy – though that is undoubtedly right. Instead, it’s the model of doughnut consumption I’ve described here that we need to understand. Economists call the unlimited free doughnut-eating scenario a “moral hazard,” a situation where you don’t have to pay for the consequences of your choices. . . .  

There is, of course, an obvious problem with applying the “moral hazard,” doughnut-eating model to our health. Most of us don’t choose to go to the doctor unless we have to. . . .  

And this Homer Simpson system of health insurance has worked very well, if your goal is to make lots and lots of money. . .  

If, however, the goal of a health system is to provide the best health care to the greatest number of people, then the Homer Simpson model has been an unmitigated disaster, as every available measure demonstrates.  

So let’s stop talking about “health-care reform” and start talking about “health-insurance reform” instead. That’s what we really need to change. Most of us are quite happy with the care we get from our physicians, but most of us are sick to death of being nickel and dimed by our insurance companies. . .   

[AO: Conn argues that there is no moral hazard with health insurance because “Most of us don't choose to go to the doctor unless we have to.” But it is not that simple. There are many things that individual can do to limit healthcare costs beyond simply not visiting our doctor unnecessarily. However, even that should not be discounted so easily. Granted most people would not visit their doctor unnecessarily but there and many Americans who choose to visit their doctor all too often. Whether the reason for these frequent visits is psychological or simply over cautiousness, some people are a little too eager to visit their doctor even when their symptoms do not warrant it.  

But beyond people who would otherwise visit their doctor too frequently, each of us can make small changes to lower healthcare costs. For example, by charging a per-visit co-pay, we are encouraged to address all our medical needs in one visit. This is a valuable thing to have because it makes the system that much more efficient.  

Of course I am not arguing that we don’t need health insurance reform. In fact, I agree with Conn. We need health insurance reform. However, I disagree that we should abandon the current system entirely or that there is no moral hazard with health insurance. There is. ]

Four boys assault their teacher, who later dies of her injuries. Across the country, newspapers compete to unearth the most lurid details of the episode. It seems the boys were annoyed at being detained after school.  

So they threw rocks and other debris at the screaming teacher, until she couldn’t scream anymore.  

A modern-day example of inner-city youth violence? Hardly. It happened in the small town of Canton, Mass. – in 1870.  

But school violence is itself a time-honored American tradition, dating to the very dawn of the Republic. Despite our nostalgia for the good old days, America’s schools have always been disorderly and violent places. By pretending otherwise, we might miss what is truly new – and truly troubling – about present-day violence. . .  

We’ve always had school violence, and we’ve had youth gangs for a long time, too. The new factor is gun possession, plain and simple. Nothing will change until we’re honest about that.  

[AO: In order to make an argument against gun possession, Zimmerman, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, distills past and current evidence of school violence into an argument that falls short of persuasion.  

He argues that America's schools have always been disorderly and violent places. Fine. But that is not the end of it. For one, the schools that account for the vast majority of school violence are limited to a relative small percentage of mostly inner-city schools. These schools are not necessarily today’s version of the schools in which violence occurred historically. But even if they are, the fact that school violence is virtually limited to certain schools in certain locations tells us that it is more than just the fact of students being in and around classrooms that is the problem but something that can be identified with those student violence prone locations.  

Instead of throwing up our hands, giving up on addressing school violence, we should strive to make the small percentage of schools with student violence problems more like the vast majority of other schools without those problems. This is an issue independent of gun violence per se.]