How to save drunk idiots from themselves

I can’t say I’m entirely comfortable agreeing with the likes of the American Beverage Institute (ABI), one of several non-profit “institutes” and “centers” to have been founded by über-lobbyist Richard Berman. But I must admit that they have a point on this one: The National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) recommendation on legally acceptable blood alcohol levels for drivers is pointless, especially compared to another recommendation which the NTSB has endorsed, and behind which it should put much more weight.

The NTSB voted on Tuesday to advise that the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers be lowered to 0.05 percent from 0.08 percent. This would bring the U.S. threshold in line with those of certain European nations and Australia. (For the record, we Canadians also use the 0.08 percent threshold.) Here’s a quote from the NTSB report:

Many people believe that if a driver’s BAC is under the legal limit of 0.08, the driver is safe to drive. In reality, by the time a driver’s BAC reaches 0.08, his or her fatal crash risk has at least doubled, and some studies indicate it may be many times higher.

Sloppy writing. In the first sentence, they’re talking about under 0.08; in the second, they’re talking about at 0.08.

The 0.05 figure may come from this chart, from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Potsdam, which indicates that alcohol’s “buzz” peaks at 0.05. You’ll notice that at 0.08, the drinker’s state is still in “buzz” territory, although it’s wearing off fast. I can understand keeping the legal level above the “drunk line” to an extent. But what will monkeying around with that number really solve? More checkpoints here, fewer crashes there, but nothing that can be accurately described as “preventative.” Which brings me to the recommendation we like:

[Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)] is focused instead on getting states to adopt laws that require some convicted offenders to use devices that check blood alcohol content before starting a vehicle’s ignition.

Why stop there? If a device like this came standard on all new cars manufactured, and installation was made mandatory for all cars currently on the road, there could be no convictions for drunk driving offenses. I would also like to see this type of technology used to restrict automobile use to anyone whose fingertips are pre-cleared by the owner, which would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, thefts. Like black boxes, which many auto manufacturers have made standard on their own, at least part of this proposal would not require a legal mandate.

I’d say something about the 0.08 threshold being a good way to weed out the morons, but those morons put other drivers at risk, so that’s no good. Let’s oppose it because it’s just not worthwhile.

SSM opponents need to know when they’re beaten

One of my favorite reactions to the Minnesota Senate’s 37-30 vote to approve same-sex marriage (SSM) came from Dennis from Minneapolis, whose partner, Daniel, asked for his hand in legal marriage (they already had a religious ceremony) on Facebook. Dennis answered this way:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then one of their friends offered to make hotdish and bars for the wedding, which was also awesome if you know anything about Minnesota culture. But Dennis’s reaction is how I, along with many others, reacted to the vote, which followed 75-59 passage in the state House and will be signed into law today by Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN). That will make Minnesota the twelfth state in the U.S. to recognize SSM – on the heels of Delaware, which became the eleventh last week – and the first in the Midwest to do so in the legislature, not the judiciary.

The vote wasn’t without its problems, though. Senate Republicans offered a “religious freedom” amendment that fell, but is still a sobering reminder of how many opinions have yet to “evolve”:

. . . the Republican amendment would have extended protections to individuals with religious objections to doing business with gay couples.

I have no patience for anyone who thinks they should be able to run a secular entity with religious rules. Let’s play a game, shall we? You own a business. Someone wants to buy something. Your priority should be: a) whether or not they can pay for it, or b) whether or not their (consensual, adult) sexual activity makes you feel icky.

Contrast that amendment with one from State Rep. David FitzSimmons (D-Albertville), which inserted the word “civil” before “marriage” wherever it appears in Minnesota statutes, ensuring that religious entities could still be run with religious rules. The bill offers legal recognition of SSM, which is what matters. Yet State Sen. Carla Nelson (R-D26) complained that the new law “denies the right of a different opinion” and failed to “respect religious freedom” adequately. If it denied the right of a different opinion, how did she vote against it?

FitzSimmons has successfully boxed SSM opponents into a corner in which their demands for freedom of religion and opinion have, in fact, been satisfied. By that point, they’re really arguing for the freedom to discriminate. Short of removing the government from the marriage process entirely – which may not be the best idea if you want “consensual” and “adult” to remain criteria – this is the way to make sure SSM moves forward in the U.S. There may be a lot of evolving left to do, but I dare say most of Americans share that red line.

Finally, this is fake. Yeah, I was disappointed, too. Maybe next year.

Life takes merit-based visas

An emerging theme in coverage of proposed immigration reforms is the shift from the emphasis on cultural assimilation to an emphasis on economic benefits. It’s refreshing to see increasing numbers of people admit that immigration has plenty of said benefits. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), as well as civil rights groups, haven’t been as welcoming of the shift. Under current circumstances, it would require the elimination of the Diversity Visa (DV) Lottery Program, a move which they would like reversed.

In the DV program, 55,000 green cards are made available every year to residents of countries with low rates of emigration to the U.S. They must meet certain educational and employment criteria to qualify, in addition to living in an approved country, and after that they are selected in a lottery. Half of the available visas typically go to residents of Africa and the Caribbean. If the Gang of Eight’s reforms pass, the DV program will be replaced with new merit-based visa programs, with more stringent criteria.

Here’s Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who co-chairs the CBC’s immigration task force:

With respect to the abolishment of the diversity visa lottery program, the CBC is extremely concerned that it might limit the future flow of immigration for people from certain parts of the world. That’s troublesome, and we’re evaluating the merit-based visa proposal to determine if it’s fair and balanced.

He’s hit on a fact that few have been comfortable discussing. The Gang of Eight’s reforms do not discriminate by race or nationality, assuming there are no security concerns. The DV program ensures access for immigrants who come from less obvious countries. Should the reforms go into effect, it’s entirely likely that the newest influx of immigrants will originate from countries where they’ve enjoyed better health, education, jobs and political stability than they would have seen in Africa and the Caribbean. The unfairness started at home.

But that’s not enough to justify keeping the DV program. America’s priority is to get the best and the brightest coming to its soil. A better way for the U.S. to improve prospects for Africans and Caribbean citizens is through trade. Done ethically, private U.S. investment in sub-Saharan Africa could help create a few new emerging world markets, which the Chinese have already figured out, and in turn help their governments generate investment for public services.

Defenders of the DV program will also have to contend with Republican accusations that lottery-based programs invite fraud and abuse, and at times security risks. That, on top of the immediate need for immigrants who have the potential to help grow the economy, make the case against the program stronger than it was before we started talking about comprehensive reform.

The Gang of Eight’s immigration reforms: Meh

Well, my devoted followers, it’s finally here: A comprehensive immigration reform bill, brought to you by the Senate’s Gang of Eight. Let’s jump right in, shall we?

Border security: “Persistent surveillance” in certain areas of the border; a 90 percent benchmark for success in stopping border crossings; funding for 3,500 new customs agents nationwide; deploying the National Guard to construct new border fencing and improve surveillance systems; all of these things and others being the condition for provisional legal status for illegal immigrants already in the country. Well, that should satisfy the people crying “Amnesty!”, at least for a few minutes. But I have a hard time imaging that all of it will be done expediently.

Visas: Raising the cap on H-1B visas for high-skilled immigrants; a new W-visa program for low-skilled immigrants, with a progressively higher cap over four years; a new “merit-based” visa in which an applicant would rack up points for education, employment status and length of residency. If the arbitrary W-visa cap is destined to be replaced with a statistical projection for the number of visas needed, why not allot all visas that way? Also, as a mid-skilled worker, I’d like to see something I can actually use.

E-Verify: All U.S. business owners must use it. For those who are unfamiliar, E-Verify is an online system operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that allows employers to check an employee’s work authorization status, as detailed in their Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9, against government records. The system is free to use, so we can’t make the argument that it will place an undue burden on employers. I give it a thumbs-up.

Biometric work authorization cards: Non-citizens whose I-9s are clean will have to carry these cards, which contain chips that store information such as fingerprints and photographs, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep track of entries and exits from the country. I admit I’m pretty squicked out by this prospect; E-Verify isn’t rock-solid, but I would rather pay for improvements to enhance its accuracy than have the government keep track of people’s fingerprints, however they plan to use them.

Path to citizenship: If you entered the country illegally before December 31, 2011, it goes like this: Apply for temporary legal status → wait 10 years → pay back taxes, fees and a large fine → apply for a green card → wait three years → apply for citizenship. The paths differ for specific groups of immigrants (DREAMers will have a much easier time of it), but that’s the general pattern. Ten years seems excessive, though; hopefully it’s negotiable.

Overall, some good, some bad, some squicky. It may turn out to be the best thing they can draft that has a chance of passing (barely). And, really, did you expect more than that?

“Silver bullet” is probably not the best term

The effects of the Newtown shooting were felt all the way to here in Winnipeg, where Councillor Paula Havixbeck – who, because of her opposition to stupid tax hikes, is the only respectable councillor we have left – proposed an expansion of the city’s School Resource Officer (SRO) program. The inner-city school where my mother teaches has such an officer, and they like having him around. But this support for cops in schools has a different rationale than support for cops in schools within Congress.

Freshman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), along with six other House Republicans, is proposing the Protect America’s Schools Act, which would restore funding to the Cops in Schools grant program that has gone unfunded since 2005. The grants would go to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of hiring armed officers to patrol schools. The $30 million price tag would come from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operating funds that end up going unspent.

Despite the fact that everyone who has signed on to co-sponsor this bill is a Republican, it has bipartisan appeal. The program began during the Clinton administration, and one of President Obama’s non-tyrannical gun-related executive orders was to provide incentives to hire officers in schools. In addition, according to a Gallup poll taken in December, 53 percent of Americans believe an increased police presence in schools would be an effective way to prevent school shootings.

Except, as many people have pointed out, both Columbine High School and Virginia Tech had armed security on campus, and Fort Hood was full of armed military personnel. And for every example you can pick out of a police officer, on duty or off, or even a civilian stopping a violent criminal, someone else can pick out an example of someone mistaking an innocent bystander for a violent criminal. There are compelling arguments in favor of putting more cops in schools. The argument that mass shootings will disappear is not one of them.

Here’s the best reason to increase police presence in schools, especially in inner cities with longstanding problems with gang violence. A lot of kids in those schools grow up in an environment where cops are, at best, not trusted. (At worst . . . well, use your imagination.) Allowing cops to interact and build relationships with those kids could go a long way toward steering them away from violent lifestyles they might have pursued otherwise. Of course, the same can be said for better behavior among cops. (See yesterday’s post.)

If you want to stop a mass shooting before it starts, other ideas we’ve been kicking around – improved background checks and, yes, bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines – would go a much longer way there. The sooner we all accept it, the better.

Don’t send in the drones

So far, the majority of Americans are fine with the use of drones to kill high-level targets abroad, under certain (but not certain enough, in the opinion of many) circumstances. Support for domestic use, in the meantime, is lower and more defined, which should not come as a surprise to any of you. Already federal lawmakers are making efforts to establish guidelines for domestic drone use. But the drone industry isn’t too happy about this, so eager are they for police departments and others to take full advantage of the technology.

According to one survey, Americans are fine with using drones for search-and-rescue missions, catching criminals on the lam and patrolling borders. (Why they would bother patrolling the U.S.-Canada border, I don’t know; Canadian law enforcement would make better use of drones to curtail cheese smuggling.) Admittedly, if a drone can capture images of a criminal’s license plates, situations like this could be less of a problem. Wait, who am I kidding? We’re talking about the LAPD. They’d shoot first anyway.

In addition to certain aspects of law enforcement, domestic drones can be used for aerial photography and videography, making them especially appealing to the media. In Texas, state lawmakers are pursuing legislation that would a) require users, except for police and the military, to operate drones no higher than six feet off the ground in public areas and b) make it a misdemeanor to use drones to photograph or record anyone without their consent. It’s a start, although I predict a lot of “malfunctions” should paparazzi start using them, especially on “private” resorts.

Therein lies the biggest concern with drones, foreign or domestic. The industry and its backers may insist that they are not intended to be used for spying purposes. But how many people would be able to blame the drone should they photograph or record something incriminating? It’s the same collateral damage problem we grapple with in Pakistan and Yemen, only, presumably, domestic drones won’t be weaponized. At least, they won’t be sold that way.

Federally, Reps. Ted Poe (R-TX) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) are co-sponsoring the Preserving American Privacy Act (PAPA), which would ban the weaponization and warrantless police use of domestic drones. That’s a nice gesture. But how would they enforce a ban on weaponized domestic drones until one of them is used to kill someone? How long before police insist they need to weaponize their drones to pick off the Christopher Dorners of the nation? Hell, how long before the National Rifle Association (NRA) defines weaponized drones as arms that the people have a right to keep and bear?

Whether the industry likes it or not, they will have to be highly regulated in order to operate with as little suspicion as possible, and even that won’t be enough. Any American who fears the worms in this can is right to do so. It’s a big can.

So no aid for the sukkah?

Any instance of a politician discussing religion is bound to be volatile, as we Canadians were reminded this week. So it’s no surprise that a) federal disaster aid for houses of worship required brand-new legislation and b) it was not without some very vocal opposition. Nonetheless, after 354-72 passage in the House, Rep. Chris Smith’s (R-NJ) amendment to the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 is on its way to the Senate, where its chances of passing post-Superstorm Sandy are on the high side.

Under existing policy, religiously affiliated institutions such as parochial schools and religious hospitals are eligible for aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but houses of worship (HoW) are not. Smith’s amendment would simply make them eligible. Supporters of his amendment say this is fair because FEMA aid is “meant to be used broadly,” and would not give HoW preferential treatment. Opponents say the amendment violates another amendment by, in effect, “establishing religion.”

If, for example, a tornado ripped through Winnipeg – which hasn’t happened with confirmation since 1987 – and it destroyed our synagogue, I would understand if we appealed to the government for aid to fix the building itself: walls, ceiling, floors, plumbing, electricity, etc. There’s nothing explicitly religious about any of those, even if you put them together and make an HoW. But there would be a problem with asking for aid to fix the ark or the bimah. You only find those in synagogues.

Ideally, that would satisfy Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), one of the amendment’s more vocal opponents (and himself Jewish, for the record):

“. . . what we’re really talking about is whether we should be in the business of using taxpayer money to build and rebuild houses of worship, rebuild sanctuaries and altars that are not available for use for the general public.”

Is anyone talking about rebuilding altars? Smith’s bill doesn’t make the distinction I’ve outlined above – although the Senate could still do this – but even individuals who apply for FEMA aid are only allowed to use it to pay for specified things. This isn’t difficult.

I’m sure some people will try to spin this as a cost issue; after all, now that we’ve seen the bill for Sandy aid and President Obama is about to SPEND ALL THE MONIEZ (for those who watched the State of the Union through a certain filter), now isn’t the time to make aid more available. If you want to reform the disaster aid system, go ahead and do it. But don’t pick some recipients over others and call it a long-term cost saving; no one will buy that it’s out of disinterested concern for the budget.

Another note about our synagogue. It shares two hallways with an apartment building, so we would probably get aid in the event of a tornado no matter what. Ha ha.

The discrimination that wasn’t there

The extent of my childhood involvement in organized sports was maybe a month on the cross-country team in fifth grade, which I dropped because my phys ed teacher was the Abby Lee Miller of phys ed teachers. (Yes, I watch Dance Moms. Don’t judge me.) I just wasn’t into it to keep going – that’s all there was to it. Maybe that’s also all there is to the fact that 1.3 million fewer girls than boys in America play high school sports. Just try convincing the authors of the High School Data Transparency Act.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) – the latter of whose reputation around here falls ever lower – are behind this one, which

would direct the Secretary of Education to collect data on sports participation by gender, teams, race and ethnicity. The Department would also collect data on total expenditures for those teams.

Why? Here’s a quote from Slaughter’s press release announcing the bill:

Any girl in America who wants to participate in athletics should be given the chance to realize their dreams, and this bill will make sure they have that opportunity.

Just one problem: Neither Slaughter nor Murray has demonstrated that any girl in America who wants to participate in athletics isn’t being given the chance to realize her dream. (Subject-pronoun agreement is your friend.) They certainly haven’t demonstrated that the federal government has ignored the gap. The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1994 ensures non-discrimination in post-secondary institutions; Title IX of the Civil Rights Act ensures non-discrimination in all educational activities and programs.

Not only does this bill not identify a problem, it offers no solution. It authorizes the federal Department of Education to collect data on athletic participation already amassed by state Education Departments, and post it online. Who is going to do what with that data? Will it amount to a federal ad campaign aimed at non-athletic girls? Because people don’t like paying for those.

Much like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which does little for the cause of pay equity except to make it easier to sue over it, this bill doesn’t take into account human factors that may lead to gender gaps. One wonders if it’s occurred to Murray and Slaughter that, maybe, 1.3 million fewer girls than boys want to get involved in student athletics. There’s nothing the government can do to change that without being rightfully told to mind their business.

It’s interesting that Slaughter’s press release insists that girls get 1.3 million fewer opportunities to participate in sports, instead of just not taking them. How hard would it have been to trot out an actual girl who was told she couldn’t become an athlete? Couldn’t they have found one of those?

23 ways NOT to piss off America’s gun nuts

Commence condensed analysis of the 23 gun-related executive orders President Obama signed yesterday.

1. Requiring federal agencies to send “relevant data” to the federal background check system. Define “relevant.”

2. Address legal barriers that make it harder for states to send this data. Whatever.

3. Improve incentives for states to do this. They need incentives?

4. Order the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prevented from gun ownership. Filler.

5. Allow police to check an individual before returning a seized gun. Sure.

6. Send background check guidelines to gun sellers. Will they follow them?

7. Launch a responsible gun ownership campaign. You already are.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and safes. More filler.

9. Require federal police to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. Sure.

10. Release a report on lost/stolen guns to law enforcement. So carry out a plan?

11. Pick Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) director. See above.

12. Provide police, first responders and school officials with training for active shootings. Police don’t have that?

13. Maximize enforcement efforts. How?

14. Direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to research the causes of gun violence. OK, sure.

15. Look into the newest gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to create more. Yawn.

16. Clarify that doctors can ask patients about guns in their homes. Pretty obvious when that’s a good question.

17. Remind health care providers they can report violent threats to police. Really?

18. Incentives for school resource officers. I like that.

19. Develop emergency response models for schools and houses of worship. Their job.

20. Clarify which mental illnesses must be covered by Medicaid. Too much clarification.

21-22. Finalize various regulations relating to health benefits and parity.

23. Launch a national dialogue on mental health. Well, someone has to.

In short, no tyranny here. Got it?

Destroying embryos or destroying these guys’ grants?

If it’s at all possible to boil a high-profile lawsuit down to “This would cut in on our action,” you should probably just ignore the plaintiff. This is the case in Sherley v. Sebelius, in which two researchers, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, are suing the federal government over grants for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research:

They argued that they were at risk of being squeezed out of federal grants for their own work with adult stem cells, which does not involve the destruction of embryos.

You can’t see me right now, but I’m sarcastically rubbing the tips of my thumb and index finger together. But let’s explore their “It’s not about us” argument anyway:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to review a challenge to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research brought by two researchers who said the U.S. National Institutes of Health rules on such studies violate federal law. . . . U.S. law prohibits the NIH from funding the creation of human embryos for research or research in which human embryos are destroyed, but leaves room for debate over whether that includes work with [hESC].

This case is from 2009; an executive order from that year opened up hESC research on “embryos that come from fertility clinics and were going to be thrown away otherwise.” A district court ruling later blocked that order, followed by a ruling from an appellate court that allowed the funding to resume. The U.S. Supreme Court, like the rest of us, doesn’t want to deal with it anymore.

Some of you might wonder how it’s possible to extract stem cells from an embryo without destroying it or, in other cases, creating a new one. If you’re willing to read through a whole lot of biological jargon, you can read up on two methods, this one and this one, that researchers have discovered that skip either step. Assuming a future stem cell research project uses either method or something similar, nothing in U.S. law would prevent them from federal funding.

After that’s out of the way, the loudest arguments you’ll hear against using federal funds for hESC research are moral. The embryos that need not be destroyed do come from fertility clinics, after all, which means researchers are benefiting from abortion in many cases. That’s not a good enough reason to cut off opportunities for medical research with enormous potential to save and improve the lives of humans that have already been born. Are you a pro-lifer who disagrees? Don’t waste your time by telling me so.

As far as Sherley goes, there’s nothing more for the Supreme Court to do, and they responded accordingly by refusing to review the challenge to the appeal ruling. My condolences to Sherley and Deisher for potentially missing out on that sweet, sweet federal grant money. P.S. lol