The Charleston Gazette is leading with breaking news that the Environmental Protection Agency has denied the Spruce Mine mountaintop removal permit. The Charleston Daily Mail is leading with breaking news that James Taylor has scheduled a concert in Charleston.
13 January 2011
25 October 2010
This weekend saw the publication of possibly the most significant leak of U.S. military documents in history. Wikileaks shared hundreds of thousands of pages of documents about the Iraq War – first with major media outlets like the New York Times and then with the rest of us. If reports are to be believed, the documents confirm a lot more deaths than originally reported, raise questions about our use of contractors to fight wars, and show that we were losing the war more badly than reported in 2006.
The latest set of WikiLeaks harken back to a similar event in 1971 when Daniel Ellsburg leaked a report commissioned by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to the New York Times and other publications. Unlike the Obama Administration, the Nixon Administration raced to court to stop continued publication of the papers by the New York Times, Washington Post, and ultimately others. Although the Nixon Administration raised concerns about the threat to military operations, the U.S. Supreme Court did not find them sufficiently grave to restrain the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
The landmark case stands for the proposition that there will be no prior restraints of the press in the absence of the most grave of threats to national security – and possibly not even then. (Importantly, the case does not stand for the proposition that a person may not be subsequently punished for violating the law in the publication process, assuming that law is constitutional.)
Does this leak put people – including U.S. soldiers – in harm’s way? Possibly, but that’s not yet certain, even though current Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that an earlier leak of Afghan War documents put Afghanis at risk even if it did not reveal any important secrets.
Wikileaks’ release of U.S. military documents raises difficult questions. Without people like Daniel Ellsburg and Julian Assange, about whom the New York Times ran a very interesting profile over the weekend, we likely would not know important truths about wars that went/have gone on for years – about whether we truly were winning or losing and about abuses that otherwise would have been covered up. But their leaks do risk collateral damage to our soldiers, our allies, and our image abroad.
I am struck by the relevance of a quotation by Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak that I stumbled upon this weekend. It technically is about the war on terror, but its words, as taken from a speech by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, resonate here.
[It] is the fate of a democracy [that] not all means are acceptable to it, . . . not all methods employed by its enemies are open to it. Sometimes, a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nonetheless, it has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitute an important component of [a democracy's] understanding of security. At the end of the day, [those values buoy up] its spirit and strength [and its capacity to] overcome [the] difficulties.
23 October 2010
The West Virginia Division of Culture and History has accepted $250,000 from Mylan Pharmaceuticals primarily for an addition to the State Museum featuring the company.
The Division’s decision sets a bad precedent. The subjects covered in the State Museum were selected by historians who gave them serious consideration. While the decision of those historians not to focus on Mylan apparently “dismayed” Mylan’s President and Governor Joe Manchin’s daughter Heather Bresch, it is perfectly understandable. Mylan’s history extends only several decades, and it is not representative of a larger West Virginia industry.
If the State Museum is to be accepted as a credible West Virginia history storyteller, it cannot sell its story-telling space.
7 October 2010
The National Academies issued its long-awaited report A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States last week. No one in West Virginia higher education seemed to notice – and for good reason. West Virginia was one of only two states not to have a higher education institution included among the 212 participating institutions.
Why did West Virginia University not participate? I suspect it is because the leaders of the state’s flagship university knew it would not have compared well on many of the measures of research success. As a result, though, West Virginia University lost a golden opportunity to compare itself research-wise with institutions that it aspires to have as its peers.
7 October 2010
As many of you know, I am a strong supporter of debate, particularly policy debate, as a tool for teaching students critical thinking skills. Now, it seems, even competitive high school public forum debate is no longer a safe place to debate the public issues of the day.
Earlier this month, the National Forensic League released the following Public Forum Debate topic for the month of November:
Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.
Within twenty-four hours, the topic was changed:
Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.
Apparently the original topic was too politically and religiously charged to debate. It would be one thing if the original topic were not readily debatable – that arguments on both sides could not be made. But that is far from the case.
- Pro Argument. America is a country that respects religious diversity, and the best way to ensure that our own religion will never be persecuted is to tolerate the religious activity of others as long as that activity doesn’t present an imminent threat to others’ health and safety.
- Con Argument. Ground Zero is a sacred place where America’s beliefs and ideals – primarily Christian – were attacked by Muslim extremists. People aligned with those extremists should not be allowed to build anything on that site that might denigrate the sacredness of the site, show disrespect for the people who died, or upset their families. Furthermore, allowing construction of a cultural center will create a greater chasm between Christians and Muslims, which harms both groups.
Various arguments – pro and con, religious and secular – could be framed easily by debaters who thought critically about the resolution. And I seriously doubt any high school debater making or hearing such arguments would be scarred for life as a result of the experience.
Instead it is the substitute topic, clearly developed hastily, that has a resounding answer: No! – if we want to teach high school students to think. Until now, I had assumed that was the one big non-debatable topic in the world of competitive debate. I apparently was wrong.
Recent Comments