Judicial Retention and Iowa Justice David Wiggins

October 27, 2012, 11:00a.m.

Balancing Democracy and Judicial Independence

There are many issues and arguments regarding the voters' retention (or not) of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. Most of his opponents simply disagree with what they view as the policy espoused in an Iowa Supreme Court opinion (which he joined, but did not write) that found an Iowa legislative enactment banning gay marriage to be a violation of the Iowa Constitution.

Other issues that might be raised, but are seldom explored, involve the underlying wisdom (or not) of Iowa's "Missouri Plan" for selecting, and reviewing the performance of, state judges, and the Iowa Bar's evaluation of Justice Wiggins (certainly "passing marks," but lower than some others).

But a new, young colleague of mine, Paul Gowder, and I have tried to address a narrower issue, one we believe lies at the heart of legitimate public discourse. Our column appears in this morning's [Oct. 27] in Gazette: Nicholas Johnson and Paul Gowder, "Independent Judiciary," The Gazette, October 27, 2012, p. A5, and is reprinted in its entirety at the bottom of this blog entry.

In order to isolate, highlight and clarify the issue we wish to address, so as not to confuse and intermingle it with other issues, we implicitly assume for purposes of our analysis that (a) the Supreme Court opinion in question, Varnum v. Brien, was "correctly decided" from a legal, judicial, lawyers' or law professors' perspective, (b) that voters should vote to retain Justice Wiggins on the court, based on the enumerated standards for evaluating a judge's performance, but that (c) there remains a legitimate issue regarding the appropriate balance between (1) judicial independence and (2) popular control of governmental institutions.

The column was run in parallel with another which joined issue with regard to the outcome of that balance. Donald P. Racheter, "People Have Judicial Control," The Gazette, October 27, 2012, p. A5.

Racheter is president of the conservative think tank, Public Interest Institute, in Mt. Pleasant. Although he specifically advocates the propriety of voting against the retention of Wiggins because he signed on to the court's unanimous Varnum opinion, his column goes beyond that. He believes it is not only appropriate, but well within the purpose of the Missouri Plan, for voters to oust judges whose opinions differ from their own. Paul Gowder and I disagree.

The link above is deliberately provided so that you can read his entire column if you wish. Meanwhile, here are some excerpts that I believe fairly put his position:

As someone who for many years taught a college class entitled Judicial Politics, I would like to try to correct those who have been emoting of late about how the courts and judges are supposedly different from executives and legislators — that they are somehow “non-political.” Any institution composed of humans . . . is political . . .. Political reform efforts [regarding courts] make it easier to divert power and control from ordinary folks to elites such as lawyers . . ..

The Missouri Plan . . . is supposed to ensure popular control of judges [and] allow them to run on their record, and for the people to render a verdict on that record with their ballots. It is rare for a judge running for retention to lose, but . . . when it happened to Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and two of her colleagues here in Iowa in 2010 over the “gay-marriage” issue, it means the system is working as intended. . . . [M]embers of the “mainstream media” . . . are either being disingenuous or mendacious when they allege that it is “wrong” for citizens to vote against a judge they dislike . . .. Others who claim that voters should only vote against judges who are senile, abusive or caught taking bribes are similarly in error . . .. [T]hose Iowans who disagree with the Varnum v. Brien decision and choose to vote “no” on Justice David Wiggins . . . are fulfilling the “good government reform” role designated for them when the Missouri Plan was adopted in our state constitution.

Gowder and I do not argue that our federal and state (Missouri Plan) judiciary operate flawlessly, any more than any other institution does -- hospitals, major corporations, think tanks, legislatures, foundations, newspapers, universities, or police departments. Nor do we deny that there is some role for democracy. Where we differ with Racheter is when he argues the Missouri Plan was intended, and should be conducted, as a means of "popular control of judges" -- as he interprets "control." Indeed, we believe the opposite; that constitutions, and the judiciary to interpret them, were specifically established precisely to be a check against the mob rule that would result from a "popular control of judges" that includes the removal from office of those whose judicial opinions were disliked by a majority of the people.

We believe the people's remedies for judges' statutory interpretations the majority rejects are to be found in legislatures, not courts. If the majority disagrees with the court's interpretation of a constitutional provision, the public's remedy lies in a constitutional amendment.

Here, then, is our column from this morning's Gazette:

"Independent Judiciary,"
Nicholas Johnson and Paul Gowder
The Gazette, October 27, 2012, p. A5
Iowa’s Justice David Wiggins, on November’s ballot, says, “I hope Iowa Supreme Court justices never have to raise money from political donors to ask for your vote.”

Whether the public should be voting for judges is, like many other legal issues, a matter of balancing.

“Democracy” suggests popular control of the language in constitutions and laws, which we have. On the other hand, America’s founders believed the legislative and executive branches need the check of a truly independent, non-political third branch. Popular participation in picking federal judges was limited to the people electing a president who would make, and senators who would consent to, judicial appointments. Once sworn in, judges could decide cases on the merits, with the protection of lifetime appointments.

Iowa strikes this political vs. independence balance with a merit system for nominating potential judges, their ultimate selection by the governor, and the absence of conventional election campaigns. However, one year after an Iowa Supreme Court justice’s first appointment, and every eight-year term thereafter, Iowans can vote whether to retain them.

The relevant factors in retention elections should be such things as the judges’ integrity, professional competence, judicial temperament, experience and service. Before the election, the Iowa Bar researches and publishes its evaluation of judges regarding these and other factors.

Two years ago, with three justices on the ballot, few if any citizens had complaints about these relevant qualities of the Iowa justices. The Bar approved all of them.

But some Iowans rejected a particular Iowa Supreme Court opinion, Varnum v. Brien. This well-researched, reasoned and written opinion was supported by every justice. The case required the court to address civil rights provisions of the Iowa Constitution as applied to an Iowa law banning same-sex marriage. The court concluded that religious organizations are free to define marriage however they choose. The State of Iowa, however, said the court, is restrained by its own Constitution from prohibiting same-sex marriage.

It was certainly a significant decision. But as a matter of Iowa constitutional interpretation, and legal opinion drafting, the opinion was in no way a radical departure from the mainstream of American law.

Why is the political decision to remove judges because of a single opinion we dislike not even in the best, selfish interests of offended citizens? Because ultimately we all benefit from a windbreaker in the storms brought on by political climate change. Our nation’s founders realized that 225 years ago, and it is no less true today.

And if we passionately disagree with courts’ decisions? We can elect governors to appoint different judges. If we don’t like a court’s interpretation of a statute, we can ask the legislature to change the law. If it’s a constitutional provision, we can organize to amend it.

Independent judges, uninfluenced by campaign contributions, and supported by the public, enable each of us to live under a “rule of law” rather than arbitrary and unchecked political decisions. If we protect them now, they’ll be able to protect us in the future.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson and Paul Gowder are faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org or paul-gowder@uiowa.edu

# # #

Third Parties Are Our Friends . . .

October 19, 2012, 9:50 a.m.

. . . and Need Not Be Threat to Major Parties

Say hello to Gary Johnson, once the Republican governor of New Mexico and currently the Libertarian Party candidate for president. He's no relation, and I won't be voting for him. But I'm glad he'll be on my Iowa ballot November 6, and you should be, too.

Nor are the Libertarians the only ones to join Governor Romney and President Obama. We'll also have the choice of the Constitution Party (Virgil Goode and James Clymer), Socialist Workers Party (James Harris and Alyson Kennedy), Party for Socialism and Liberation (Gloria LaRiva and Stefanie Beacham), and the Green Party (Jill Stein and Cheri Honkal). (Jerry and Jim Litzel will also appear, having been nominated by petition.)

Some of these third party candidates will be holding their own 90-minute debate, hosted by Larry King, Tuesday night [Oct. 23] at 8:00 p.m. CT -- the night after the last of the three major parties' presidential debates -- albeit only streaming over the Internet rather than broadcast to an audience of millions. Editorial, "Third-Party Debate Will Be Educational, Informative," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 19, 2012, p. A7. Watch. It promises to be more informative and entertaining than what we've seen from Obama and Romney. Go to http://Ora.tv.

This blog entry advances two propositions: (1) We, as voters and American citizens, have benefited from, and therefore should welcome and encourage the participation of third parties in our political system. (2) The two major parties, now virulent opponents of third parties, would actually improve their odds if they would support a little reform called "instant runoff voting" (IRV) -- a win-win-win for major parties, third parties, and every American.

Why Third Parties Are Our Friends
True democracy has almost always been resisted by those in power. Most of those said to be the fathers of our democratic system, those who drafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, agreed with John Jay that, “Those who own the country, should run it.”

It is a view still widely held today by those in power.

As the 19th Century New York City political Boss William Tweed is credited with having said, “I don’t care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating.”

If there are only two political parties those who control those parties’ purse strings can maintain their control of the nation by continuing to do the nominating.

The opposition to third parties by “those who own the country” is understandable. For it is third parties that have brought the American people most of the political and social progress we enjoy today –- much of which has come at the expense of the wealthy. That kind of progress was fought at every turn by those controlling the two major parties, often with the aid of local police and national guard in ways that left demonstrators injured, bleeding -- and often dead.

Ultimately one or the other of the two parties would adopt the proposal of a third party as its own, but only at the eleventh hour when its failure to do so would have seriously harmed the party’s political power and influence.

Third parties are a proud tradition in America -- and especially in Iowa's early history.

After the Civil War the Democratic Party came to be controlled by big business and the wealthy. It didn't do much for poor farmers. Disenchanted Democrats organized the People's Party.

By 1912 many Republicans were disgusted with big business control of their party. Those dissidents formed the Progressive Party.

James B. Weaver of Iowa was a third party nominee for president in 1892.

It turns out that most of the progress in this country has been opposed by both of the major parties. It has come about only when third parties have pushed the agenda and picked up enough popular support that they could no longer be ignored.

That's how we got regulation of banks and railroads, a progressive income tax, the eight-hour workday, direct popular election of U.S. senators, workers' compensation, and limitations on child labor. Yes, it is third parties we must thank for the women’s right to vote, antitrust controls over the worst of corporate abuses, the minimum wage, the fact that we’re not all working weekends, safety in the workplace, workers’ right to organize and bargain with employers, safe foods and medicines, social security, civil rights -– the list goes on. (See, e.g., the outline notes of Professor Donald R. Shaffer, University of Northern Colorado.)

So you can see why “those who own the country,” and today control both major political parties, would want to do all they can to prevent this kind of agitation and progress, and why I say that "third parties are our friends."

Opposition to Third Party Electoral Reforms
and Why Instant Runoff is Everyone's Answer
Both parties, and those who fund them, oppose at every turn any and all reforms that would permit more third party participation. The so-called Presidential Debates Commission is in fact an exclusive club for Democrats and Republicans, who have for the most part successfully prevented the American people from ever seeing third party alternatives to their nominees. They even oppose proposals that would eliminate the threat to them of what they persist in calling “spoilers.”

(Both parties, with their sense of entitlement to exclude all others from the political process, have the chutzpah to characterize anyone with the nerve to think they can also run for public office -- without the major parties’ permission -- as a “spoiler.”)

Because Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) can (a) eliminate "spoilers," (b) thereby helping the major parties win elections, while (c) also helping third parties to be viable, there's no reason not to adopt this reform.

How does IRV work? How does it help third parties? How does it help the major parties?

Here's how IRV works.

Our present system means a candidate can win without a majority of the votes; whoever gets the most votes wins, even if it's less than 50%. With IRV, the winner will have, and must have, something over 50%.

With our present system everyone can only vote once, and the votes are only counted once. Those who vote for a (usually losing) third party candidate never get a chance to say which of the two leading candidates they would prefer -- and therefore neither of the two leading candidates gets credit for what would have been third party voters' second choices. With IRV, each voter may vote for only one candidate if they wish; but they also have the option of ranking candidates, and indicating which would be their second choice if their first choice can't make it. If no candidate gets over 50% when first choice votes are counted, voters' second choices are considered until a candidate emerges with a majority of the votes.

Let's assume that those voting Libertarian prefer the Libertarian candidate to either Romney or Obama. Those voting Socialist Workers prefer their candidate. (Those whose first choice is Obama or Romney may vote only once, and only for their first choice.) But let's also make the inaccurate assumption, just for purposes of this discussion, that each of the third parties voters' have a second choice as well. If their first choice can't win the Libertarian voters would vote for Romney and the Socialist Worker Party members would vote for Obama.

Under the present system, both the third party members, and those affiliated with the two major parties, have to recognize that -- when the election is close -- those who vote for their favorite third party candidate may, thereby, contribute to the defeat of the major party candidate who would have been their second choice. Moreover, the "winner" is more likely to win with less than 50% of the total votes cast. In our example, let's say Obama gets 48% of Iowans' votes, Romney 44%, the Libertarian 5% and the Socialist Workers' candidate 3%.

IRV enables third party members to designate both their first and their second choice. Using our numbers, above, the first place votes are counted, and split 48-44-5-3. With IRV, at that point the candidate with the fewest first place votes (Socialist Workers) is dropped from contention -- but the second choices of those who voted for the eliminated candidate are now registered as first place votes for their second choice: Obama. The first place votes are then counted for a second time. Once the 3% Socialist Workers second choice votes for Obama are added to the 48% votes for Obama, it results in a 51-44-5 split, Obama has a majority, and is declared the winner.

Suppose our numbers were reversed: 48-44-3-5 (3% Libertarian, 5% Socialist Workers). No one has a majority. Libertarians have the fewest first place votes and are eliminated. Their second choice votes become first choice votes for Romney. But that still leaves no one with a majority: 48-49-3. Once again the candidate with the fewest first place votes is eliminated -- the Socialist Workers' candidate. Those voters' second choice (Obama) becomes their first choice, and following what is now the third count we have a 51-49 split.

Now here's one for the Romney supporters. Suppose the first vote count shows 47% for Obama, 46% for Romney, 2% Socialist Workers, 5% Libertarian. Under the present system the election's over; Obama wins Iowa's electoral votes. Can you now calculate what happens with IRV? That's right. The Socialist Workers' candidate is eliminated, and Obama picks up their 2%, making the new split 49% Obama, 46% Romney, 5% Libertarian. Obama is close to 50%, but there's still no winner; no one has over 50%. So we count the votes a third time. This time the Libertarian candidate is eliminated, throwing his votes to Romney, who now has 51% to Obama's 49%. Romney's declared the winner.

In other words, for the foreseeable future third parties will probably never win the White House, with or without IRV. The two major parties need have no fear of that. IRV will sometimes benefit the Republicans and sometimes the Democrats, but it will always produce a much better reflection of voters' actual preferences. Those who are more inclined toward the policies and proposals of a third party can indicate that with their vote -- while also selecting their second choice between the two most likely to win.

Still not clear? Like a 3-minute video from FairVote? Here it is:

Why IRV is a Win-Win-Win

Why is this a win for the major parties? Because they no longer need to worry about "spoilers." They will not only get the votes of those who view their candidate as their first choice, they will also pick up the votes of those for whom their candidate is a second choice.

Why a win for the public? Because we will have the more robust discussion of the issues brought about by a greater diversity of views. We will be offered a choice of candidates in addition to "the least worst alternative" from the two major parties. There will likely be more popular interest in politics in general and voting in particular. It will give us a more finely tuned opportunity to let the two major parties know where we stand than we reveal by just choosing between the two of them. It will come closer to a national poll of how we feel about a variety of issues and policies.

And why a win for the third parties, even if it's still unlikely any one of their candidates will live in the White House? States require third parties to obtain a designated percentage of votes cast, or names on petitions, in order to retain their status as a "party" entitled to be represented on future ballots. That's tough to do under current rules. There are many proposals to remedy this problem, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is one obvious example. They will be able to attract more votes once people can vote both their hearts and their heads. It will help them to build membership, raise money, and attract more media attention.

To see a list of countries and cities where IRV is used, here and abroad, click here. For more on democratic, innovative, alternative voting systems see, e.g., the resources of the Center for Voting and Democracy.

# # #

Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime

October 15, 2012, 9:10 a.m.

November 8, 2012, 9:00 a.m. -- POST-ELECTION, BOND DEFEAT UPDATE:

The Johnson County Justice Center bond proposal on Tuesday's [Nov. 6] ballot went down to defeat. That is, although a majority (56%) of those voting on it voted "Yes," that was not enough to clear the 60% hurdle required by Iowa law.

So the County Supervisors and allied supporters of the proposal have been meeting to decide what to do next. Lee Hermiston, "Justice Center Group Plans Next Move; Deciding Whether to Go Back to Voters; Critics Vow Same Plan Will Not Pass," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 8, 2012, p. A1. [And see also, Gregg Hennigan, "Johnson County leaders discuss possibility of another justice center vote; Another vote would have to wait at least six months," The Gazette, November 8, 2012, p. A2; and Cassidy Riley, "Johnson County officials say justice-center battle is not over," The Daily Iowan, November 8, 2012, p. A1.]

As I commented on the online version of Lee Hermiston's story, "Many of the proposed Justice Center's opponents acknowledged that 'something' was needed, and that they'd support it. Many of the supporters had serious concerns. A chance to revisit these issues may prove to be the best outcome for Johnson County. Unlike Washington, compromise is a real possibility."

Some supporters are advocating physically pushing through the proposal in a subsequent vote just as soon as possible. Presumably, this means they would simply raise more money, to repeat their failed talking points with greater volume and quantity.

Frankly, I think this would be a mistake, whether opponents prove to be right or wrong in their prediction that, "This will not pass, I guarantee you" (as Hermiston quoted Sean Curtin). The comments from both supporters and opponents have left a lot of possibilities for compromise on the table. Johnson County citizens have a substantial reservoir of civility and compromise that this exercise in democracy could draw upon -- to everyone's credit.

Supervisor Terrence Neuzil thinks "the proposed center [could] use some changes." He's said, "I’m not interested in putting the same proposal in front of the voters that just voted it down." Hermiston also reports, "[S]upervisor Janelle Rettig said some issues still need to be addressed, such as the racial disparity of those who stay in jail for longer than a week;" and that "[Johnson County Attorney Janet] Lyness . . . suggested that members of the opposition be involved with those [future] discussions" of the committee of supporters.

These folks are setting the right tone and strategy. Otherwise it's going to reek of the City Council's recent effort to cut the public out entirely on a bond vote regarding grants of taxpayers' money, not for a public, traditional governmental project (such as jails), but for a private entrepreneur's profit-making venture.

There is no need here to outsource our design and decision to expensive out-of-town consultants, meaningless surveys, and endless discussions that never reach conclusions -- except an agreement to have yet another discussion. We can work this out.

I would make one more very specific suggestion that seemed to work for the School Board when creating its somewhat contentious governance policies. Come up with one person who is willing to do the writing, someone who either voted "No," but sees the need for some improvement, or someone who voted "Yes," but sees real problems with the failed proposal -- or possibly one of each. Task them with coming up with, first, as complete, factually accurate, and neutral a paper as they can create putting forth every one of the advocates' assertions for, and opponents' assertions against, the current proposal. Second, have he/she/them work -- separately -- with selected groups of supporters and opponents whose job it will be to come up with the best responses they can provide to the others' arguments. Revise the paper accordingly (including both assertions and responses). Third, select representatives of both camps who seem to be the most inclined to rational, analytical, data-driven, civil discourse on these issues to see what kind of a compromise proposal, if any, can be created.

An illustration of a possible contribution to the latter comes from Supervisor Rettig, as reported by Gregg Hennigan in this morning's Gazette: "Supervisor Janelle Rettig said . . . she’d support the county paying more for the project up front to reduce the amount bonded and not fully building out the facility at the start." Gregg Hennigan, "Johnson County leaders discuss possibility of another justice center vote; Another vote would have to wait at least six months," The Gazette, November 8, 2012, p. A2.

Discussion can be constructive; it is also essential. But my experience has taught me that it is multiples more efficient, effective, and speedy if it is focused on a written document at the outset. As the discussion progresses, the document is revised. This produces both a tangible product from the discussion, greater likelihood of agreement, and a record of the the process.

Just a thought. You're welcome.

What follows is the blog entry entered here October 15, 2012:
Humankind has struggled with virtually every aspect of crime and punishment since we came down out of the trees. See, e.g., "Criminology," Wikipedia.org.

The economic and human cost of the "solution" called incarceration have created both a multi-billion-dollar industry and human failures. "With more than 2.3 million people locked up, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of 100 American adults is behind bars -- while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison [NJ: a grossly disproportionate percentage of which are minorities and the poor]. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry." "Billions Behind Bars; Inside America's Prison Industry; CNBC Goes Behind the Razor Wires to Investigate the Profits and Inner-Workings of the Multi-Billion Dollar Corrections Industry," CNBC, October 2012.

Prisons have now become America's most fully occupied, and expensive, public housing program.

Nor have Iowa, and Iowa City, remained outside these challenges. Johnson County's supervisors, and sheriff, are recommending local residents approve a near-$50-million bond burden on top of their current property taxes to provide a substantial expansion to our local contribution to the prison industry and our own public housing.

Here is my own effort, in this morning's [Oct. 15] Press-Citizen, to keep to the requested 500-word limit on my own thoughts about the challenge:
_______________

Voting "Yes, but. . ." for the Justice Center
Iowa City Press-Citizen
October 15, 2012, p. A7
Nicholas Johnson

I’ll be voting for the justice center. Some increase in jail cells and courtrooms seems warranted, notwithstanding dispute about numbers.

But questions, concerns and unused opportunities remain.

• Big picture, big debt. Iowa taxpayers’ debt service obligations are about $2 billion. We’ve just promised $250 million to a foreign corporation: jobs for Iowans, profits for Egyptians. Our local school district is eyeing its $281 million borrowing capacity. Downtown development takes millions in TIFs. The justice center adds $48 million-plus. There’s no central rationalization of priorities on taxpayers’ behalf.

• Regional centers. For 100 years — the 1830s to 1930s — Iowa’s horse-and-buggy 99 county governments made sense. They don’t anymore. Politically, counties can’t be abolished. But mental health services now are transferring from counties to “regions.”

Why not regional jails — the low-cost alternative to 99 jails designed for peak occupancy?

Our $1 million a year sending inmates elsewhere compares favorably with the jail’s share of $48 million. Why not continue it for those serving week, month or longer sentences? Wouldn’t that reduce the cells needed for the football drunks and those awaiting trials?

Why are neighboring counties’ jails not full? Is it possible future policy and funding changes with mental health and dependency populations, social and political attitudes, technological and other innovations will further reduce the need for jail cells? Won’t rationalizing our continued, though reduced, use of others’ jails give us more future flexibility?

What would a peak load analysis suggest as our optimum number of additional cells?

• Criminal consolidation. How about a standalone criminal structure — courtrooms, meeting and class rooms, along with jail cells? It would improve efficiency, consolidation and eliminate courthouse security concerns. Potential, adjacent, full city block locations are available southeast, south, and west.

Our courthouse is one of Iowa’s greatest early, Romanesque structures. More than 110 years old, it deserves, and should continue to be, maintained in its original setting — like Old Capitol. That was the wise choice when moving courthouse offices to the current County Administration Building five blocks away. It’s the wisest, win-win choice now.

Moreover, this would enable limiting a refurbished, more secure courthouse to civil cases.

• Holistic approach. A significant proportion of the criminal population suffers from the mental health and chemical dependency challenges that make them repeat visitors. Jails are neither their answer nor ours. Johnson County has made commendable progress transferring these individuals from jails to specialized courts and programs. But might it not be cheaper, more effective and humane, to budget as well as administer to this population’s total needs with a single program? Can we do even more to reduce the need for jails?

We need some additions to our criminal justice capabilities. That’s why I’m voting “yes.” But that doesn’t mean additional thought, and modification of what’s now on the drawing board, couldn’t serve us even better.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City native and former school board member, teaches at the Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.org.

# # #

Paying the Price for Women's Rights

October 11, 2012, 10:00 a.m. -- now with continuing updates on her medical condition Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31

SPECIAL: Malala is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I've signed the petition; if you would like to join me, click here. About 150,000 have signed so far [Nov. 14].

And you might want to visit Malala's Facebook page.

Malala Yousafzai

Another brave young woman is in the news, Malala Yousafzai, living in northwestern Pakistan and advocating on behalf of girls seeking education. Editorial, "Malala Yousafzai’s Courage," New York Times, October 11, 2012, p. A30 ("If Pakistan has a future, it is embodied in Malala Yousafzai. Yet the Taliban so feared this 14-year-old girl that they tried to assassinate her. Her supposed offense? Her want of an education and her public advocation for it."). Here are links to her Web page and Facebook page.

The United Nations declared November 10 "Malala Day." Here is a photo of children celebrating in Karachi that day. For the video of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's announcement in support of Malala, click here.

[For medical updates [Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] on her condition, see, Mushtaq Yusufzai, "Malala shifted to AFIC Rawalpindi in serious condition," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 12, 2012; "Malala's Condition Satisfactory: ISPR," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 14, 2012 ("The Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) Sunday [Oct. 14] termed Malala Yousafzai's condition 'satisfactory' and that it was witnessing a steady improvement. [She] was taken off the ventilator for some time and was later placed back on it. The . . . option to send her abroad for further treatment was being considered. . . . ISPR Maj Gen Asim Bajwa said that [she] . . . was now being administered a lower dose of sedatives. 'Movement has been witnessed in Malala's hands and legs which is a positive development,' Maj Gen Bajwa said.").

"Schoolgirl Wounded by Taliban Is Airlifted to Britain," New York Times, October 15, 2012 ("Malala . . . [has left] Rawalpindi, . . . in a military hospital, on an air ambulance sent from the United Arab Emirates. [She will] receive immediate treatment for her skull, which was fractured after a bullet passed through her head, as well as 'long-term rehabilitation including intensive neuro rehabilitation' . . . at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham . . . which has specialized in the treatment of troops wounded in Afghanistan . . .."); "2 questioned at U.K hospital treating Pakistani girl," USA Today, October 16, 2012 ("British police have questioned two people who tried to visit [Malala] . . . raising fears about her safety following pledges by the Taliban to make another attempt on her life. . . . Dr. Anders Cohen, chief of neurosurgery at The Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York [said] '. . . we don't know what part of the brain the bullet went through, whether it crossed the midline and hit any vessels, or whether the bullet passed through the right or left side of the brain.' [B]oth physicians say it is extremely unlikely that a full recovery can be made. They could only hope that the bullet took a 'lucky path' — going through a more 'silent,' or less active — part of the brain. 'You don't have a bullet go through your brain and have a full recovery,' [Dr. Jonathan] Fellus [chief scientific officer at the New Jersey-based International Brain Research Foundation] said.").

"Malala will need reconstructive surgery: hospital director," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 17, 2012 ("Malala Yousufzai is making progress in a British hospital, doctors said on Tuesday, as police turned away visitors claiming to be relatives. . . . [She] was in a stable condition on her first full day . . . [and the Birmingham Queen Elizabeth Hospital medical director David Rosser said she] had had a 'comfortable night.' '“We are very pleased with the progress she’s made so far,' . . .. [E]very bit as strong as we’ve been led to believe. Malala will need reconstructive surgery and we have international experts in that field.' . . . 'Her response to treatment so far indicated that she could make a good recovery from her injuries,' the Queen Elizabeth Hospital said in a statement."). "Malala stable in UK hospital as support floods in," AFP/The Express Tribune/International Herald Tribune, October 18, 2012 ("Doctors said Malala Yousafzai spent a second comfortable night . . .. [S]he 'remained in a stable condition and continued to impress doctors by responding well to her care,' a hospital spokesman said.").

John F. Burns and Christine Hauser, "Pakistani Schoolgirl Shot by Taliban Is Showing Progress," New York Times, October 19, 2012 ("[Malala] has recovered to the extent that she is now able to stand with assistance and communicate in writing . . . Dr. David Rosser, the medical director of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, said . . . 'she is doing very well. In fact, she was standing with some help for the first time this morning when I went in to see her.'”) Alan Cowell, "Pakistani Activist, 15, Recovering at ‘Encouraging Speed,’ Father Says," New York Times, October 27, 2012, p. A9 ("Ms. Yousafzai’s father [Ziauddin Yousafzai] and mother, Toorpekai Yousafzai, arrived in Birmingham on Thursday [Oct. 22], accompanied by her two younger brothers, Atal Khan, 8, and Khushal Khan, 12. [T]he family was reunited . . . for the first time since Ms. Yousafzai was flown to Britain, 'there were tears in our eyes out of happiness,' her father told reporters. 'We all cried a little bit.' He added: 'It’s a miracle for us. She was in a very bad condition.' A week ago, a bulletin from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital [reported] 'She’s not out of the woods yet, but we are hopeful she will make a good recovery' . . ..")]

Dawn is a newspaper in Pakistan that I have found over the last few years to be one of the best sources of information not only about Pakistan, but also about Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis deplore the Taliban's effort to assassinate Malala. But some among its religious right have recently made an effort to compare that attempt to the American use of drones that end up killing innocent civilians. Dawn has risen to the occasion with an editorial today [Oct. 16] headlined "Skewed Narrative," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 16, 2012. Here is an excerpt: "Let's get one thing straight about the attack on Malala Yousufzai. It is not comparable to drone strikes . . . [or] other incidents the religious right might use to try to divert attention from the particular evil of this one. . . . [T]his incident was: a deliberate attack on a specific teenage girl in retaliation for her activism for girls’ education . . .. Drone strikes may be unacceptable in their current form and end up killing innocent children, but doing so is not their intent. . . . And yet moves are afoot to position these events as comparisons in an attempt to dampen the widespread recognition of the Malala incident for what it was — the targeting of an innocent girl by an outfit that does not believe in the most basic of human rights and is prepared to attack even children to promote its regressive ideas."

I used the word "another" in the opening paragraph not only because there are today, as there have been throughout the years, a great many young women and girls -- as well as men and boys, but primarily women -- who have often paid a heavy price, up to and including death, fighting for what are often even minimal rights for women.

But I also say "another" because of what I wrote earlier about a brave young woman who played a major role in the "Arab spring" in Egypt, Asmaa Mahfouz. "Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine," October 27, 2011. And see, "The Natural Superiority of Women; And Why Men Fail," September 11, 2012.

There's good news and bad news regarding the role of religion in women's rights -- one of the major civil rights challenges during my lifetime. The liberal, reformist, and moderate elements of many of the world's major religions view women's struggle as possessed of moral, ethical, and religious rights as well. Sadly, however, often in violation of their own sacred texts, many religions' more extreme elements -- including those in this country -- seek to find support for their suppression of women's rights from within their religion.

So it was in northwest Pakistan this week.

The balance of my blog entry this morning is simply a reproduction of yesterday's [Oct. 10] entry on a blog maintained by "Rosh," a UCL (University College London?) student: Lashings of Gingerale -- because she so well states my own thoughts there's little to be gained by my composing an equivalent.

Malala Yousafzai started her blog about being a girl trying to get an education in the Swat Valley when she was 11 years old. On Tuesday [Oct. 9] at the age of 14 she was shot in the head by the Taliban because she "promoted secularism."

She is currently in hospital, alive and recovering after surgery. This girl is the bravest girl I know because she stood up for education for girls. And do you know what makes this story even more disgusting? That she has to do this at all in 2012.

My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.

# # #

Clean Streets and Creative Consumption

September 30, 2012, 1:30 p.m.

Alcohol: Friend or Enema? At last, Less Drinking
I've never seen the neighborhood so spotless during a Hawkeyes' football game as it was yesterday.

And from Tennessee, historically an innovator in the manufacture of alcohol, comes now some truly innovative ways to consume it.

Together, those topics make up my morning's verbal meandering.

This blog is nothing if not an equal opportunity offender. I figure a democracy requires a little challenge to complacency, "comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable," and all that. On the other hand, when I think someone else is piling on a little unfairly, I'm quite prepared to come to the defense of my hometown, or anything, or anyone, else. See, e.g., "'We're Number One!' What's Your City's Ranking?".

Cleanliness is Next to Godliness

Recently I've been a little tough on the football fans, University, City, and athletic program for the mess that's left behind in the residential neighborhoods following Hawkeye football games. "Football Trash Talk; Iowa City: Where Great Minds Drink Alike," Sept. 11; "Anheuser-Busch, UI & Hawks a Win-Win-Win", Sept. 17.

This is not to say that the amount of trash has become insignificant. Following one game 13,280 pounds of trash was collected; and of course that does not count what is outside the area from which it's collected, the cans picked up for their 5-cent value when recycled by unsupervised volunteers, or what the neighbors dispose of. Tara Bannow, "Keeping gameday trash out of the landfill; Volunteers clean and sort trash at Kinnick on Sundays," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 29, 2012, p. A3 ("At the Sept. 8 game against Iowa State University, the team [of recyclers] collected 4,700 pounds of recyclable materials, 620 pounds of food waste for compost and 7,960 pounds of trash.") And of course there's less incentive to stand outside when it's cold, and try to get falling down drunk by 10:30 in the morning when the game's at 11:00, than when there's balmy warm weather prior to a late afternoon and evening game.

But compare this picture with the one above. As far down the street as you can see, the lawns are cleaned of trash. Such trash as there was is now bagged, tied, neatly piled, and ready to be collected. Some of this is due to more respectful fans. But the fact remains that real efforts have gone into organizing volunteers, and those modestly paid, to distribute trash containers prior to the game and pick them up afterwards, to pick up the trash, and as an added societal benefit, to sort and recycle, and compost, that which can be used. Stacey Murray, "Iowa City Sees Spike in Gameday Trash," The Daily Iowan, September 26, 2012 ("Outside Kinnick Stadium, Melrose Avenue is taking a hit. With four-consecutive home games this month, the Extend the Dream Foundation noticed a 15 percent increase in trash levels on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Court. . . . [Foundation Director Tom] Walz’s foundation works in cooperation with the University of Iowa’s Office of Sustainability, Iowa City, and the Hawkeye Athletics Department in a partnership to clean up Melrose Avenue during and after each home game.").

So give credit where it is due, I say. Many thanks to UI President Sally Mason, Iowa City Mayor Matt Hayek, UI Athletic Director Gary Barta, Extend the Dream Foundation Director Tom Walz, and their casts of thousands (along with whoever else has contributed), that have recognized a problem, thought it through to a potential solution, and then implemented it. It is an example of common sense, responsibility and civil collaboration that is not often seen from administrators.

Alcohol: Friend or Enema? At last, less drinking

We've had a little problem with alcohol-related abuses at a UI fraternity. "Alcohol Abuse and Sexual Assault, or 'Fine Public Service'?" Sept. 26 ("Police began investigating an alleged sexual assault at a UI fraternity . . .. Residents had been charged with alcohol-related offenses earlier this summer. . . . [T]he fraternity's national headquarters suspended the group and expelled its current members, citing "hazing . . .." That day the UI mentioned 'illegal alcohol consumption' . . ..").

In fairness, students' alcohol abuse is a problem in a great many colleges around the country (and the world). It's not limited to Iowa City. Actually, the University of Iowa's numbers have been improving in some ways, although students still binge drink at something like twice the national average. See, e.g.,: "UI Administrators 'Shocked' By School's Beer Ads," August 30, 2012; "'We're # 2!' . . . in Campus Drunks," August 21, 2012; "A Busch in the Hand is Worth . . .," June 16, 2012. The Daily Iowan's Monday morning [Oct. 1] "Police Blotter" reported 50 arrests -- a decline from prior weeks. (Most, but not all, are of college-age individuals for alcohol-related offenses.) On the other hand, arrests and sexual assaults are up: "The report shows arrests and judicial referrals for liquor-law violations fluctuated between 2009 and 2011, with a total of 127 arrests and 537 judicial referrals in 2009 . . . and 497 arrests and 777 referrals in 2011 — an overall increase in both arrests and referrals. . . . The report also showed a rise in the number of forcible sex offenses on campus, with 11 total offenses in 2011, compared to the 7 total offenses reported in 2010." Matt Starns, "Clery Report shows rise in alcohol-related crime, sex offenses at UI," The Daily Iowan, October 2.

But the news out of Tennessee is especially noteworthy.

For some reason I'm reminded of the story -- whether true or apocryphal is irrelevant for this purpose -- of a father's reaction to his teenage son's drunk driving, and an accident in which one passenger was killed and two were severely injured. When informed that his son had tested over the legal limit, the father responded, "Well, thank God he's not using drugs."

Alcohol IS a hard drug. Indeed, based on the amount of alcohol-related harm it does, alcohol is by any measure our nation's number one hard drug. The National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence reports that 23 million Americans over the age of 12 are addicted to alcohol and other drugs; problems that touch 24% of American families. "Overview," National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence." Add the workplace or student colleagues, neighbors, more distant family, and others and we're talking about tens of millions more Americans than those affected by other drugs.

"Out of millions who hold full time employment in the United States, close to fifteen million are heavy drinkers of alcohol, exacting a high cost on work organizations . . . , premature death/fatal accidents, injuries/accident rates, absenteeism/extra sick leave, loss of production, tardiness/sleeping on the job, theft, poor decision making, loss of efficiency, lower morale of co-workers, increased likelihood of having trouble with co-workers . . ., higher turnover, training of new employees, [and] disciplinary procedures." "Alcohol and the Workplace," National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence." This adverse economic impact runs into the billions of dollars.

Alcohol's grossly disproportionate impact (compared with other drugs) is seen throughout our society. Look it up; I'm not going to provide all the links here. Alcohol is involved in roughly half, give or take, of all crimes, and its related involvement as a challenge for roughly half of the prison population. It's adverse, irreversible physical and health effects are greater than those for heroin.

The impact on students includes everything from the consequences of physical violence, drunk driving, unwanted pregnancies, hospital admissions for near toxic levels of alcohol, through dropouts, to death (some 1800 alcohol-related deaths of college students each year).

Notwithstanding these risks and consequences, there are students who continue to drink alcohol, not one (or two) glasses of beer or wine over a meal, but to get drunk, up to and beyond passing out -- "binge drinking." This behavior clearly relates to using alcohol as a drug rather than socializing.

As you may know, there has been an uptick in national awareness of our need for greater emphasis on "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math" -- which goes by the acronym, "STEM."

And it now appears this student interest in scientific research, this intellectual curiosity, has penetrated the minds of the residents of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity at the University of Tennessee.

And that's not all it's penetrated.

Serious students don't mind an occasional party, but they have to have good time management skills as well. Long social evenings with alcohol, in benefit-cost terms, take entirely too much time away from the studying students would prefer to be doing.

Binge drinking, by contrast, is much more efficient. "The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 percent or above. This typically happens when men consume 5 or more drinks, and when women consume 4 or more drinks, in about 2 hours." "Alcohol and Public Health Fact Sheets," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutting the time consumed by a non-studying activity from six or eight hours down to two is obviously appealing.

But as these young people are discovering, science is constantly evolving and expanding. I recently calculated that the terabyte external hard drive I just bought cost me, in dollars per unit of storage space, roughly 1/10,000 the cost of the first one I purchased over 30 years ago.

How might students cut down on the time consumed by binge drinking? That was the challenge confronted by this Tennessee fraternity's members.

After considerable lab and library research they settled upon an hypothesis involving rates of absorption. They had already amassed significant quantities of anecdotal evidence that eating before drinking reduced the sensation of drunkenness -- as well as the desired onset of the lack of any sensation whatsoever.

"How else might alcohol be injected into the human body?" they asked. They considered the use of a syringe, injecting alcohol directly into the blood, but decided the risks of sharing needles -- almost compulsory among blood brothers -- outweighed the possible advantages of this approach.

Probing for other orifices into which alcohol might be injected they ultimately came to the realization they had been sitting on it all along. And so was born the "alcohol enema hypothesis."

The results were staggering -- but also frightening. Erik Schelzig, "Univ. of Tennessee fraternity's alcohol enema has deadly risk," Associated Press/Decatur Daily [Knoxville, Tennessee], September 29, 2012. As Mr. Schelzig explains:

Before an unruly Tennessee party ended with a student hospitalized for a dangerously high blood alcohol level, most people had probably never heard of alcohol enemas.

Thanks to the drunken exploits of a fraternity at the University of Tennessee, the bizarre way of getting drunk is giving parents, administrators and health care workers a new fear.

When Alexander "Xander" Broughton, 20, was delivered to the hospital after midnight on Sept. 22, his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.448 percent — nearly six times the intoxication that defines drunken driving in the state. Injuries to his rectum led hospital officials to fear he had been sodomized. . . .

Police documents show that when an officer interviewed a fellow fraternity member about what happened, the student said the injuries had been caused by an alcohol enema. . . .

Broughton . . . denied having an alcohol enema. Police concluded otherwise from evidence they found at the frat house, including boxes of Franzia Sunset Blush wine.

"He also had no recollection of losing control of his bowels and defecating on himself," according to a university police report that includes photos of the mess left behind in the fraternity house after the party. . . .

Alcohol enemas have been the punch lines of YouTube videos . . .. But Corey Slovis, chairman of department of emergency medicine and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said actually going through with the deed can have severe consequences.

"It's something that offers no advantages, while at the same time risking someone's life," he said.

The procedure bypasses the stomach, accelerating the absorption rate, Slovis said. Pouring the alcohol through a funnel can increase the amount of alcohol consumed because it's hard to gauge how much is going in. . . .

The effects have been fatal in at least one case. An autopsy performed after the death of a . . . Texas man in 2004 showed he had been given an enema with enough sherry to have a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. . . .

Gordon Ray, a senior from Morristown, said the details of the case caught him off guard, but not the fact that fraternity members would be overdoing it with alcohol.

"It is definitely over the top," said Ray. "But it doesn't surprise me, I don't guess." . . .

James E. Lange, who coordinates alcohol and drug abuse prevention strategies at San Diego State University, said alcohol enemas aren't a common occurrence on campuses, though normal consumption still contributes to hundreds of student deaths annually. . . .

And many of those can be attributed to reckless attitudes about the consequences of heavy drinking, he said.

"It's not unusual to hear that students are drinking to get drunk," he said. . . .

All I can say is, "Thank goodness those Tennessee boys weren't drinking."

# # #

UI Greek Frat Behavior 'Aberrant'?!

September 26, 2012, 9:20 a.m. (now with Sept. 27 and 28 updates); and for one school's alternative to fraternity boys drinking, see "Clean Streets and Creative Consumption; At Last, Less Drinking," Sept. 30.

Alcohol Abuse and Sexual Assault, or "Fine Public Service"?
On September 11 Iowa City Police began investigating an alleged sexual assault at a UI fraternity that occurred September 8. Residents had been charged with alcohol-related offenses earlier this summer. On September 24 the fraternity's national headquarters suspended the group and expelled its current members, citing "hazing and the chapter's failure to comply with our standards . . .." That day the UI mentioned "illegal alcohol consumption" at the fraternity house.

And how has the University responded?

With a defense of the Greek system. As a top administrator put it, “I believe that it is an aberrant incident that does not accurately represent life at the University of Iowa. To the contrary, . . . members of the Greek system . . .provide a great deal of fine public service." Josh O'Leary, "Police investigate sex assault at SAE; Incident was reported earlier this month, before fraternity was closed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 26, 2012, p. A1.

That UI assertion was challenged in the first version of this blog entry, September 26. It concluded with, "The problems are endemic. They are not aberrations. They deserve and require proactive approaches." A couple anonymous fraternity advocates responded strongly to that assertion (which engendered a rejoinder from another anonymous blog reader; all are at the bottom of this blog entry).

This morning's [Sept. 28] Gazette, relying on the University's own data, confirms what was admittedly only an assumption on my part two days ago. Diane Heldt, "UI frat’s members had high arrest, citation rate; Sigma Alpha Epsilon was closed by national headquarters this week," The Gazette, September 28, 2012, p. A2. The arrest records, largely alcohol-related, for fraternity and sorority members are substantially above those for other student groups (details below).

As it happens, the arrest record is held by the very fraternity involved in this week's news, SAE. Arrest records for members of Greek houses generally are nothing to brag about, given averages above those for other student populations. But among them, SAE had the highest percentage of members arrested, at 27 percent.

This raises a number of issues.

(1) When the University's own data shows that with regard to Greek houses "the problems are endemic" and "not aberrations," why would a top UI administrator describe SAE's offenses as "an aberrant incident that does not accurately represent" Greek life?

(2) Given SAE's excessively high arrest record, why was there no intervention from the University -- which professes to monitor, and care about this very problem -- before now?

Diane Heldt's story, linked above, reports, "'the figures [on arrests of Greek house members] have generated numerous conversations, particularly between the university administrators and student representatives in the Greek community,' Tom Baker, associate dean of students, said via email Thursday. . . . 'One of the things we’re working on is trying to reduce the [arrest] rates in our fraternity and sorority chapters,' he said."

Let's take UI's administrators at their word: they are "trying to reduce the rates" of arrests of members of Greek houses. But if that is truly the case, wouldn't you think they would have done something -- whether increased security and monitoring, or merely educational programs -- within the house with the single highest arrest record of any Greek house on campus, a house that has been visited by police 28 times in five years -- something more, that is, than merely "numerous conversations"?

The hard copy Gazette contains the reproduction of much of the University's data. Unfortunately, the paper does not appear to have made this valuable information available online. So here are some excerpts:

For 2010-11 the University's data reveals that the percentage of undergraduate males' with arrests was 6%, whereas the rate for fraternity members was 15.1%. Fraternity members may provide "fine public service," but they also provided that year nearly three times the percentage of arrests of male undergraduates generally.

It was not that much better for females. They had lower rates than males, overall, but the sorority sisters were arrested at roughly two times the arrest record for undergraduate females generally: 7.4% vs. 3.8%.

Yes, the rates go up (from 2009-10 to 2010-11) and down (from 2010-11 to 2011-12). But the contrast between the undergraduate population generally, and the arrest records for members of Greek houses persists.

So much for the "aberration."

With regard to the charges of hazing, and the practice of hazing among Greeks nationally, see Jordyn Reiland, "Experts respond to UI Sigma Alpha Epsilon controversy," Daily Iowan, September 26, 2012 ("In 2008 and 2009, ΣΑΕ . . . faced complaints of hazing, in which sanctions were imposed").

With regard to what triggered the most recent investigation, see Jordyn Reiland, "Sigma Alpha Epsilon frat removed from UI campus following 'hazing and violations,'" Daily Iowan, September 25, 2012 ("A current member of the fraternity . . . said he believes an incident that occurred four weeks ago sparked the investigation, which eventually found hazing and violations. According to the member, the fraternity hosted a party during which attendees consumed alcohol. At the party, members found a female lying unconscious on the ground outside the house. The student said members brought the female to the hospital.") For an update on the allegations of sexual assault, see "SAE headquarters says it decided to close UI chapter before learning of investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen online, September 26, 2012, 4:44 p.m. [hardcopy: Josh O'Leary, "Report: Alleged Victim Sustained Injuries; SAE: Decision Made Before it Knew of Police Probe," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 27, 2012, p. A1.] And see, Vanessa Miller, "Iowa City police called to now-closed fraternity 28 times in five years," The Gazette, September 27, 2012, p. A5 ("Iowa City police since 2007 have received 28 calls for service to . . . the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house that was closed earlier this week following hazing allegations and is at the center of a sexual assault investigation.").

For the current housing status of the former fraternity members living in the house, see Stacey Murray, "SAE members have chance for appeal," The Daily Iowan, September 27, 2012.

[Photo credit: Benjamin Roberts / Iowa City Press-Citizen /.] Now don't get me wrong. I'm willing to believe that there are a good many members of fraternities who've chosen the Greek life because they wanted a quiet place to study, and a circle of friends who understand the hazards of binge drinking. And there probably are many a sorority sister who could be said to "be an angel who spends all winter, bringin' the homeless blankets and dinner, a regular Nobel peace prize winner." (From Lee Ann Womack's, "I'll Think of a Reason Later.") See Editorial, "Greeks can lead UI to better reputation," Daily Iowan, September 4, 2012.

But as for the characterization of the punished behavior as an "aberration," it's worthwhile to reproduce Josh O'Leary's recitation of prior Greek troubles on this campus.

The closure of the SAE chapter, which was founded in 1905, is the latest in a long line of UI fraternities that have faced periods of imposed dormancy because of violations in recent years:

• In January 2008, Delta Upsilon International Fraternity closed its 82-year-old UI chapter after four of its members were arrested for allegedly dealing drugs. UI had suspended the chapter the previous month during an investigation.

• International leaders of Phi Gamma Delta suspended its UI chapter and closed its Iowa City house in August 2005 following a party involving alcohol. The fraternity had already been on probation for more than three years, originally stemming from hazing and followed by problems with alcohol.

• Alcohol use and hazing at UI’s Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity prompted school officials to suspend the local chapter in November 2004 for five years. UI said fraternity members provided alcohol to pledges at the chapter house and that some of the eight pledges had performed calisthenics, such as push-ups or jumping jacks, as part of a pledge test, which UI considers hazing.

• UI revoked the Phi Delta Theta fraternity’s recognition in January 2002 after investigating a former fraternity member’s complaint that he and other new members were forced to drink fifths of various hard liquors in a 20-minute stretch. The fraternity admitted alcohol violations but disputed its members engaged in hazing, and UI eventually dropped the hazing charge. In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ordered UI pay the fraternity $73,000 in damages.

• In 2000, Pi Kappa Alpha was suspended for one year for having alcohol at its chapter house. Fraternity members were ordered to vacate at that time, as well, because the house was labeled “unfit and unsafe for human habitation.”

• In April 1999, the Delta Tau Delta fraternity vacated its house after its national headquarters suspended the UI chapter for a minimum of four years for violating alcohol and drug policies. The fraternity had been affiliated with UI for 119 years.

• In September 1995, Lambda Chi Alpha pledge Matthew Garafalo, 19, was found dead at the Clinton Street fraternity house. Doctors later determined his blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit when he died from choking on his own vomit. The fraternity was suspended for five years.

SAE an aberration? I think not.

The problems associated with the Greek culture are similar to those surrounding the campus alcohol consumption culture, and the externalities, conflicts of interest, and resulting culture that are created when we embed in the academy what amounts to farm clubs for the NFL and NBA.

The problems are endemic. They are not aberrations. They deserve and require proactive approaches. Otherwise Josh O'Leary's list is destined to merely increase over time, as each hazing revelation, death, sexual assault, and alcohol-related arrest comes to light, receives media attention to the detriment of the University, and is dismissed as just another "aberration."

# # #

Abandoning Romney

September 22, 2012, 2:40 p.m.

Foreign Relations Disqualification, Now Domestic, Too
Last March I wrote a favorable blog entry about Mitt Romney. "Why Mitt Romney? Better than 'Least Worst' Republican," March 22, 2012. Today I need to provide a significant addendum to those remarks.
Why Romney?
The March blog entry explained how I got to Romney: "This [every-four-years] round, my first Republican favorite was Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. (See IN.gov/gov, and Mitch Daniels, wikipedia.org.) Once Daniels made it clear he was not running, I switched to Jon Huntsman (see "And the winner is . . . Jon Huntsman; Jon Huntsman . . . Better than 'Least Worst Republican,'" June 26, 2011; and "Jon Huntsman, Jr.," wikipedia.org."

My addendum today is that I should have stuck with those choices rather than compulsively moving on to the third in line because of an irrational felt need to list somebody.

For what I realize today is that Romney has now demonstrated, during the ensuing months, a lack of the ability to be an acceptable president -- first with regard to foreign affairs, and now domestic as well.

Why would I, a Democrat -- albeit one who wishes we'd promptly enact instant-runoff voting so that I could vote in elections with both my heart and my head -- bother to write anything favorable about a Republican challenger to a Democratic president seeking re-election? As I wrote in March, after the November election "the president is virtually guaranteed to be either a Democrat or Republican -- whether chosen by the voters or the Supreme Court justices. . . . I'm not interested in encouraging the nomination of the Republican candidate least likely to win. I want the Republican candidate who, if she or he wins, will do the best job."

As I was quick to make clear, "That doesn't mean I'll be sending them money, going door-to-door on their behalf, or voting for them. . . . I've said nothing so far about his [Romney's] likely positions on the issues, were he to become president. He would probably seldom come up with the solutions that I would."

But I was willing to grant, "As I've learned more about Romney, I've become increasingly impressed with his smarts, education, experience, accomplishments, commitment to public service, and obvious managerial ability in running a presidential campaign. . . . What I see . . . is a bright, well informed, analytical, hard working, focused, pragmatic, problem-solving manager. A little touch of 'Elvis' would be comforting, but it doesn't trump the other qualities." I considered his Mormon religion a plus. ("I think it useful for individuals . . . to carry a moral compass that they check for directions from time to time.")

His lack of "Elvis" appeared almost endearing at that time; a man with six homes, one of which had elevators for his automobiles, making the efforts of a somewhat sheltered, shy, very wealthy guy trying, and failing, to reach out to working- and middle-class Americans: "Nor do I find his seeming inability to speak the language of ordinary Americans disqualifying -- that his tie to NASCAR fans is that he knows a number of folks who own race teams, his appeal to UAW members is that his wife has two Cadillac cars, that his income from lecture fees is only a modest $300,000-plus. I find such unscripted comments almost charming in an odd sort of way."

His Foreign Relations Lack Sensitivity, Knowledge, Common Sense
The first evidence of Romney's lack of foreign relations finesse came, one, two, three, during his London-Israel-Poland trip. "Romney as Ambassador-in-Chief; When Experience and Common Sense Matter," July 31, 2012.

Another shocking revelation came during his ill-fated remarks at the fund raising event in Boca Raton on May 17: "And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, . . . and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way. . . . [I]t's going to remain an unsolved problem." "Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video," Mother Jones, September 19, 2012. Other comments of his on this, and other, occasions reveal an almost total reliance on an ever-increasing military budget (without specifying how it would be spent), and absence of his awareness of the role of diplomacy, intelligence gathering, police (as distinguished from military) presence, Peace Corps and student and other exchanges of citizens, and foreign aid -- as at least a part of an integrated approach to dealing with the world's problems and our best national interests.

Most recently his unfortunate and untimely comments at the time of the uprisings in Libya and Egypt were greeted with disapproval from all quarters -- including thoughtful Republicans with foreign relations experience. See, e.g., Jack Mirkinson, "Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed,'" The Huffington Post, September 12, 2012 ("Many members of the media reacted with puzzlement and criticism to Mitt Romney's continuing criticism of the White House response to the deadly attacks in Libya and Egypt. The Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt . . ..").

His Ignorance of the American People is Appalling
You've probably already seen this quote. But here are portions of it again, before some comments about its significance.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. . . .

"These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. . . . And so my job is not to worry about those people — I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video," Mother Jones, September 19, 2012 (transcriiption by Sydney Brownstone, Maya Dusenbery, Ryan Jacobs, Deanna Pan, and Sarah Zhang).

Where to begin? For starters, his math and assertions are a little confusing and garbled. (1) It's true that something like 47% of the American people pay no "federal income tax." (2) There is a percentage of both Republicans and Democrats that can be counted on to register and vote, and to vote for their parties' candidates. I don't have such numbers, but would doubt that they reach 47% of "the people" for either party. (3) There are undoubtedly some people who come close to Romney's description. Again I have no numbers; they probably don't exist. But whatever they are, they aren't 47% of "the people." (4) Nor is there an overlap between all these 47% -- those who feel they are "entitled," who also don't pay income taxes, who also all will vote for President Obama. (5) In fairness, one tries to turn "my job is not to worry about those people" into a strategic comment about his conduct of a campaign; that he needs to concentrate on those who have not yet made up their minds, rather than those who will vote for Obama no matter what. But when he follows it with "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility" it ends up sounding more judgmental, and dismissive, than strategic politics.

His comments about the payment of taxes are particularly ironic. (1) One who is unemployed, unable to work due to disability or age (either too young or too old), or living in poverty as a member of the working poor, may well have good reason for not paying federal income tax. (2) However, there are very few among those Americans who don't qualify as federal income tax payers who are not "taxpayers." The largest group is paying payroll taxes (now 15% according to Romney). There are the FICA (Social Security) and Medicare payments, state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, and a variety of other payments to the federal and states' governments.

Note, there is no significant difference between (a) someone who owes $10,000 in federal income tax, pays it, but qualifies for a $1000 federal payment of one kind or another, and (b) someone who would owe $10,000 in federal income tax, but doesn't need to pay it, because they qualify for a 10% lower income tax rate. Both end up netting $9000 to the government.

Now consider Mitt Romney's "entitlement." His tax on his just-reported 2011 adjusted gross income of $13.7 million, at even a mere 35%, would have been $4.8 million. Instead, it was only $1.9 million -- that looks to me like nearly $3 million less than what his secretary would have to pay, if he paid her a salary of $13.7 million. A pretty hefty entitlement I'd say. And based on his insistence of even greater tax breaks for the "job creators" it's not unfair to call it the equivalent of the "entitlements" he criticizes in others. Nicholas Confessore and David Kocieniewski, "Romney Reveals He Paid 14% Rate in '11 Tax Return," New York Times, September 22, 2012, p. A1.

Moreover, quoting from the Times, "Mr. Romney’s tax return for last year showed just how sensitive a political matter his wealth and tax rate has become. In a bit of reverse financial engineering, he and his wife, Ann, gave up $1.75 million worth of charitable deductions, raising his tax payments significantly.

"Had he claimed all the deductions to which he was entitled in 2011, his effective rate could have dipped to near 10 percent, contradicting his past assurances that he had never paid below 13 percent.

"But forgoing the full deductions available to him put him at odds with his own past assertions that he had never paid more taxes than he owed and his statement that if he had done so, 'I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president,” as he put it to ABC News in July.'"

(Although well beyond merely cynical, I assume that after the election he could file an amended return and get the full benefit of his unused deductions.)

But so far we've just considered the inconsistencies, miscalculations and ironies in his remarks. Let us turn for a moment to what is most troublesome.

It's fair, I believe, putting aside his erroneous 47%, to conclude that he truly believes there are a significant number of the American people "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. . . . [And that he will] never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Unlike last March, when I found "such unscripted comments [demonstrating his detachment from ordinary Americans] almost charming in an odd sort of way," these remarks are no longer charming. In addition to the ignorance they reveal, his distance from, and lack of empathy for, the bulk of the American people, they are also mean spirited in a way I formerly assumed did not exist within Romney. Apparently they do.

Coupled with Romney's demonstrated lack of intuitive competence and common sense with regard to foreign relations, I must with sorrow go back to my original selections of Daniels and Huntsman as the ones the Republicans should have chosen -- albeit too late in the campaign to do the Party any good.
# # #

Anheuser-Busch, UI & Hawks a Win-Win-Win

September 17, 2012, 12:10 p.m.
Advertising Pays
There are numerous stories of the almost miraculous impact of advertising, including these from the 1960s reported in How to Talk Back to Your Television Set: "Alberto Culver relied almost exclusively on television advertising, and pushed its sales from $1.5 million in 1956 to $80 million in 1964. The manufacturer of the bottled liquid cleaner Lestoil undertook a $9 million television advertising program and watched his sales go from 150,000 bottles annually to 100 million in three years--in competition with Procter and Gamble, Lever Brothers, Colgate, and others. The Dreyfus Fund went from assets of $95 million in 1959 to $1.1 billion in 1965 and concluded, 'TV works for us.'" How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (1970), pp. 21-22.

Now it looks like the story of the joint marketing agreement between the University of Iowa and Anheuser-Busch -- designed to increase sales of the company's beer to the University's college students -- is soon to join those historic tales.

Last week's game did not go very well on the field, or in the adjoining neighborhood. "Football Trash Talk; Iowa City: Where Great Minds Drink Alike," September 12, 2012.

Last Saturday's [Sept. 15] game against UNI went better both on and off the field. The Hawks won, 27-16, and there may have been slightly less drunkenness and trash on the neighbors' property -- although as this picture shows, there's still a shortage of students brought up to pick up. And a part of the reason may still be alcohol consumption. Last week I relayed that the Daily Iowan reported 78 arrests; this morning it reported 119. "Police Blotter," Daily Iowan, September 17, 2012.

Some of the arrest records reveal the seriousness of the problem. (Names, although in the public record and media, redacted from this blog entry for reasons of privacy and lack of relevance.) Note that the legal age in Iowa for obtaining or consuming alcohol is 21. You can argue about what it ought to be, but that is what it is. Of the following individuals, one was one day over 21, all others were under the legal age. Thus, not only were they illegally consuming alcohol; someone had illegally provided them that alcohol. Note also that the blood alcohol level that constitutes DWI is 0.08 percent. All whose blood alcohol percentages were mentioned here were over that level. (Another man, over 21, who tried to enter the University Hospital through a plate glass window, had a level of 0.310.) Here's an excerpt from the report: "[Name], 21, of Cedar Rapids, told officers he partied a bit too hard for his 21st birthday. [He] was found vomiting inside Kinnick Stadium and blew a .123 on a preliminary breath test. He was arrested for public intoxication. [Name], 18, of Iowa City; [Name], 19 of Cedar Rapids; and [Name], 19, of Iowa City, all were found passed out in Kinnick Stadium restrooms within 30 minutes of each other. [Name] was vomiting and [Name] had defecated on herself. All three women had blood-alcohol contents between .127 percent and .177 percent. They were arrested for public intoxication. Men pass out inside Kinnick Stadium, too, as proven by . . . [Name], 19, of Iowa City. . . . [He] was found passed out in a bathroom. . . . [Name], 20, of Iowa City, was arrested after he tried to carry prohibited items into the stadium . . .. He refused a breath test but was charged with public intoxication . . .." Lee Hermiston, "Gameday Arrests Down From ISU Game," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2012, p. A1. (Differences in numbers of arrests are due to a "gameday" only count and the Daily Iowan's "Police Blotter" report on Monday from the football weekend -- which showed an increase between the ISU and UNI weekends.)

What also was different this last Saturday was that my eye began to focus on the content of the trash, like that of an archeologist digging through the remnants from an ancient civilization. The ratio of Anheuser-Busch beer can containers to those of the company's competitors was grossly disproportionate -- something I'd failed to notice the week before (although I see one of the pictures I displayed in last week's blog entry does show such a container).

In case you missed the news, the University of Iowa and its Athletic Department have entered into a joint marketing agreement with Anheuser-Busch. The company gets to associate itself with UI athletics with its use of the Herky logo, in exchange for which the University gets some cash. For background and commentary on the Anheuser-Busch deal, UI's alcohol programs, and numerous ignored proposals for improvement, see, among many more, e.g.: "UI Administrators 'Shocked' By School's Beer Ads," August 30, 2012; "'We're # 2!' . . . in Campus Drunks," August 21, 2012; "A Busch in the Hand is Worth . . .," June 16, 2012; "Lessons from Lincoln: Reducing Binge Drinking Hazards," May 21, 2010; UI's Alcohol Abuse: Look to Nebraska," December 28, 2009; UI's Alcohol Problem: Many Solutions, Little Will; Alcohol Back in the News? No, Always in the News," December 16, 2009 (with links to 30 more); "Getting Real About Alcohol," January 18, 2008.

From the looks of the trash this week, it looks like it's a win-win-win. The Hawks win the game, and Anheuser-Busch's sales of Bud Lite and Busch Lite must be way up.

The other thing to notice in these first two pictures are the empty containers of Anheuser-Busch product that have been dropped within arms reach of trash containers that could easily have held them.

Here are more examples of Anheuser-Busch sales at a variety of other locations.

Advertisers are always looking for tangible evidence that the millions they spend on advertising, with and without logos, is actually having some impact. Anheuser-Busch and the University should be very proud of what, together, they have been able to accomplish. The proof is in the trash.

# # #