Virginia Libertarian

Yet another example of stupid, inane, backwards (how many
adjectives can I use?), moronic zero tolerance school policies. The
thing here is, the principal here had discretion to not recommend the kid
for expulsion, but did anyway!

Family
says Warren Township eighth-grader is being punished too harshly for doing
the right thing

By William J. Booher

A Far-Eastside couple say they are stunned that a Warren
Township Schools principal suspended their son and recommended his expulsion
for possession of a pocketknife even though he turned the knife in to the
office as soon as he arrived at school.

After turning in the knife, the eighth-grader was suspended
from Stonybrook Middle School for 10 days and may be expelled.

Elizabeth Voge-Wehrheim and Frank Wehrheim, the boy’s
mother and stepfather, have hired Indianapolis attorney Lawrence T. Newman
to represent them.

“This young man made the most responsible choice
under any policy possible,” Newman said of the boy, Elliot Voge. “They
are treating him as the most irresponsible student under the circumstances.”

Elliot, 14, said he was walking to the school entrance
in the brisk weather March 3 and had placed his hands in his coat pocket
when he felt the Swiss army pocketknife in the pocket.

“I went straight to the office right inside (the
front door),” he said.

He said he handed the knife to Teri Donahue, the school’s
treasurer, and told her he had brought it to school by mistake.

As a result of Elliot’s actions, the school’s principal,
Jimmy Meadows, suspended Elliot for the maximum 10 school days as allowed
by law and recommended Elliot be expelled. A confidential expulsion hearing
is scheduled for April 10.

Suspending and seeking to expel Elliot until June 6 under
the circumstances have so stunned Elliot, his mother and stepfather that
they agreed to go public with his situation.

“When Mr. Meadows said he was referring Elliot for
expulsion, I was in shock,” said Voge-Wehrheim.

Jeff Swensson, Warren Township Schools’ associate superintendent,
said a principal in Indiana has the discretion to suspend a student for
virtually any reason for up to 10 school days by state law but can only
recommend expulsion.

A “very well-documented” hearing is held before
a student is expelled, and there’s no foregone conclusion, Swensson said.

On March 21, Superintendent Peggy Hinckley appointed an
external hearing examiner. She wrote “there’s reasonable grounds for
investigation” after she reviewed the charges.

In his expulsion recommendation summary dated March 6,
Meadows wrote that “Elliot informed me that he had a knife in his
coat pocket because he was working outside on some wooden objects the day
before.

“Elliot put the knife into his pocket after he completed
the tasks,” Meadows’ summary continued, “and forgot to remove
the knife from his coat.”

Elliot said he was stunned to feel the knife in his pocket
just seconds after he left a van about 7:20 a.m. March 3 that was driven
by a classmate’s mother. She had dropped him off near the school’s entrance.

Elliot said in an interview that he was on the front porch
at his home on Thursday, March 2 — a day off because it was a professional
day for teachers — with his brother Tristan, 10, using Tristan’s Swiss
army knife to whittle wood.

Swiss army pocketknives are actually multipurpose tools,
which may include a screwdriver, pliers and a bottle cap opener.

Meadows, in his expulsion-recommendation summary, wrote:
“Realizing that the knife was an item he should not have on school
property, Elliot immediately went into the main office and handed the knife
to our school treasurer.”

Meadows noted in his summary that “throughout the
entire investigation and student due-process, Elliott (sic) was a model
student.”

The principal pointed out he asked Elliot “if he
knew of another situation at Stonybrook where a knife was involved and
the consequences given. Elliot acknowledged he knew first-hand of the situation
and outcome.”

Elliot later explained in an interview that a knife fell
out of a pocket of a classmate in February in a fourth-period class, and
the boy was suspended and later expelled.

In recommending Elliot’s expulsion, Meadows, who could
not be reached for comment last week, noted, “I personally wrote to
Stonybrook parents twice this year concerning weapons, the school’s actions,
protocols and procedures. I also reiterated the importance in communication
with our students concerning this serious matter.”

Besides being notified by letter on March 21 of the expulsion
effort against Elliot, the boy’s mother received a letter dated March 20
from Michael J. Wallpe, Warren Township Schools’ associate superintendent
of school improvement.

Ironically, the letter states that Elliot is recommended
for advanced placement courses in English, science and social studies for
his freshman year at Warren Central High School.

Voge-Wehrheim said her son’s suspension already has damaged
grades on his latest report card.

She and Elliot note he has always had good grades, has
participated in a variety of school activities and has never had any other
disciplinary matter arise against him in his school years.

The family’s attorney said school officials’ actions send
students the wrong message.

“Their message is to be dishonest, take more chances,”
Newman said.

He said Elliot could not be worse off at this point in
school discipline than if he had taken the knife to school intentionally,
kept it with him in school where it could pose a risk and just happened
to get caught.

“What’s the incentive?” Newman said of students
who want to do the right thing.

School policy requires students “to report knowledge
of deadly or dangerous weapons or threats of violence to the school administration.”

Elliot “didn’t want to keep it (the knife) on his
person,” Newman said. “The school is saying, ‘Don’t make this
responsible choice.’ “

Soda and the Sin Tax

by Robert Murphy

In the intellectual battle for liberty, sometimes it’s a good idea to skip the latest high-brow attack on capitalism from the Left or Right and instead poke fun at a ridiculous news article. A recent AP story, “Scientists in food fight over soda,” provides a perfect target.
The article begins by informing us of new reports in science journals that “add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don’t just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it.” The point is important because “proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold — maybe even a surgeon general’s warning on labels.”
Before continuing, I note with dismay that I am old enough to remember when libertarians and conservatives would object to government interference with tobacco and alcohol by asking, “What next? Will the government start taxing fatty foods and put warning labels on fettuccine alfredo?” I can honestly remember that the proponents of the “serious” regulations dismissed this particularly slippery slope argument as absolutely absurd, that nobody would ever advocate a tax on fatty foods. And yet now, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill defends the taxes on soda by pointing out, “We’ve done it with cigarettes.”
The news article, in a nod to fairness and balance, naturally quotes people who are scandalized by the proposals. For example, Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, says, “The science is being stretched.” Ah, but don’t worry about his view, because immediately after the quote the article tells us, “[Drewnowski] owns stock in beverage companies and has done extensive research in the field, much of it financed by industry but also some by government.”
There are all sorts of things that bother me about that last bit. First, do you mean to tell me that the reporter couldn’t find one single qualified scientist who opposes these new regulations, and yet doesn’t own stock in beverage companies? The way the article currently reads, the only scientists who oppose the taxes are the stooges of the corporations. Besides Drewnowski, the article quotes a Richard Adamson who said it’s “laughable” to compare obesity with lung cancer, but the reader is quickly told that Adamson is “a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association.”
Second, what about the government funding of all of the pro-tax scientists? These connections are ignored; for example, the article didn’t mention that Barry Popkin of UNC Chapel Hill is an employee of the government. If we are to automatically assume that anyone who is funded by the beverage industry would therefore oppose taxes on soda, why shouldn’t we also assume that anyone who is funded by the government would support taxes on soda (and everything else)? Note that I don’t simply mean the vague connection between tax receipts and scientific funding out of tax revenues; I am being far more cynical and suggesting that the government might be more willing to fund those scientists who get behind programs that expand the government’s power.
The Evidence
But by all means, let us move on to the evidence behind this scientific link. For example, we are told that soft drink consumption rose “more than 60 percent among adults and more than doubled in kids from 1977-97,” and that “the prevalence of obesity roughly doubled in that time.” Now get ready: “Scientists say these parallel trends are one criterion for proving cause-and-effect.”
I don’t really know that I need to ridicule that last sentence; just quoting it should be sufficient. But in case you don’t see what the big deal is, let me spell it out: Did we really need scientists to tell us that when two things happen at the same time, it suggests that there might be a cause-and-effect relationship? And, I’m sorry to say for these scientists, mere association is never ever proof of causation. The other “criterion” besides the “parallel trends” would be the complete absence of kids who drink more soda and don’t gain weight. Of course such counterexamples exist; there are indeed people who drink a lot of soda and aren’t obese. Whoops, there goes the possible proof of a strict cause-and-effect relationship.
But let’s go back to the precious statistics: “[A study] of 548 Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink consumed per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.” What exactly does this statement even mean? It surely doesn’t mean that if you drink two cans of soda per day, you have a 120 percent chance of being obese. So it must mean that of the 548 Massachusetts children who drank zero soft drinks, a certain percentage A were obese. Then if you look at the sample children who drank 1 soft drink per day, a certain percentage B were obese. Of the children who drank 2 sodas per day, C percent were obese, and so on. Now do you mean to tell me that B=(1.6)A, while C=(1.6)B, D=(1.6)C, etc.? In other words, do we really believe that the increase for “each additional sweet drink consumed per day” was 60 percent regardless of the number of initial drinks to which we add one? Of course not; even that figure of 60 percent must itself be an average. And for all we know, the initial percentage could be very low, so that even drinking 200 sodas per day gives you a 1 percent chance of being obese. (Naturally I don’t think that’s the case, but it could be, for the scant information provided by the news article.)
Our good friend Popkin also tells us that sugar-sweetened beverages “may be psychological triggers of poor eating habits and cravings for fast food.” To this end, he studied the dietary patterns of 9,500 American adults in a federal study and found that those “who drank healthier beverages — water, low-fat milk, unsweetened coffee or tea — were more likely to eat vegetables and less likely to eat fast food.” On the other hand, “fast food consumption was doubled if they were high soda consumers and vegetable consumption was halved.”
You don’t say, Dr. Popkin. Can I get some federal money too? I have a strong hunch that plastic sporks cause people to eat the unhealthful offerings at Taco Bell. In a follow-up study, I’ll examine the psychological triggers of their Mild and Hot sauce packs.
After giving a nod to the other side — but again, not without reminding the readers that they are all funded directly or indirectly by the beverage industry — the article closes with “[o]ne of the nation’s leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the American Cancer Society’s Dr. Michael Thun.” This august scientist adds the following to our understanding of this important social issue:
“Caloric imbalance causes obesity, so in the sense that any one part of the diet is contributing excess calories, it’s contributing causally to the obesity,” Thun said. “It doesn’t mean that something is the only cause. It means that in the absence of that factor there would be less of that condition.”
Did you get that, folks? Soda causes obesity in the sense that soda has calories, and so if you drink more soda and don’t cut back on other sources of calories, you’ll have more obesity. Who would’ve thought?
The Real Issue: Liberty
Unfortunately, not even the lapdogs of the beverage companies questioned the government’s authority to regulate against obesity — one of them actually suggested that instead of taxing soda, the government should subsidize vegetables!
Rather than make the case for consumer choice, these consultants (like the tobacco companies) try to argue the impossible and say that there is no established link between soda and obesity.
Now in fairness, these are the industry scientists, and so one could claim that their job is to argue about the science, while other industry representatives (the political economists?) should argue the freedom angle.
Even so, it’s depressing that in a fairly long news article, no one even mentioned the fact that consumers have a right to drink whatever they please, and that if indeed “public” schools are making kids overweight, that that’s yet another reason to shut them down (the government schools, not the kids).
Beyond the injustice of more looting every time you buy a soda, these proposals would be yet more precedent for future government invasions of liberty. In twenty years, when someone proposes that slothful television viewing be regulated, some scientist will no doubt say, “We did it with Coke.”

Original article here
For the footnotes, see here

Dr. Sarah Thompson provides that firearm prohibitionists use common defense mechanisms such as denial, projection and reaction formation in order to deal with their own psychological inadequacies. Here is one example:

It’s obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It’s equally obvious that law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you¹⁰ and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.¹¹ There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.¹² Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “the police will protect you”, “this is a safe neighborhood” and “it can’t happen here”, where “it” is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that “the government will never confiscate my guns” are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

After painting the picture that most people who oppose private ownership of firearms do so because of emotional reasons, she outlines mechanisms we can use to effectively communicate with them and perhaps even persuade some to reverse their illogical thought processes. Again, here’s an example:

Another example might be, “Why do you think that your children’s schoolteachers would shoot them?” You might follow this up with something like, “Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?” Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.
Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.

It’s important to ask “open-ended” questions that require a response other than “yes” or “no”. Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.

The flag is Green now, instead of Red. And the lyrics are different. But the tune is still the same old tune.When the Reds sang it, the lyrics were that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as “exploitation,” “monopoly,” and depressions. When the Greens sing it, the lyrics are that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. (Add an extra chorus now for global warming.)

The tune is still that the individual cannot be left free, that he cannot be left free because his peaceful pursuit of his own happiness and prosperity somehow inflicts harm on others, and that only the government’s pointing a gun at his head will save the rest of mankind from some dreadful calamity.

The Red thugs wanted to control the economic system to set things right. The Green thugs want to control the environment, especially the climate, to set things right.

The Red thugs had no idea of what they were doing and neither do the Green thugs. Just consider this statement from a supporter of prohibitions on carbon dioxide emissions in order to stop global warming:

One of the ironies of the Arctic melting is that it runs the risk of flipping the switch on oceanic thermohaline circulation and shutting down the Atlantic current - this could lead to a sharp cooling in Europe (which lies further north than the US), and appears to have happened in the past. (Posted by “Tokyo Tom” on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s Blog on March 30, 2006 08:24PM)
Here is someone who doesn’t even know if the global warming he wants to stop will turn out to be a continent-wide cooling instead. But that gives him no pause. He still thinks he knows enough to send the police out to stop people from acting on the knowledge they have about the good they can achieve for themselves by producing and buying goods that happen to emit some carbon dioxide into the air. Their knowledge is to count for nothing. The allegedly superior knowledge of “scientists” is to prevail—at the point of a gun.

That’s the bottom line. Pointing guns at people in the name of some higher collective good, and prohibiting them from achieving their own good. That’s socialism. That’s environmentalism.

This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. This article was adapted in part from p. 102 of the author’s Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). The author is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics