Year: 2005

My readers are better than Google. Here’s a handy explanation:

The logic of Fitzgerald has sound basis in the American legal system. Despite the noble work journalists sometimes do, reporters, much like any other citizen/resident, do not have carte blanche to aid in the concealment of a criminal act simply on the basis of their profession. In a case based on federal law (such as the law at issue for Fitzgerald, Cooper and Miller, one making it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent of the United States), the Federal Rules of Evidence hold that the privileges against compulsory testimony that apply are the privileges that arise under the Common Law. Examples of these are the attorney-client privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination, the priest-penitent privilege, and the marital communications privilege. The courts have refused to recognize new privileges, such as an accountant-client or reporter-source privilege, which have never been recognized under the Common Law. For historical reasons, the ultimate value to society in ferreting out the truth in a case or controversy (here, a criminal case) through the obtainment of evidence has been ajudged paramount. Note that Judge Hogan’s ruling here is based on Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the First Amendment interest asserted by the newsperson was outweighed by the general obligation of a citizen to appear before a grand jury or at trial, pursuant to a subpoena, and give what information he or she possesses.” For more information on privileges, try the handy run-down here.

Thanks. Still, it seems to me that Fitzgerald’s bald statement that no one in America can rely on confidentiality is excessive.

A reader provides an obvious answer:

There is a drug problem. The police will be judged by how many arrests they make, and how many tons of drugs they confiscate. It is easier and safer to arrest a bunch of hippies and college kids then it is a bunch of crazed meth producers who operate out of the trunks of cars, one of which killed an Oklahoma police officer a year or so ago. The way the police are rewarded is based on the wrong measurement. Thus the result is not ideal.
The same holds true on DUI offenses. DUI is a problem, people die from it. Most DUI fatalities are caused by people driving with a blood alcohol level of .18 or above. So what is the answer? The police are judged not by DUI fatalities, but by the number of arrests they make. So the governments lower the acceptable BAC limit from .10 to .08. Now, the cops arrest a bunch of regular guys who had two beers after work, most of whom they stopped for reasons like speeding. They get to up their DUI arrest rates, simply by changing the law to ensnare more people. However, it does nothing to reduce the damage. Changing the law is easier than having more shifts out at midnight following people home from bars.
People will always respond to the benchmarks by which they are judged, and governments in conjunction with the media and the public are usually focused on the wrong benchmarks.

That’s why the legalization of marijuana makes so much sense. It can help law enforcement concentrate on the real drug problems, not the phony ones.

The data seems clear enough to me; and certainly clear enough for there to be a push for widespread circumcision of males in those parts of Africa where the procedure is rare. Some skepticism is in order, however:

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

Does all this prompt me to reverse my view that the circumcision of infants is a violation of every man’s right not to have his body mutilated without his consent? In principle, no. The studies involved adult men who agreed to be circumcised; and my position was always primarily about consent, not the procedure itself. But in practice, in Africa, obviously yes: for convenience’s sake. The key thing here is reverse transmission, i.e. from women to men. If you can stop or slow the process of infection both ways, you can make a real dent in the epidemic. So as Keynes once said, when the facts change, I change my mind.

I’m as intrigued as anybody by the identity of the person who called Matt Cooper today to release him from the pledge of confidentiality he gave as a journalist to a source. The suspicion, obviously, is that Cooper’s source is not the same as Miller’s. I’m in awe of Miller’s courage as she faces jail; and equally dumbfounded by the zeal of the prosecutor. This quote from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald struck me: “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality – no one in America is.” Does that mean, for example, that the doctor-patient and priest-confessee confidentiality pacts are now up for grabs by zealous prosecutors? Or that between two spouses? Just asking.

The Schadenfreude is irresistible. I hope they serve Chirac a nice, steaming slice of black pudding at Gleneagles.

I’d comment but I find the entire event a crashing bore. I’m glad that Britain beat France. But I’d be glad if Britain beat France in a turtle race. I just hope London isn’t crippled by the wrong kind of development. But if they survived the Millennium Dome, I guess they can survive anything. Even the tedium and cant of the “Olympic Spirit.” Grouchy enough for ya? Bah: humbug.

The questions multiply. The semantics remain. I’d almost be enjoying this, if two good people weren’t facing jail-time for doing their jobs with integrity and class.

I’m relatively dismayed by the way in which some of the most paleo-liberal notions of aid to developing countries have gained traction with the antics of Live-8 and other lame pop-star posturing. There’s something actually racist, I think, in arguing that Africans somehow cannot work and trade their own way to prosperity. And there’s something truly dumb in not focusing on one area where the wealthy continue to punish the poor. Anne Applebaum puts it well:

[A]mong those who work seriously on Africa, it has long been clear that what Africans need isn’t only cash, which can be stolen or wasted, but the opportunity to trade their way out of poverty, just as Asians did over the past several decades. Yet the current regime of agricultural tariffs, quotas and export subsidies, whether for American cotton or European sugar, so reduces the price of African agricultural products that African farmers cannot compete. Each European cow costs taxpayers $2.20 a day, while half the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day. Withdraw the subsidies for the cows, and Africans might even be able to make competitive cheese.

I hope the president is not too defensive at Gleneagles and points out the cheap sanctimony of the Live-8 mentality. I hope also that he revamps his own views on agricultural subsidies, which he has expanded dramatically. Charity for others often begins at home. Let’s cut off wealthy agri-business first, shall we, and then talk about targeted, effective aid.

ZARQAWI ATTACKS MUSLIMS: It strikes me as actually a helpful, if of course also awful, development that the Jihadists in Iraq are now targeting diplomats from other Arab and Muslim countries. The Jihadists are not just fighting us – they’re fighting any Muslims who do not hew to their murderous, medieval ideology. Jeff Jarvis makes the point with his usual eloquence and concision.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I hope when your time comes – I pray for you to die a slow, agonizingly painful, and lonely death due to complications from your HIV. Be sure to thank your pal Ronnie R. for his part in allowing AIDS to become what it did – when you see him in HELL. You are a dangerous AIDS – ridden maggot. – An HIV Negative Guy who is proud to be that way and stay that way – safely.” It’s worth saying that I get my fair share of homophobic emails from the right. Whatever. But many of the most vicious and personal and hateful come from the gay far left. They suffer from what many other parts (but not all) of the left wallows in: an addiction to bad news, a loathing for success, a bitterness that corrodes any ability to talk positively to people who disagree with you. Most depressing. And the intolerance! It’s not like the brutal attacks I endured in the early 1990s – when my espousal of gay marriage earned the ire of the hard left. But it’s still around. And they hate me and other non-left-wing gays with an intensity that is so often the hallmark of those who have lost the argument.

For some unaccountable reason, the vast majority of resources in the “drug war” have recently been focused on the least harmful herb, marijuana, even while the meth epidemic continues to explode – across poor communities in the heartland and urban enclaves on the coasts. Crystal meth is light-years more destructive, more addictive and more socially corrosive than pot will ever be. Here’s the reality:

The problem is seen as particularly bad in the Southwest, where 76 percent of counties surveyed said methamphetamine was their largest drug problem; in the Pacific Northwest, where 75 percent of those surveyed said it was; and in the Upper Midwest, where 67 percent of county officials declared methamphetamine their worst drug problem. Seventy percent of counties reported increases in robberies and burglaries because of methamphetamine; 62 percent reported increases in domestic violence; 53 percent reported an increase in assaults; and 27 reported an increase in identity theft. Half the counties surveyed said one in five inmates were in jail because of methamphetamine crimes. Many counties reported that half their jail populations were incarcerated because of methamphetamine.

This actually is a crisis. So why the misplaced emphasis on marijuana? Even opponents of the drug war, like yours truly, would make an exception for the instantly addictive, body-destroying, mind-frying chemical cocktail called meth. Why not drop the war on largely harmless pot and fight the real menace?

Be careful what you say, as one academic found out.