Editorial “Solanco’s drug policy must go” observes:

“Solanco refers to the drug testing on a consent form as ‘voluntary,’ but it is anything but.  Refuse to sign, and you’re out of luck….

“There are exceptions.  For example, with transit employees, where public safety is paramount… But drug testing of public school students who participate in extra-curricular activities?  Hardly. They are among the most dedicated and conscientious students who are the least likely to experiment with drugs.

“Random drug testing of these students without cause is intrusive and ineffective, providing little or no return to students or the school district.”

WATCHDOG: Three wags of the tail!

Two decades of working with those who oppose the War on Drugs taught us that fellow oponents are both liberals and conservatives, aas are the dwindling number of it supporters.

For example, as much as we admire Vice-President Joe Biden, he is an ignoramus on these issues.  It is hard to believe he holds such views having ridden the train to Wilmington so many times with former Senator Arlen Specter who held much more enlightened views… after an initial decade of blundering.

For reasons we do not understand, the Lancaster newspapers do not publish all of their editorials on line.  We regret we cannot link to the March 27 column.

In his column “We pay now or we pay later,” Associate Editor Gil Smart observes:

“What I was struck by in the responses to last week’s piece, however, was not that so many people remain opposed to abortion…

“So abortion is not simply a moral issue in terms of ‘preserving life’; access to contraception is not just a religious freedom issue, though most conservatives really do seem to believe it is that. But this is also about social engineering. This is also about using the state to affect the type of behavior that conservatives believe will benefit society — something they have long accused liberals of doing…

“If we can all agree that government needs to slow its rate of spending, and I think most would agree with that, how can we afford to engage in right-wing social engineering that’s likely to drive up societal costs? How could we afford the greater cost in terms of food stamps or costs inflicted upon school districts, to name but two? Unless we’re simply not going to pay those costs. Unless we’re going to freeze or reduce budgets — as we must regardless — resulting in fewer resources even as our policy choices create more need.”…

WATCHDOG: First, a clarification.  For most, abortion isn’t something they want.  It is a painful decision  because circumstances are not right for having a child.

Otherwise Smart hits both nails on the head:  Many conservatives want social engineers,  having government dictate how people should live their private lives.

Also, just as in the case of the Drug War, the issue that finally resonates with the public at large is money, especially during hard times.  In the former case, we no longer can afford to incarcerate so many people.  In the latter, unwanted children are often unloved and unsupported children, creating a population that in significant part will be anti-social in the actions and economically dependent on government largess

This is one of the main thrusts of Ernest Drucker’s “A Plague of Prisons.”

Columnist Jeff Hawks writes “What has a decade of war bought us?”:

“After the unthinkable happened on Sept. 11, 2001, we reacted with outrage and dread….

“But as understandable as our fear and bewilderment were, did we let emotion override reason? Did we fail to consider all the options for making us safer? And did we pay too high a price for the choices we made?

“Before launching an attack, Americans deserve assurance that our leaders have weighed all contingencies, including whether a nuclear-armed Iran and a new holocaust are truly synonymous.” …

WATCHDOG: Two wags of the tail!

Editorial “Enabling Murder” opines:

“The shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida and the failure of the police to arrest the shooter, who claimed self-defense, is a cautionary tale about those states, including Pennsylvania, that have expanded the right to use lethal force in self-defense…

“Prior to the law’s passage, a person confronted with lethal force had a duty to attempt to retreat. “Retreat” was largely regarded as any attempt, including shouting a warning, to elude an attack. It should be noted that genuine self-defense — in any situation — is, and always has been, legal. An expansion of the statute was unnecessary but lawmakers were unwilling to oppose legislation sponsored by the National Rifle Association…

“We are an errant shooting away from a similar tragedy.”

WATCHDOG: We agree with the sentiment but the editors have both the facts and the law wrong.   Martin was fleeing from the vigilante assailant when he was shot, so “Stand your ground” law is not applicable.   This point was agreed upon by the entire panel of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this morning.

Op-Ed:  “Cost-benefit analysis may seem a cold-blooded discipline — you can’t put a price on freedom, blah blah blah — but it is inseparable from the question of our national interests. After more than 10 years of war that have bled our treasury of at least $3 trillion, killed or disabled many thousands of our troops, and created the kind of multiple-rotation stress that invites atrocities and desecrations, every incremental commitment has to be weighed against the cost to our economic security and our readiness to face the next real threat.”

WATCHDOG: Not to mention all of the others who have been killed, many of them innocent bystandards.  A wag of the tail.

From Editor Marv Adams’ weekly column:

“Extra, extra
• Headlines we’ll probably never see:

—Rep. Joe Pitts praises Obama plan

—Mayor, firefighters happy with contract; ride firetruck together through city, siren blaring

—Callista dumps Newt for younger man

—Palestinian, Israeli diplomats give up efforts to bring peace to Pequea Township

—Gov. Corbett admits he’s anti-education: Third-grade teacher made him stand in corner

—No roadwork scheduled today in Lancaster County.”

WATCHDOG:  Very funny.  A wag of the tail.

Prominent article on Front Page:  “Bitterman’s sentencing for tax evasion delayed.  Defense makes motion for acquittal, claims evidence withheld by prosecution.”

Lead article in Lancaster Section:   “Guess who’s hobnobbing at the White House, Local teachers are first couple’s guest at state dinner for British prime minister.”

Lead article with photo on the front of the Sports Section:  “Crusaders press ahead.  Lancaster Catholic overwhelms Neumann-Goretti, 50-27, to reach state semifinals.”

WATCHDOG: Across from Obituaries on B2:  “McCaskey team wins regional mock trial”.

Talk about burying an article!

More seriously, why does a basketball team reaching the state semi-finals deserve huge coverage while a mock trial team, consisting in large part of future leaders, reaching the state finals get shuttled to the side?

The editors would likely answer ‘because this is what the public wants to read about.’  Is that a good enough excuse?

And what does that say about us, the readers, and our priorities?

Editorial “Winning states, losing delegates” punditizes (to coin a word):

“Although Santorum won a substantial victory in Alabama and edged Gingrich and Romney in Mississippi, he effectively split the conservative vote with Gingrich. This despite the fact that he won the evangelical vote — which was expected — and the female and under-30 vote — which was not.”…

“While Santorum was relishing his victory — ‘We did it again,’  he told a crowd in Louisiana — Gingrich repeated his vow to remain in the race until August when the national convention is held.

“That may assuage [Gingrich’s] ego, but so long as he remains in the race, he continues to deny Santorum the ability to effectively challenge Romney for delegates.”

WATCHDOG: The editors are probably wrong on all accounts.

National commentators have made the point that the conservative Gingrich vote would more likely be almost evenly split between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, since Gingrich attracts much of his conservative votes on issues different from those of Santorum.

More important, a Romney / Santorum match would assure Romney victory, because without Gingrich siphoning off Romney votes and delegates, Romney would be able to readily achieve the 50% of delegates necessary for his nomination.

The big question today is whether we will see a ‘brokered convention’ with the candidate being determined during the sixty day interlude  between the last primary and the convention, or an ‘open convention’ with the choice taking place after the first ballot, at which time delegates are freed of obligations.

Our prediction:   The strongest possible Republican ticket will ensue:  Romney / Santorum.   This would be bad news for President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Three-quarters of the front page is devoted to articles “First of a three-part ‘inside story’ series on Lancaster County Criminal Court”:

“Justice Delayed; The wheels turn slowly here as an inefficient system causes one of the worst backlogs of cases in the state” and “One victim’s long ordeal”.

…“In fact, the county’s judges have agreed to make several changes to help streamline the system since the Sunday News began researching this series three months ago.”

WATCHDOG: This is Pulitizer Prize candidacy reporting and great credit is due Beverly R. Steinman, Chairman of the Board; Harold Miller, President; Marvin Adams, Editor for addressing the subject and to reporter Jack Brubaker for an exceptionally comprehensive and well written articles.

Note that the series has been three months in the research and writing.  This is investigatory reporting rather than the flavor of the day.   It subscribers have to pay an extra three dollars a month to read such articles on the Internet in addition to the cost of the print edition, it is well worth it.

The internet is returning competition to the print media.  Without the occasional in depth and courageous reporting, why subscribe when there are so many other free sources for 90% of the coverage.

Perhaps we are the last to note Ms Steinman’s assumption of the chair of Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.  Having  the name Steinman at the top of the masthead should assure  the integrity of reporting that Lancaster experienced over the families illustrious stewardship, apart from the regrettable Convention Center anomaly.

Three wags of the tail!   Now let’s hope that Brubaker will be assigned to investigate Lancaster General Health next.  Let’s see who gets there first.

The editors assert in “Lottery winner, welfare more”:

“Don’t think our merit-based economic system is slowly being replaced with an ‘entitlement society,’ in which government-benefit programs – food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance –create a dependent class of Americans?”…

“In suburban Detroit, a 24-year-old woman who won a million dollar state lottery jackpot last fall continued to collect and use $200 a month in food stamps, courtesy of Michigan taxpayers.”

WATCHDOG: We are to believe that the despicable action of one miscreant out of over forty million Americans who need and receive food stamps is an indication of a “dependent class”? If so, would the same  preposterous leap of logic apply to a claim that one bribed journalist is an indication of a corrupt press?

Visit “Ensuring food stamp integrity” for information concerning ongoing efforts of the government to minimize welfare abuse.