Did I say secretive? Scratch that. They actually recorded the proceedings, and posted them online.

Yesterday, over a hundred college presidents called for a reexamination of the current minimum drinking age and suggested it should be lowered. This is great news and could serve as an opportunity to begin an intelligent national dialogue on improving alcohol policies.

Unfortunately, the neoprohibitionists at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and elsewhere have already sprung into action in an attempt to squelch any reform-minded opinions. MADD National President Laura Dean-Mooney said in a press release that any discussion of the minimum drinking age “must honor the science behind the 21 law which unequivocally shows that the 21 law has reduced drunk driving and underage and binge drinking.”

Of course, MADD’s preferred “science” ignores a very interesting working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that shreds the oft-cited correlation between adoption of the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act (FUDAA), which forced all states to have a minimum drinking age of 21, and a reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

How could this study’s findings differ so greatly from the research that MADD touts?

The paper, penned by Jeffery A. Miron and Elina Tetelbaum, points out that prior research consistently errs by including states that were unaffected by the law — the 12 states that had adopted a minimum drinking age of 21 long before FUDAA was passed and forced states to do so. Those states — for reasons unrelated to the federal law — experienced a dramatic decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the 80s and their inclusion in previous studies led many researchers to falsely conclude that the FUDAA was the key factor in the national trend.

That trend, however, began well before the FUDAA was passed in 1984. As the study notes: “[T]he decline began in the year 1969, the year in which several landmark improvements were made in the accident avoidance and crash protection features of passenger cars.” The study also recognizes that medical advances probably deserve a great deal of credit for the reduction.

While drunk driving statistics tend to attract the most attention in discussions of the minimum drinking age, the core purpose of such laws is to prevent minors from accessing alcohol. To this end, these laws have been an abject failure on college campuses. Even high school students seem to have little problem obtaining alcohol. A survey by the University of Michigan reveals that 8^th and 10^th graders find it easier to get alcohol than cigarettes.

Still, anti-drinking advocates cling to the notion that the minimum drinking age is effective and that state governments are unable to make sound decisions for their residents.

About a month ago, I piggybacked on an Eduwonk post asking the critical question that lovers of national academic standards refuse to answer: Why would federal standards — especially with stakes attached — be any less politicized than those established by states or districts? To clarify this a bit, let me rephrase the question: Why would the teachers unions, public-school administrators associations, and education bureaucrats — with their huge presences in and around DC, their outsized political power compared to parents, and their overwhelming interest in low standards and high funding — have any less sway over the feds than they have over other levels of government?

Sadly, no national standards standard bearers have answered these questions, and the leaders of the charge keep on making undefended proclamations. Look no further than today’s Flypaper post by Michael Petrilli. At the same time he rightly calls out the Washington Post for failing to understand that “what’s sorely lacking in Washington isn’t ambition, but hubris,” he asserts that the feds “could… provide greater transparency about how schools are performing—yes, through…national standards and tests.”

To quote Charlie Brown as Lucy pulls the football away: “AAUGH!!!”

Could someone PLEASE answer the question: Why would the feds be any less susceptible to standards-dumbing/avoiding/destroying than any other level of government? Indeed, given Washington’s abysmal track record on education, why should any rational person conclude that the feds wouldn’t be more susceptible to special-interest domination? And while we’re at it, could someone explain why standards from any level of government wouldn’t be more influenced by teachers unions and the like than standards delivered by parent-controlled education dollars for which schools would have to compete?

For national-standards stalwarts it’s easier to just not address political reality. But please, humor me (and Eduwonk): Explain how Washington suddenly got so high above pernicious political powers that federal standards wouldn’t be dragged into the same-old, smothering, education mud.

This week, the Los Angeles Times has invited me to participate in a daily on-line debate (a regular feature they sponsor called “Dust-Up”) with V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. Monday, we debated off-shore drilling. Today, we debated the T. Boone Pickens’ energy plan. Tomorrow, we’ll debate nuclear energy. Thursday, the issue is the future of the automobile. Friday, the topic is what America’s energy economy will and/​or should look like in a generation. While our exchanges won’t be in the newspaper’s print edition, I’ll take the on-line exposure.

So far, I don’t think John has laid a glove on me. In the off-shore drilling discussion, John has a hard time differentiating between electricity markets and transportation markets. To say that we should rely on wind, solar, or whatever — and not oil — is to say that we should rely on batteries to run our automotive fleet. Well, that would be great, but until some pretty big-time breakthroughs occur in battery technology, that’s not going to happen. Regarding T. Boone Pickens’ energy agenda, I’m still waiting for a concrete argument about why markets “fail” to produce all the investment dollars that this supposedly worthy industry needs.

Tomorrow’s debate will likely produce few sparks. I’m against nuclear energy subsidies and don’t think the industry would survive without them. Thursday and Friday, however, will be more interesting. I don’t have the faintest idea what sort of personal automobiles will be on the market in, say, 2030, and even less idea what the energy economy of the next generation will look like. I suspect, however, that John thinks it’s all rather obvious where energy markets and technologies are heading and that he has the perfect master plan to most efficiently accelerate all the big-time changes that history has in store for us.

Saying “I don’t know” to questions like these is never that good of an idea if you want to dazzle people with your wisdom and insight. On the other hand, it’s hard to marshall the argument that “the oil age is over and the age of genetically modified gerbils on treadmills is coming” (or whatever) and then say that the government needs to do something to get us there. Well, if its so inevitable, then why must government act at all? We’ll find out if John can manage to resolve that tension in what will likely be his argument.

Neal McCluskey has some serious and valid complaints about the way the recent Education Next/​Harvard PEPG survey asks about support for No Child Left Behind. But the survey also has some good questions about school choice and some great news about education tax credits.

I noted last year that their 2007 survey found 53 percent of current and former public school employees support education tax credits and only 25 percent oppose them.

This year, they report that a plurality, 46 percent of public school teachers, support education tax credits and just 41 percent oppose them. As for the general public, 54 percent support tax credits and only 28 percent oppose them.

More public school teachers support education tax credits than oppose them. That’s an amazing little fun-fact.

Pick a category – rich, poor, old, young, white, black, Hispanic, Democrat, Republican, or even public school employees – they all support education tax credits. And credits stand to save states billions of dollars.

Now that’s a winning issue for any politician.

Not long ago I heard Rush Limbaugh thundering that the venerable Associated Press had said that it would start putting opinion in its stories (referring to this story about the AP’s new Washington Bureau chief). Well, if that’s the case, I’m just glad that some of their stories reflect sensible opinion, like this dispatch today from Jeannine Aversa:

Two giant mortgage companies get into hot water over risky investments. The government steps in to throw them a lifeline should they need it.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans buy homes more expensive than they can afford. Congress approves a rescue package.

Troubles erupt at a Wall Street investment firm that made bad bets on mortgage investments. The Federal Reserve steps in and provides financial backing for the company’s takeover.

Meanwhile, tens of millions of people pay their mortgages on time, don’t max out their credit cards and put money into retirement funds. They may even save a little extra on the side.

In return, they get rates on their savings that don’t even keep up with inflation. They also are witnessing their nest eggs shrinking as the value of their homes plummets and the stock market tumbles.

Policymakers in Washington, D.C., seem more focused on rescuing those who behave badly by putting at risk taxpayers who’ve played by the rules and shunned the get-rich-quick schemes of Wall Street croupiers.

Here’s the story from today’s Washington Post.

Keep an eye out for Brian Doherty’s forthcoming book about this landmark case!