Transcript
The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.
~Pericles, 431 BC It profits me but little, after all, that a vigilant authority always protects the tranquility of my pleasures and constantly averts all dangers from my path, without my care or concern, if this same authority is the absolute master of my liberty and my life. ~Alexis de Tocqueville It's a great day for baseball. Let's play two. ~Ernie Banks, 1972 U.S. Drones Fight Mexican Drug Trade 1. Define: drones, Pentagon, surveillance, sovereignty, counternarcotics, diplomatic tension, grievance, plausible deniability, shrouded 2. What attitude does the author of this article express toward the opposition by some Mexicans toward U.S. actions in the country’s drug war? 3. What U.S. actions does the article describe that are arguably violations of Mexican law? 4. “I think most Mexicans, especially in areas of conflict, would be fine about how much the United States is involved in the drug war, because things have gotten so scary they just want to see the bad guys get caught.” If crime became very high in America, what kinds of government actions might we accept that we would not normally accept? If our government collapsed, would we accept foreign governments’ attempts to end the chaos? 5. What is a drug war? Is our government at war with Mexican drug gangs? 6. Why does our government care about the outcome of Mexico’s drug war? 7. How do America’s actions violate Mexican law? Is it okay for the Mexican government to violate Mexican law? Is it okay for the American government to violate Mexican law if it has the permission of the Mexican government? 8. “Mr. Calderon is ‘intensely nationalistic, but he’s also very pragmatic’”, said an expert. What is nationalism? What would nationalistic Americans think about similar activities by a foreign government? What if those actions were illegal or arguably illegal? 9. Why are people loyal to their nations? Why do they prefer to be governed by their own country’s government rather than another country’s? 10. A pragmatic politician is willing to violate important beliefs in order to achieve goals that are even more important. Why is winning the drug war more important to Calderon than his nationalist objections to American surveillance of his citizens? Based on the information in the article, does the Mexican public see things the same way? Link to article source New York Times March 15, 2011 U.S. Drones Fight Mexican Drug Trade By GINGER THOMPSON and MARK MAZZETTI WASHINGTON — Stepping up its involvement in Mexico’s drug war, the Obama administration has begun sending drones deep into Mexican territory to gather intelligence that helps locate major traffickers and follow their networks, according to American and Mexican officials. The Pentagon began flying high-altitude, unarmed drones over Mexican skies last month, American military officials said, in hopes of collecting information to turn over to Mexican law enforcement agencies. Other administration officials said a Homeland Security drone helped Mexican authorities find several suspects linked to the Feb. 15 killing of Jaime Zapata, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. President Obama and his Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderón, formally agreed to continue the surveillance flights during a White House meeting on March 3. The American assistance has been kept secret because of legal restrictions in Mexico and the heated political sensitivities there about sovereignty, the officials said. Before the outbreak of drug violence in Mexico that has left more than 34,000 dead in the past four years, such an agreement would have been all but unthinkable, they said. Pentagon, State Department, Homeland Security and Mexican officials declined to comment publicly about the introduction of drones in Mexico’s counternarcotics efforts. But some officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said the move was evidence of the two countries’ deepening cooperation in efforts to prevail over a common threat. In addition to expanding the use of drones, the two leaders agreed to open a counternarcotics “fusion” center, the second such facility in Mexico, where Mexican and American agencies would work together, the officials said. In recent years, the United States has steadily stepped up its role in fighting Mexican drug trafficking, though officials offer few details of the cooperation. The greatest growth involves intelligence gathering, with Homeland Security and the American military flying manned aircraft and drones along the United States’ southern border — and now over Mexican territory — that are capable of peering deep into Mexico and tracking criminals’ communications and movements, officials said. In addition, the United States trains thousands of Mexican troops and police officers, collaborates with specially vetted Mexican security units, conducts eavesdropping in Mexico and upgrades Mexican security equipment and intelligence technology, according to American law enforcement and intelligence officials.
“It wasn’t that long ago when there was no way the D.E.A. could conduct the kinds of activities they are doing now,” said Mike Vigil, a retired chief of international operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration. “And the only way they’re going to be able to keep doing them is by allowing Mexico to have plausible deniability.” In addition to wariness by Mr. Calderón’s government about how the American intervention might be perceived at home, the Mexican Constitution prohibits foreign military and law enforcement agents from operating in Mexico except under extremely limited conditions, Mexican officials said, so the legal foundation for such activity may be shaky. In the United States, lawmakers have expressed doubts that Mexico, whose security agencies are rife with corruption, is a reliable partner. Before Mr. Obama met with Mr. Calderón at the White House, diplomatic tensions threatened to weaken the cooperation between their governments. State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks had reported criticism of the Mexican government by American diplomats, setting off a firestorm of resentment in Mexico. Then in February, outrage in Washington over Mr. Zapata’s murder prompted Mexican officials to complain that the United States government paid attention to drug violence only when it took the life of an American citizen. In the end, however, mutual interests prevailed in the March 3 meeting after a frank exchange of grievances, Mexican and American officials said. Mr. Calderón told Mr. Obama that his country had borne the brunt of a scourge driven by American guns and drug consumption, and urged the United States to do more to help. Mr. Obama, worried about Mexico falling into chaos and about violence spilling over the border, said his administration was eager to play a more central role, the officials said. The leaders emphasized “the value of information sharing,” a senior Mexican official said, adding that they recognized “the responsibilities shared by both governments in the fight against criminal organizations on both sides of the border.” A senior American administration official noted that all “counternarcotics activities were conducted at the request and direction of the Mexican government.” Mr. Calderón is “intensely nationalistic, but he’s also very pragmatic,” said Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “He’s not really a fan of the United States, but he knows he needs their help, so he’s willing to push the political boundaries.” Mexican and American officials said that their cooperative efforts had been crucial to helping Mexico capture and kill at least 20 high-profile drug traffickers, including 12 in the last year alone. All those traffickers, Mexican officials said, had been apprehended thanks to intelligence provided by the United States. Still, much of the cooperation is shrouded in secrecy. Mexican and American authorities, for example, initially denied that the first fusion center, established over a year ago in Mexico City, shared and analyzed intelligence. Some officials now say that Mexican and American law enforcement agencies work together around the clock, while others characterize it more as an operational outpost staffed almost entirely by Americans. Mexican and American officials say Mexico turns a blind eye to American wiretapping of the telephone lines of drug-trafficking suspects, and similarly to American law enforcement officials carrying weapons in violation of longstanding Mexican restrictions. Officials on both sides of the border also said that Mexico asked the United States to use its drones to help track suspects’ movements. The officials said that while Mexico had its own unmanned aerial vehicles, they did not have the range or high-resolution capabilities necessary for certain surveillance activities. One American military official said the Pentagon had flown a number of flights over the past month using the Global Hawk drones — a spy plane that can fly higher than 60,000 feet and survey about 40,000 square miles of territory in a day. They cannot be readily seen by drug traffickers — or ordinary Mexicans — on the ground. But no one would say exactly how many drone flights had been conducted by the United States, or how many were anticipated under the new agreement. The officials cited the secrecy of drug investigations, and concerns that airing such details might endanger American and Mexican officials on the ground. Lt. Col. Robert L. Ditchey, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that “the Department of Defense, in coordination with the State Department, is working closely with the Mexican military and supports their efforts to counter transnational criminal organizations,” but did not comment specifically on the American drone flights. Similarly, Matt Chandler, a Homeland Security spokesman, said it would be “inappropriate to comment” on the use of drones in the Zapata case, citing the continuing investigation. Though cooperation with Mexico had significantly improved, the officials said, it was still far from perfect. And American officials acknowledged there were still internal lapses of coordination, with the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security and the Drug Enforcement Administration at times unaware of one another’s operations. More than anything, though, officials expressed concern about reigniting longstanding Mexican concerns about the United States’ usurping Mexico’s authority. “I think most Mexicans, especially in areas of conflict, would be fine about how much the United States is involved in the drug war, because things have gotten so scary they just want to see the bad guys get caught,” said Mr. Selee of the Wilson Center. “But the Mexican government is afraid of the more nationalistic elements in the political elite, so they tend to hide it.” 1. Define: Food and Drug Administration, Advisory panel, landmark legislation, authority, coalition, unsubstantiated, black market, infusing 2. What does the FDA mean by public health? When, if ever, is health public rather than private? Does the article give enough information to help you figure this out?
3. Why does calling something “public health” make it sound more like a concern of government than talking about someone’s personal health? 4. Why doesn’t the government ban cigarettes? Should it? Should it ban many or most dangerous activities? 5. “But menthol cigarettes are especially enticing to teenagers and to blacks and are more likely to turn them into lifetime smokers, the panel found.” Do cigarettes turn people into smokers? 6. If teenagers like a particular type of cigarette, is it more acceptable to ban this type of cigarette than others? Why does the FDA panel think teenagers are different? Why do you think they extend this attitude to African Americans? 7. Would the Washington Post be as likely to talk about a product affecting white people as a group? 8. The article quotes an activist group saying that the report proves that menthol cigarettes are a public health threat, and a cigarette company arguing that the report does not demonstrate its conclusions. Does the article give you enough information to figure out who is right? Why does it cite these two opinions? 9. The article mentions one activist who thinks that since blacks favor menthol cigarettes, “we felt that continuing to allow menthol was discriminatory.” Is he right? Or is it discriminatory to ban menthol cigarettes because they are favored by blacks? What does it mean for a rule, or the lack of a rule, to discriminate? 10. Why do companies advertise certain products to certain demographic groups? Does their targeting cause these groups to favor the products, or do the groups’ possible interest in the products cause the advertising? 11. Congress “exempted menthol from the ban, saying it wanted the FDA to study the issue and report by 2012 whether restrictions on it would serve the public health.” Who will make the decision on menthol, Congress or the FDA? Why do you think Congresspeople did not want to make this decision? 12. The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” Did Congress give the FDA legislative or executive powers in passing its 2009 legislation? Can Congress Constitutionally give another agency power to make laws? 13. What is the difference between a legislative and an executive power? How can we tell which kind of power Congress is granting to an executive agency? Link to article source Washington Post FDA panel finds ban on menthol cigarettes would ‘benefit the public health’ By Lyndsey Layton Friday, March 18, 2011 An advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration that has been studying whether the government ought to ban menthol cigarettes said Friday that the “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit the public health.” The panel, made up of scientists, doctors and public health experts, stopped short of recommending a ban on menthol cigarettes, which make up about 30 percent of the $80 billion U.S. cigarette market. The committee, which spent a year analyzing menthol cigarettes before releasing its draft recommendations, said that compared to standard cigarettes, the mint-flavored products do not pose greater individual risk to smokers in terms of lung cancer, stroke and other tobacco-related diseases. But menthol cigarettes are especially enticing to teenagers and to blacks and are more likely to turn them into lifetime smokers, the panel found. Smokers of menthol cigarettes also find it harder to quit, the panel said. Lawrence R. Deyton, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said the agency will review the panel’s recommendations. The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its advisory panels but often does. “Now it’s up to us to do our job,” Deyton told the panel. The menthol question will be the first real test of how aggressively the FDA intends to regulate tobacco. Congress passed landmark legislation in 2009 that put tobacco under the authority of the FDA for the first time. The law prohibits the agency from outlawing tobacco or nicotine but gives it broad authority to regulate the ingredients in cigarettes and the way they are marketed. Congress banned candy and spice flavorings such as chocolate and clove, saying cigarette makers used those products to hook youngsters into a lifetime addiction. But it exempted menthol from the ban, saying it wanted the FDA to study the issue and report by 2012 whether restrictions on it would serve the public health. A coalition of anti-smoking groups hailed the panel’s findings. “The committee’s conclusions leave no doubt that menthol cigarettes have had a profound adverse impact on public health in the United States, resulting in more smoking and more death and disease from tobacco use,” the coalition said. “Now the FDA must act expeditiously and implement the committee’s recommendation.” Lorillard, whose Newport brand is the best-selling menthol cigarette in the country, dismissed the panel’s conclusions as “unsubstantiated.” Murray S. Kessler, Lorillard’s chairman, president and chief executive, said in a statement that the report “is just the first step in what we believe will be a very long process that ultimately does not result in the removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace, especially when contraband and other unintended consequences are seriously considered.” The tobacco industry maintains that a menthol ban would expand the black market for cigarettes, encouraging criminal behavior and robbing the government of tax revenue. The industry also maintains that menthol cigarettes pose no greater harm than regular cigarettes and therefore should not be treated differently.
Lorillard and Reynolds American, which makes Kool brand menthol cigarettes, objected to the panel before it issued recommendations. They filed a lawsuit Feb. 25 charging that the panel cannot provide unbiased recommendations because three members have conflicts of interest. The FDA has declined to comment on the charges. Menthol cigarettes are used by about 80 percent of black smokers, infusing the debate with questions about race. The panel found that tobacco companies have advertised menthol brands heavily in black communities and that the targeting has paid off. “The evidence is sufficient to conclude that menthol cigarettes are disproportionately marketed per capita to African Americans” the panel found. “Consistent with these targeted marketing efforts, menthol cigarettes are disproportionately smoked by African American smokers.” William S. Robinson, executive director of the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, said when Congress banned flavorings that help addict young smokers, menthol should have been included. “Why does menthol have to meet a different threshold than all the other ingredients that were already banned,” Robinson said. “Given the people who use the product the most, we felt that continuing to allow menthol was discriminatory.” Removing menthol cigarettes from the marketplace could avert thousands of deaths each year, the panel said. About 400,000 Americans die annually of tobacco-related disease. Of the country’s three top tobacco companies, Lorillard has the most at stake in the debate over menthol. About 90 percent of its sales are linked to Newport and other menthol cigarettes. 1. Define: broadband, population density, eminently, replicable, bandwidth, utilize 2. Do you have access to high speed internet either at home, school or a public place? How do you use it? What do you think life would be like without high speed internet? Discuss with the class. 3. What are some reasons the article gives for why businesses in Hong Kong were able to provide faster internet access than most Americans have? Can you think of other possibilities that the article didn’t address? 4. Why do you think the author claims “we should” have faster connections to the internet in the United States? Do you agree with the author? What factors do you think internet providers need to adapt and overcome in order to speed up their services (e.g. costs, expectation of customers, profitability)? What might make faster internet in a given area a bad business decision by a provider? 5. Do you think all Americans should have a right to high speed internet access? What do you think might be some pros and cons to government provided internet access? Who would likely benefit most? Who would be responsible for paying? How would you answer the cost/benefit questions for how internet access is currently distributed in a private market? 6. What other options do you have to access the internet beside paying for broadband access? Which option is most convenient? Which is likely the fastest? Which do you think is the cheapest? How has competition among internet providers brought about this range of choice throughout the years? 7. “In the United States, costs would come down if several companies shared the financial burden of putting fiber into the ground and then competed on the basis of services built on top of the shared assets.” Who do you think would be in charge of the “shared assets”? Have you ever split paying for something with one or more of your friends? How did you decide to split it among yourselves? Would you have rather saved up a while longer and bought it for yourself? Why or why not? 8. Why do you think businesses often begin marketing and development in smaller geographic regions first? How does success in those smaller areas allow them to expand their services? Can you think of any businesses in your area that have either just expanded from another area or one from your area that has blossomed outward? Link to article source New York Times March 5, 2011 Cheap, Ultrafast Broadband? Hong Kong Has It By RANDALL STROSS HONG KONG residents can enjoy astoundingly fast broadband at an astoundingly low price. It became available last year, when a scrappy company called Hong Kong Broadband Network introduced a new option for its fiber-tothe-home service: a speed of 1,000 megabits a second — known as a “gig” — for less than $26 a month. In the United States, we don’t have anything close to that. But we could. And we should. Verizon, the nation’s leading provider of fiber-to-the-home service, doesn’t offer a gig, or even half that speed. Instead, it markets a “fastest” service that is only 50 megabits a second for downloading and 20 megabits a second for uploading. It costs $144.99 a month. That’s one-twentieth the speed of Hong Kong Broadband’s service for downloading, for more than five times the price. One thing working in Hong Kong’s favor, of course, is its greater population density, enabling broadband companies to reach multiuser dwellings at a much lower cost. But density is only part of the explanation. The personality of Hong Kong Broadband should be noted, too. A wholly owned subsidiary of City Telecom, it is an aggressive newcomer. It was willing to suffer seven years of losses while building out its fiber network before it turned profitable. Hong Kong Broadband’s principal competitor is an older company, PCCW, which has several other lines of business, including phone, television and mobile. PCCW also offers gigabit service to the home and benefits from
the same population density. But PCCW’s price is more than twice as much as Hong Kong Broadband’s. Despite its low prices, Hong Kong Broadband now operates in the black. Inexpensive pricing of gigabit broadband is practical in American cities, too. “This is an eminently replicable model,” says Benoit Felten, a co-founder of Diffraction Analysis, a consulting business based in Paris. “But not by someone who already owns a network — unless they’re willing to scrap the network.” In the United States, costs would come down if several companies shared the financial burden of putting fiber into the ground and then competed on the basis of services built on top of the shared assets. That would bring multiple competitors into the picture, pushing down prices. But it would also require regulatory changes that the Federal Communications Commission has yet to show an appetite for. Dane Jasper, the chief executive of Sonic.net, an Internet provider based in Santa Rosa, Calif., says that most broadband markets in the United States today are dominated by one phone company and one cable company. “Why doesn’t Verizon offer gigabit service?” Mr. Jasper asks. “Because it doesn’t have to.” In its earnings report for the quarter ended Dec. 31, Verizon said its fiber-based Internet service, which serves 12 states and the District of Columbia, was available to 12.8 million premises, an increase of 10 percent from the previous year. When I asked about its lack of gig service, C. Lincoln Hoewing, Verizon’s assistant vice president for Internet and technology issues, said, “We already offer 150 megabits,” referring to a tier of fiber-based service that is marketed for $195 a month to small businesses in many of its markets. It “seems to be satisfying demand,” he said. In a follow-up e-mail, a Verizon spokeswoman addressed the company’s lack of a gig service by saying that it offers “speeds that exceed what customers can and do use.” As long as a gig is expensive, a lack of customer interest shouldn’t be surprising. In October, EPB, the municipal electric utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., introduced a gig option in its fiber-to-the-home Internet services. A spokeswoman said the option, which costs $349.99 a month, currently has only about 20 customers. It is true that residential customers would now be hard-pressed to fully use anything close to a gig. Compressed, broadcast-quality HD video, for example, uses bandwidth in a range of 5 to 20 megabits a second, depending on the compression used. But it is possible to imagine situations — a doctor’s office consultation, say, involving specialists scattered around the country, poring over the patient and her cerebral angiogram simultaneously — where multiple, two-way video feeds could chew up a lot of bandwidth. All parties would need the ultrafast connections. But that level of capacity seems distant because each party needed to make it happen — customers, software developers and Internet providers — is waiting for the others to show up first. GOOGLE doesn’t want to wait. It and Sonic.net are preparing an experimental deployment of gigabit service to 850 faculty and staff homes in a Stanford University subdivision. Separately, Google plans to select one or several cities where it will offer gigabit service at what it calls “a competitive price” to at least 50,000, and potentially 500,000, people. In a post on the company blog titled “Think Big With a Gig,” it says, “We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra-high speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive ‘killer apps’ and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.” 1. Define: jargon, pooled, crusader, scofflaw, burgeoning, straphangers, civil disobedience, breeding ground, honor system, penchant 2. Plankers believe that Scandinavian subway fares are too high. How can they tell how high “too high” is? 3. What determines the price of most items you buy? What changes when government sells something, or gives it away? Do Scandinavia’s governments have to make a profit on their subways? 4. What resources go into building and maintaining subways? If governments did not charge users, who would pay these costs? 5. What benefits does Petter Slaatrem Titland note that would result from making subway fare free to users? What would be the costs of doing this? 6. What are some features of Oslo, according to the article? Why does the author think this makes it “an unlikely breeding ground for a subway revolution”? 7. Many Scandinavians “believe the state should be offsetting their high costs of living.” Why would they believe this? What is the state? Where does it get its money? 8. “It’s like ‘we don’t cheat: We Planka” How does the word they use for what they are doing make them feel okay about doing it? 9. “Before it was something you did because you were poor. Now at least it’s something you do as part of a movement.” What is a movement? How does being a movement make people feel differently about their actions? Should they feel differently? 10. How are the Plankers paying for their rides? How could the governments make this a worse deal for them? Do you think the protestors would continue to do what they are doing? Link to article source Wall Street Journal MARCH 29, 2011 Freeloaders Unite to Fight Subway Fares In Scandinavia, It's Chic to Cheat Via Insurance Scheme By PATRICK MCGROARTY
OSLO—Norwegian student Petter Slaatrem Titland strolls through the open gates of this city's subway system most days without a care in the world or a transit ticket in his pocket. No ordinary fare dodger, Mr. Titland has insurance against getting caught. Mr. Titland leads a band of "Plankers," as they are known in the local jargon, who have pooled the risk by creating a fund to pay one another's fines. "I'm prepared to be called a fare dodger, or whatever," he says. As much social crusader as scofflaw, Mr. Titland is part of a burgeoning movement among Scandinavian straphangers protesting some of the world's highest fares for public transportation, more than $4.50 for a standard prepaid ticket. He argues that making Oslo's trains, buses and ferries free would help the poor and reduce emissions by encouraging people to ditch their cars. "You can call it a civil-disobedience campaign," he says. Scandinavia might seem an unlikely breeding ground for a subway revolution. Oslo, a handsome waterfront city where stylish students frequent calm, clean streets, has less than 4% unemployment. But many Norwegians—and Swedes, who hatched the fare beaters' insurance scheme—believe the state should be offsetting their high costs of living. And when their governments fall short, a rambunctious streak emerges. "It's like, 'We don't cheat: We Planka,'" Mr. Titland says. Public transportation in much of Europe operates on an honor system. Riders are expected to buy tickets, but tickets are rarely checked, and passengers often don't even pass through turnstiles or other barriers when entering a station. But the fines for riding ticketless can be high. Fare dodgers in Oslo have to pay 750 kroner, or about $135, on the spot. For those who can't pay right away, the fine goes up to 900 kroner. Members of Mr. Titland's group, Planka Oslo, make a monthly transfer to a bank account that is tapped to pay fines they and other fare dodgers incur for being caught without a ticket. At 250 kroner, the monthly dues are a deep discount on the 570 kroner it costs to buy a standard monthly metro pass. After a year-long test phase funded by about 30 members, Planka Oslo made a public debut earlier this year, with members handing out balloons and fliers to startled subway passengers. The group plans to lower its dues as more people sign up. Ruter AS, the public authority that runs Oslo's metro system, says it won't try to shut down Planka directly, preferring to pursue and penalize ticketless passengers individually. "I don't think that is our business to deal with at all," says Gry Isberg, a Ruter spokeswoman. But she adds that Ruter is preparing a new public-relations campaign against fare dodging and has increased the frequency with which it sends its employees and security contractors into the subway to check for valid tickets. Even before Planka came to Oslo, the transportation authority displayed a penchant for unorthodox tactics. In 2009, people caught without a ticket when agents performed spot checks at certain stations were given the option of writing "I will never dodge again" 10 times on a blackboard rather than pay the fine. "We try not to point with an angry finger but to use a little bit of humor," Ms. Isberg says. "This is very embarrassing, but at least it's better than paying the fine." Mr. Titland, an earnest 26-year-old, says he dutifully paid for his subway tickets until he heard a presentation in 2009 by Anna Nygard, who founded Planka Nu in Stockholm—"Planka" is Swedish slang for taking a free ride or gaming the system, and "nu" means now. Planka grew out of Stockholm protests in 2001 against a subway fare hike, including a sticker campaign and a text-message service to alert subscribers when officials checking for tickets were spotted. The insurance scheme soon followed, and Ms. Nygard now meets weekly with other volunteers to collect and pay fines that members mail to a post office box. Active membership fluctuates between 500 and 1,000 people, depending on the season and whether the city is considering a fare hike. The group has also devised a battery of ingenious techniques for slipping past turnstiles and electronic subway gates, and it has posted them on YouTube as instructional videos. Some require a slim waist or a good vertical jump. Others can be pulled off by anybody—for instance by tripping an automatic sensor with a well-placed toss of a scarf, tricking the gate into thinking someone is exiting rather than entering and prompting the gates to swing open. Swedish authorities have tried now and then to take action against Planka Nu, using statutes on insurance fraud and criminal intent as grounds, but with little success. "These groups—we don't take them seriously," says Jesper Petterson, a spokesman for Stockholm's metro operator. The same can't be said of the 50 or so people who turned out recently for Planka Oslo's launch party to listen to presentations on Ruter's revenue structure and the strain that automobile traffic puts on urban infrastructure while enjoying cheap beer and homemade soup. One new member, Camilla Svendsen Skriung, says she didn't buy subway tickets for a decade and was caught many times. She hoped the mountain of unpaid fines would eventually land her in court, where she could make an impassioned plea for the environmental benefits of free public transportation. Instead, a judge slapped her with a 40,000 kroner bill—more than $7,200—for unpaid ticket fees and related fines. "I'm still paying," she says with a laugh. "So this system sounds really good." But even as Planka takes off in Oslo, Ms. Nygard acknowledges that her group is struggling to show what it has accomplished in Sweden beyond a series of amusing YouTube clips. While they may not have lowered fares, she says they have given members a sense of purpose. "Before it was something you did because you were poor. Now at least it's something you do as part of a movement," Ms. Nygard says.
1. Define: civil libertarian, stigmatize, recidivist, overcriminalization, breathalizer, co-registered 2. What is the stated purpose behind this bill? Do you think this is the real motivation? 3. “There’s just no point to this other than to give someone a Scarlet Letter.” What is the defense lawyer referring to? 4. If the bill were indeed intended as a “Scarlet Letter,” would proponents say so? Why or why not? 5. Why were scarlet letters once used for punishment? What are some different purposes for which punishment has been used? 6. What information could we find to help figure out whether the decline in Minnesota’s drunk driving fatalities rate was because of the law it passed? 7. Why would a state pass this law only for drunk driving, rather than for other crimes? 8. Do you think this law would reduce drunk driving? If so, does that mean that states should implement it? 9. How do you think this law would affect a person who had to put a tag on his or her license plate? Link to article source Wall Street Journal FEBRUARY 25, 2011 Some Call Tags for Drunk Drivers Wrong Turn By ASHBY JONES Washington has become the latest state to see a push for a so-called whiskey-plate law to combat drunk driving, a move defense lawyers and civil libertarians say can unfairly stigmatize offenders, and sometimes their families as well. The law would require first-time drunk drivers to replace their license plates with easy-to-spot tags that end with the uppercase letter "Z," a signal to police to pay close attention to the car. Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W"—hence the term "whiskey plate"—on a plain white background. Offenders in Washington would be required to display the special plates for three years after their driving privileges are restored. Republican Rep. Norma Smith of Clinton, Wash., who introduced the bill earlier this month, said it would give police another tool to crack down on a dangerous practice. "The recidivist rate on drunk-driving is extremely high," she said. "Too many people continue to die these needless deaths." The bill won't come to a vote for several months, but opponents are already making their voices heard. "There's just no point to this other than to give someone a Scarlet Letter," said Matthew Leyba, a criminal-defense lawyer in Seattle. "It's only going to subject people to more harassment from the police." Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said whiskey plates were part of a "trend of overcriminalization" in the U.S. "These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives," she said. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Chief Executive Kimberly Earle said the organization supports whiskey-plate laws as a "useful tool" for police, but that MADD is more focused on measures it believes have a better track record for preventing drunk driving, such as requiring offenders to pass a car-mounted breathalizer to enable their engine to start. A handful of other states have adopted similar laws. In Minnesota, certain drunk-driving offenders are required to attach special plates to their car for a year after their driving privileges are restored. An earlier version of the Minnesota law was enacted in 1988. Drunk-driving-related fatalities have fallen steadily since. Jean Ryan, Minnesota's impaired-driving program coordinator, said that a host of factors were likely involved in that drop, including strengthened enforcement efforts. Matt Langer, a captain with the Minnesota State Patrol, said that while he had arrested drivers whose cars had whiskey plates on new drunken-driving charges, it was also routine to drive past them, with "nothing to be concerned about." David Risk, a criminal lawyer in Minneapolis, said the law could have unwelcome ramifications. He said he had a client whose wife ran a day-care center that owned several vans, all of which were co-registered in his client's name. After his client's blood-alcohol test came back with a reading over the legal limit, Mr. Risk said, the Department of Public Safety told the day-care center it had to get whiskey plates for all its vans. "You can imagine that didn't do wonders for business," he said.