Author Archives: eehines

More Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s in a letter to the Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section by Isaiah Wilson (USA Col, Ret):

Understanding social dynamics in combat, including race and identity, is necessary for effective leadership and unit cohesion.

The problem with this claim is that in combat, logistics, maintenance, any other support function and in training for these, race is irrelevant, and identity is strictly and solely American. Subdividing our American military members, as it does in civilian life, only divides those members from each other, thereby creating…division, and that works disastrously against preparation and against execution.

Then Isaiah compounded his error.

Perhaps the reason America has struggled in combat is that we have underestimated the role of identity-centered understanding in military operations.

To the extent our military has struggled in combat, there has been too much emphasis on identity-centered understanding and the intrinsically racist and sexist divisions that emphasis creates. For all that, though, our military has not struggled in combat all that much. Our political leadership, though, has struggled mightily with combat, and that has gone to our detriment in nearly every conflict we’ve fought since WWII.

Keep the social justice claptrap out of the foxhole and out of our military in general, and return the training and operational focuses to producing the most lethal soldiers and the most lethal military establishment in the world.

Mischaracterization

Posted on by
Reply

The Vera Institutes of Justice’s Santiago Mueckay has one in his letter in the WSJ‘s Letters section.

[T]he Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that immigrants are entitled to due process under the US Constitution.

This is a cynically offered strawman argument. No one is arguing that immigrants are not entitled to our Constitution’s due process protections.

Illegal aliens, though—the ones targeted by rapid deportation efforts—hold themselves outside our social compact, outside our government’s jurisdiction, by breaking into our country in violation of our laws and then hiding from our government. From that, illegal aliens have no claim to, and no right for, any of the protections of our Constitution.

Mueckay will have to play with his dolly without me.

Another Reason Why

Posted on by
Reply

Here is another reason our nation’s student loan debt has gotten out of hand. The subheadline goes

Millions of Americans suddenly owe billions of dollars in student debt after years of forbearance

The foolishness of the forbearance itself contributed to the enormous risks the massive student loan overhang represents for our economy. There’s nothing sudden, though, about the reappearance of that debt.

The article then does nothing to correct this distortion. Here’s the lede:

Millions of Americans had their student-loan payments put on pause during the pandemic. Now they are back on the hook again.

They never were off the hook; none of those loans were forgiven in any legal way. They’ve always been on the hook. “Millions of Americans” have owed those billions of dollars all along. This sort of distortion is even more heavily contributory to those risks.

Full stop.

Blue Books

Posted on by
2

They’re making a comeback on campuses as a way to get around student cheating via ChatGPT and other AI packages. I say good for those profs and schools that are requiring them for assignments and exams. Blue books make the student do his own work at the moment of truth: writing down, in class, their own answers to the varying assignments.

There is a valid beef to requiring blue books [emphasis in the original].

Many of them believe students should be using AI to get smarter. It would be stupid not to. These tools will be a part of their lives and knowing how to use them effectively will be an important advantage in their future workplaces.
“They will use ChatGPT all the time for all sorts of things, and that will make them more efficient, more productive and better able to do their jobs,” said Arthur Spirling, a Princeton University professor of politics who gives proctored blue-book exams. “It is strange to say you won’t be permitted to do this thing that will be very natural to you for the rest of your career.”

There’s an obvious solution to that problem, though, and assignments and exams easily can be used to teach the use of AI. This would apply as well to STEM courses as humanities courses.

The professors can issue assignments and exams that mandate using AI to generate answers, then in class use blue books to require the students to critique the AI answers, identify AI “hallucinations,” and to improve the AI answers. To short circuit attempts to do the critiquing and editing in advance and simply writing down nearly memorized answers, the profs could require specific edit types of specific paragraphs or blocks of code or certain arithmetic sections or…. Alternatively, the profs could do the above as Part I of the assignment or exam, and then in Part II, provide his own AI-generated answer to a question and require the students to do the critiques and edits de novo. Then, returning to/maintaining basics, use Part III to pose questions that the students will not see until that point in the in-class exercise or exam and that the students must answer via blue book on the spot.

That last, especially, is how things work IRL.

No Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

Two lawyers, Joel Cohen and Bennett Gershman, think they have a solution to the exploding epidemic of nationwide injunctions being issued at the Federal district level by these bottom of the judicial hierarchy judges. They tried to lay out the problem:

From the justices’ questions in oral arguments last week, it was clear all are uneasy with the idea that trial judges have the authority to act as a “roving commission to correct every legal wrong that they can consider and to exercise general legal oversight over the executive branch,” as Solicitor General John Sauer put it.

The Justices are right to be “uneasy” about that. Aside from the overblown arrogance of a district judge issuing such an injunction, it leads to what we’re seeing now: judge-shopping to find the district most convenient to the case being presented and most likely to issue the desired national injunction. Then the lawyers added, however:

On the other hand, requiring everyone injured by an executive action to initiate his own lawsuit to gain relief seems unduly burdensome.

No, it isn’t burdensome to require everyone who claims an injury to enter into court to make that case. National injunctions not only include those claimants, they sweep up millions of others not injured in to the same case via the limitations imposed on everyone by that universal injunction—that’s the burden.

Then the lawyers offer their solution.

Judge Orrin Judd of the Eastern District of New York declared the US bombing of Cambodia unlawful and issued a permanent injunction against the government barring any military activities involving Cambodia. …
[R]ecognizing the decision’s potential impact, Judd granted the government a two-day stay to allow an appeal.

Fleshing this business out, the lawyers added,

The justices can place limits on such nationwide injunctions. When a district judge issues a nationwide injunction against the government, the court could require that he grant an automatic stay of, say, five days to allow an appeal to the circuit court, which would in turn be required to decide the case within, say, 30 days. The injunction, if affirmed, would no longer be the decision of a single judge. And if the circuit court gets the issue wrong, the Supreme Court could take it up quickly.

This is not an area where compromise is possible. Our Constitution must be adhered to in every particular, and that necessarily includes its structuring of our Federal government into three separate, coequal branches with only limited (if critically so) overlap among the branches.

In the present context, our Constitution makes the Executive Branch, particularly the President, the creator and operator of our nation’s foreign policy. Overlap: the President can engage with enemies militarily, but only the Legislative can declare war, and if the latter finds the former’s conflicts mistaken or lasting too long, it can cut off funding for the conflict.

Crucially, there is no overlap here between the Judiciary and the Executive. Lower courts are creations of the Legislative; their opinions on constitutionality are no more than that.

So it is with district court judges presuming to issue universal—nationwide—injunctions. These are bald and dangerous oversteps of our by-design separation of powers in our Federal government, and they must stop altogether. Given the number of activist judges issuing these opinions, they must be ended by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms.

As the two lawyers wrote, courts can move quickly and efficiently, especially when a brief stay is granted, and there is an urgent need for expeditious review. Courts need no stay, temporary or otherwise, to move quickly and efficiently. They can do so when the matter, correctly limited to the litigants within the confines of the district, warrants the urgency.

Full stop.