Saturday, October 31, 2009
Editorial: Short takes
Quick views on some of the week's news.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Alcohol ads in campus papers shouldn't be banned
After it lost the first round, the state of Virginia appealed last year's decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Hannah Lauck that found a prohibition against alcohol ads in college publications violated the First Amendment.
A panel of the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments this week in the case. An assistant attorney general continued to argue that the ban furthered a legitimate state interest in curbing underage drinking -- never mind that a majority of the readers of the two publications that challenged the ban can drink legally.
Curbing underage drinking is a compelling goal, but not one that warrants trashing students' First Amendment rights -- especially when there is no real evidence that the ban contributed to the goal. There are other, better ways to try to keep underage college students from drinking.
If the state loses this time, it should not appeal again.
And if Sasha and Malia hadn't gotten vaccinated?
Predictably, some on the right are criticizing President Obama after the announcement that the White House doctor had administered swine flu vaccines to the first daughters.
When supplies of the vaccine are short across the nation, how dare the president protect his own daughters?
Sigh. Never mind that the first family waited until the vaccine was available to other children in the D.C. area. Never mind that a case of the swine flu was reported at Sasha and Malia's school. Never mind that both children, based on their ages, are in the high-risk group that public health officials say should get priority for the vaccine. Never mind that Obama and the first lady haven't been vaccinated themselves.
It's an opportunity to criticize the president, and that should not be wasted. Of course, had Sasha and Malia not been vaccinated, that would have been grounds for criticism, as well. What kind of example is the president setting, not even having his own daughters vaccinated after strongly urging the rest of the public to get inoculated. In fact, commenters on the far-right Free Republic Web site were making those very complaints earlier this month.
Just never mind.
Universities love Del. Hamilton too much
We were a little surprised that anyone would endorse Del. Phil Hamilton in his bid for re-election. We don't know much about his opponent -- maybe she's awful -- but we do know that Hamilton left an e-mail trail between himself and Old Dominion University that revealed an inappropriate quid pro quo. He delivered the money as ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee; the school gave him a job paid for with that money.
It turns out Hamilton has friends at Christopher Newport University, too. In the spring, CNU President Paul Trible sent out a fundraising letter for Hamilton ... on CNU stationary.
OK, so it's not the worst electoral offense we've ever seen. Any abuse of public resources was minor. Nevertheless, it had the appearance of a taxpayer-funded institution playing favorites in an election after Hamilton had pushed for $50 million worth of state spending for the school. Trible should have known better, and he concedes as much.
"I obviously wasn't thinking," he told The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot.
All of that, of course, was before the ODU scandal broke.
The donation he made to Hamilton's campaign in September, on the other hand, came after the scandal. No word yet on whether he was thinking on that one.
I signed what?
Speaking of electoral shenanigans, we hope four candidates for Blacksburg Town Council learned an important lesson this week.
The quartet of Frank Lau, Krisha Chachra, Greg Fansler and Tom Rogers recently distributed a letter to homes in town. More than 100 of their supporters signed it.
A kerfuffle erupted when some of those supposed supporters revealed they had never seen the letter and did not back all four candidates. They had supported some of the four, but not all of them. Someone among the four assumed support for one was support for all.
That's not how it works. Electoral decisions and public endorsements are highly personal. Attributing support without justification violates a trust between candidates and citizens.
What the four pulled was no better than assuming that just because someone supported Barack Obama in November it is OK to use that person's name in campaign literature supporting any Democrat. Voters are more nuanced.
Still, in a town with some highly charged and important issues, this is not the end of the world. No evidence of malfeasance has appeared. All four candidates are simply campaign neophytes.
