The U.S. Supreme Court declined today to involve itself in the question of whether evidence the FBI seized from the Congressional Office of Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) can be used when Jefferson is tried on corruption charges later this year.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court decision that allowed a congressman to review and remove documents seized during a controversial FBI raid of his office.
Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, said he was the victim of an overly aggressive raid of his Capitol Hill offices in May 2006. He was indicted 13 months later on public corruption charges.
The investigators' raid of Jefferson's office sparked a furor among congressional leaders, including Republicans, who argued the search violated the Constitution's separation of powers and legislative privilege.
The FBI did not warn leaders about the raid before they searched Jefferson's office.
The high court without comment let a lower court ruling stand that allows Jefferson -- with court oversight -- to review the seized documents and take out those that are privileged.
I can only imagine my Congressman, Rick Renzi (R-AZ), also under indictment, slapping his forehead with his palm at today's ruling that in effect bars the use of documents seized from a Congressional Office in a corruption trial and muttering, "Dang! THAT'S where I should have kept it!"
Now, there is no question that with or without the evidence taken from the office, Jefferson stands a high probability of joining Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney in prison. The FBI still has plenty of evidence-- most notoriously $90,000 in cash seized from a refrigerator at the Congressman's home-- with which to build a case against Jefferson.
The lower court ruling is essentially correct, in my opinion. And the reasons are a lot deeper than William Jefferson, Rick Renzi or anyone else.
At issue is the scope of the 'speech and debate' clause regarding separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution and whether it bars the FBI, an agency within the executive branch (the FBI director reports to the Attorney General, who reports to the President) from executing a search warrant on the official offices of a member of Congress.
The executive and legislative branches have ever since the Constitution was ratified been in a struggle for power (one refereed by the courts). At times one has prevailed, at times the other. Under the Bush administration however, we've seen a great expansion of executive power, with the President often choosing to simply ignore laws passed by Congress (even, far more often and far most specifically than was ever done in the past) issuing 'signing statements' when signing laws saying that in effect the laws don't apply to members or agencies within the executive branch. But when the FBI raided Jefferson's office, in effect a raid on Congress itself, it was a clear attempt to put executive control (of a putative sort) on Congress itself. In the history of the Republic, there have been a lot of Congressmen convicted of a crime while in that office, but in not a single one of those cases did investigators believe there was any reason to raid a Congressional Office (or likely realized the Constitutional peril if they tried.)
As a matter of principle, I prefer a strong legislative branch to a strong executive (and yes, I felt the same way philosophically even when the shoe was on the other foot in the 1990's and I felt that Congressional Republicans were using their legislative power to conduct investigation after investigation after investigation.) A strong Congress, no matter how repulsive their positions and actions may be, is not going to move us in the direction of dictatorship. Even when Congress passes laws restricting personal freedoms, as we've seen the past few years (especially between 2001-2006), it is often a weak and spineless Congress following the request and lead of the executive branch.
That does not mean that I feel there should be a 'safe' zone where any criminal can stash evidence and escape prosecution. The whole idea makes the idea of justice a farce. Suppose, for example, that we had a law saying that the police could not search inside a cookie jar. Then guess were all the criminals would keep the evidence? In fact by pushing this confrontation where they did and failing the FBI almost is inviting the next corrupt Congress member to keep a file cabinet marked, "None of your business" in their office, smugly assured that even if it is carted off it can't be used in a trial.
The solution would be for Congressional leaders and members of the Justice Department to negotiate a plan for how such searches should be handled in the future (such as having the Capitol Hill Police, a branch of Congress, do the actual searching). The breach between the present administration and Congress has gotten so deep though that this might be something on the agenda for the next administration.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
We knew this lawsuit was coming, but here the police should prevail.
Last year, a forty-five year old New York woman named Carol Gotbaum was detained by Phoenix police officers on a charge of disorderly conduct at the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. She had become enraged after missing a connecting flight to Tucson, and they put her in an airport holding cell. Within a few minutes, she had strangled herself and was dead.
It later came out that she was a disturbed individual, who was actually on her way to Tucson to enter an alcohol treatment facility. Her husband, upon learning that his wife was in police custody, called and urged police to check on her, informing them that she was 'suicidal'. But he called after she had already been dead for an hour.
What made this case unusual is that her family is politically powerful and well-connected in New York City. Her mother in law is reputedly second in line for the mayor's office. People get arrested for disorderly conduct in airports all the time (see Larry Craig.) However her family has the financial and political muscle to fight back, and they are. They are suing for $8 million, to be precise.
(CNN) -- The family of a woman who died last year while in police custody at Phoenix, Arizona's, Sky Harbor International Airport filed an $8 million claim Wednesday against the city of Phoenix and its police department, the first step in filing a wrongful death suit.
Carol Gotbaum, a 45-year-old mother of three from New York traveling to Tucson, Arizona, to enter an alcohol rehabilitation center, was taken into custody by Phoenix police on September 28 after she missed her connecting flight and flew into a rage.
She was left alone in a holding cell at the airport and subsequently died, accidentally strangling herself while trying to escape her handcuffs.
The claim accuses the Police Department of using "excessive and unreasonable force" on Gotbaum and failing to follow its own procedures in handling people who are obviously disturbed.
"Good people here made lethal, unreasonable mistakes, with catastrophic results for Carol, her three small children and for her husband," the claim says.
Gotbaum was treated "as if she was a dangerous criminal, rather than as a sick, intoxicated and vulnerable person she was," it says. "She had no weapon and never threatened anyone."
City attorneys responded to the claim, saying that police officers acted properly and responsibly in restraining Gotbaum.
Certainly there is a good case that could be made here, but the truth is that when police make an arrest at an airport because someone is distraught, they have exactly that-- a distraught individual (and often an intoxicated, distraught individual, as Mrs. Gotbaum was.) There are many, many reasons why people can be upset, at an airport or anyplace else (and the simple act of getting arrested itself is likely to increase stress levels in most people, especially if they've never been arrested before), but when police make an arrest they follow procedure (which does include taking standard measures to prevent someone from hurting themselves). Carol Gotbaum was clearly at a much higher risk of that kind of thing, but there was no reason why Phoenix police would know that.
To be honest, I have one question. Flying is known to be a very stressful act (we aren't in the 'Fly the friendly skies' era anymore, thanks to airline deregulation which has placed a premium on the packing and delivery of people as cargo and has de-emphasized an enjoyable flying experience.) Things like missing flights, as well as missing luggage, getting 'bumped' off a flight, spending hours in a cramped position, flight delays and cancellations and other stressful things happen all the time. If Carol Gotbaum was in such a fragile mental state, why did not the family assign someone (or even hire someone) to accompany her and make sure she got to the treatment facility? Heck, if she had an alcohol problem she required treatment for in a place thousands of miles from home then why would they let her get on a flight unattended? She is known to have consumed alcohol on the flight she got off of, and the story I linked to describes her as 'intoxicated.' Alcohol, which she certainly had access to in the air, is known to be fuel for the kind of volatile situations like the one she was involved in.
I feel for her husband and her family, but I feel that they are as much (or more) to blame for her death as is the Phoenix police department.
It later came out that she was a disturbed individual, who was actually on her way to Tucson to enter an alcohol treatment facility. Her husband, upon learning that his wife was in police custody, called and urged police to check on her, informing them that she was 'suicidal'. But he called after she had already been dead for an hour.
What made this case unusual is that her family is politically powerful and well-connected in New York City. Her mother in law is reputedly second in line for the mayor's office. People get arrested for disorderly conduct in airports all the time (see Larry Craig.) However her family has the financial and political muscle to fight back, and they are. They are suing for $8 million, to be precise.
(CNN) -- The family of a woman who died last year while in police custody at Phoenix, Arizona's, Sky Harbor International Airport filed an $8 million claim Wednesday against the city of Phoenix and its police department, the first step in filing a wrongful death suit.
Carol Gotbaum, a 45-year-old mother of three from New York traveling to Tucson, Arizona, to enter an alcohol rehabilitation center, was taken into custody by Phoenix police on September 28 after she missed her connecting flight and flew into a rage.
She was left alone in a holding cell at the airport and subsequently died, accidentally strangling herself while trying to escape her handcuffs.
The claim accuses the Police Department of using "excessive and unreasonable force" on Gotbaum and failing to follow its own procedures in handling people who are obviously disturbed.
"Good people here made lethal, unreasonable mistakes, with catastrophic results for Carol, her three small children and for her husband," the claim says.
Gotbaum was treated "as if she was a dangerous criminal, rather than as a sick, intoxicated and vulnerable person she was," it says. "She had no weapon and never threatened anyone."
City attorneys responded to the claim, saying that police officers acted properly and responsibly in restraining Gotbaum.
Certainly there is a good case that could be made here, but the truth is that when police make an arrest at an airport because someone is distraught, they have exactly that-- a distraught individual (and often an intoxicated, distraught individual, as Mrs. Gotbaum was.) There are many, many reasons why people can be upset, at an airport or anyplace else (and the simple act of getting arrested itself is likely to increase stress levels in most people, especially if they've never been arrested before), but when police make an arrest they follow procedure (which does include taking standard measures to prevent someone from hurting themselves). Carol Gotbaum was clearly at a much higher risk of that kind of thing, but there was no reason why Phoenix police would know that.
To be honest, I have one question. Flying is known to be a very stressful act (we aren't in the 'Fly the friendly skies' era anymore, thanks to airline deregulation which has placed a premium on the packing and delivery of people as cargo and has de-emphasized an enjoyable flying experience.) Things like missing flights, as well as missing luggage, getting 'bumped' off a flight, spending hours in a cramped position, flight delays and cancellations and other stressful things happen all the time. If Carol Gotbaum was in such a fragile mental state, why did not the family assign someone (or even hire someone) to accompany her and make sure she got to the treatment facility? Heck, if she had an alcohol problem she required treatment for in a place thousands of miles from home then why would they let her get on a flight unattended? She is known to have consumed alcohol on the flight she got off of, and the story I linked to describes her as 'intoxicated.' Alcohol, which she certainly had access to in the air, is known to be fuel for the kind of volatile situations like the one she was involved in.
I feel for her husband and her family, but I feel that they are as much (or more) to blame for her death as is the Phoenix police department.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Richardson endorses Obama.
Thursday, Bill Richardson, who I supported for President until he dropped out, endorsed Barack Obama, who I switched to and who I actually voted for.
You'd think this post would therefore be completely laudatory. But it's not. In good faith I can't just jump up and down and yell about how happy I am about it. I'd love to but I have just a few nagging reservations, and they are best addressed by looking at some of the political angles.
It is true that I am very happy to see Richardson, who was criticized during the campaign for being indecisive (i.e. 'Yankees or Red Sox?') firmly committing himself to endorsing a candidate. It is true that I still respect Richardson (who I first met over twenty years ago when he was my congressman) and believe that he would do a fine job in any cabinet position, especially any that involved diplomacy, at which he has excelled. And it is true that I am glad that when he finally made a decision about choosing a candidate he chose Obama. That isn't easy to do. Bill Clinton reportedly got in his face and berated Richardson earlier in the campaign (not sure if it is the day the two of them pointedly watched the Super Bowl together) for not endorsing his wife then (asking whether two cabinet positions Richardson was appointed to during the Clinton administration was not enough to warrant an endorsement,) and the conversation that Richardson had with Hillary Clinton before he endorsed Obama was (according to Richardson, but reflecting what others have said about similar phone conversations), 'painful' and difficult. The sense of anger, frustration and resentment from the Clinton campaign is palpable, with Clinton friend and confidante James Carville noting that it happened just before Easter and comparing Richardson to Judas Iscariot and claiming that his 'betrayal' was for 'thirty pieces of silver.' It is clear that if Hillary beats the odds and ends up as President, Richardson won't be nominated for dogcatcher.
However I have to say that the quote by Richardson that he made his decision after hearing Obama's speech on race last week just doesn't feel right. It may well be that Richardson, after doing the delegate math and figuring out that Obama will most likely win, may have used the speech on race as the first major event that came along that he could reasonably cite as a reason to endorse Obama and hitch his wagon to the winning train. However, Richardson has always struck me as a good hard calculator and not one to get carried away with the emotion of the moment (one of the characteristics which has made him a good diplomat,) and as such I would much rather see him just go ahead and say so. Say he believes that Obama is going to be the nominee and that he is supporting him.
Richardson is rumored to want to be the Vice Presidential nominee, or if not that then Secretary of State.
He won't be the Vice Presidential nominee. Obama, assuming he wins the nomination, will need to unify the party. As such there will be a lot of pressure for him to accept Hillary Clinton as number two. If that doesn't happen (either because he resists the pressure or she refuses the job) then there are two somewhat contradictory schools of thought on how he could unify the party. One is to choose a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton if she doesn't want it herself, especially one who would help with the electoral math. Two men who are known to be on her short list, Senator (and former Governor) Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio-- both of whom also have the executive experience that Obama lacks, would likely be at the top of that list. The other train of thought in terms of getting Hillary supporters to accept Obama is that many women have waited for a long time to have a female President. To obviously reach and choose a woman (as Walter Mondale did when he chose congresswoman-- yes, Geraldine Ferraro-- in 1984) would seem to be a pander and would likely turn off a lot of voters who see Obama as being above that kind of thing. However he could without reaching look for and choose a highly qualified female candidate, especially a Governor who has proven she can do the job as an executive and would therefore make a good running mate for Obama. That may be easier said than done though. Three of the four Democratic Governors whose names come up first, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Christine Gregoire of Washington and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, endorsed Obama much earlier in the campaign, and might not help with hard-core Clinton supporters who support Clinton for her positions rather than her gender (and there are many of them, in fact.) The fourth, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a strong supporter of Clinton but runs afoul of the Constitutional requirement that if she became President she would have to be native-born (Granholm was born in Canada.) Uniting the party in the event that Hillary Clinton refuses to join the ticket or Obama feels that he can't accept her would be a problem for Obama, but it's not a problem the solution to which puts Bill Richardson on the radar screen in any way. For that matter, if Clinton-- after finishing a very strong second, were passed over in favor of the candidate who finished a very distant fourth and withdrew the day after the New Hampshire primary, that would probably be seen by Hillary and her supporters as the equivalent of a slap in the face, and with some justification. So the bottom line is that Richardson certainly won't be nominated to run for Vice President.
A much stronger likelihood is that Richardson is angling for the position of Secretary of State. He'd likely be very good at it too, based on his numerous diplomatic successes in all kinds of negotiations in the past. Richardson, in his position as a freelancing diplomat as well as U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, has successfully negotiated treaties with everyone from the dictatorship of North Korea to bands of thugs who have taken American hostages in remote and war-torn regions. Last year he negotiated a cease-fire in Darfur. Frankly, even if he had not endorsed Obama, Obama would be foolish not to pick Richardson for Secretary of State. Politically, Richardson may have the inside track on that job, especially if the other top contender is another former Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. Biden has been even more cautious about issuing an endorsement than Richardson, and while he has been the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, he has never personally gotten his hands dirty with the business of negotiating tough treaties in tough circumstances as Richardson has. Given Obama's inexperience in foreign policy, he needs the best Secretary of State he can get and that would be Bill Richardson.
So it's clear that Obama can give Richardson the position he wants. What Richardson brings is an appeal to Hispanic voters, a group that Obama has underperformed with. Further, by the timing of his annoucement, coming on virtually the same day as the 'passportgate' scandal which cast Obama in a role in which he was both the victimized party and able to forcefully but calmly demand an investigation, Richardson was able to give Obama two major news stories favorable to Obama within the same news cycle and blow Jeremiah Wright's sermons off the front page despite the best efforts of the right-wing media to keep them there. And in the news business, once news is old and replaced by new news, it doesn't tend to return unless there is something new to pull it back to top billing.
Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn said that Richardson's endorsement comes too late to really help Obama with Hispanic voters. Rarely do I agree with Mark Penn, but I think he has a point there. Nevada, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas have already voted (and all for Clinton). There is a small but possibly significant Hispanic concentration, oddly enough, in North Carolina (a state Obama is expected to win anyway) and some in Oregon, and then there is Puerto Rico's last-in-the-nation primary, but the truth is that the vast majority of Hispanic voters have already voted. Very likely, given the small margins by which Clinton won in both states, a Richardson endorsement and campaign on behalf of Obama in New Mexico and Texas would have swung both states to Obama but Richardson was too cautious and did not issue an endorsement in time for either state. However, Richardson could be a strong help to Obama if he does campaign in Puerto Rico, and in a general election may be just the antidote that Obama needs if he is willing to barnstorm for Obama, especially in his own state but also in other swing states.
But Richardson, in taking as long as he did to make the bold move, and appearing to worry too much about trying to please both sides (or perhaps it might be better said, trying to displease neither) until so late in the campaign, brought into sharp focus some of the weaknesses he had that probably hurt him during his own Presidential run.
You'd think this post would therefore be completely laudatory. But it's not. In good faith I can't just jump up and down and yell about how happy I am about it. I'd love to but I have just a few nagging reservations, and they are best addressed by looking at some of the political angles.
It is true that I am very happy to see Richardson, who was criticized during the campaign for being indecisive (i.e. 'Yankees or Red Sox?') firmly committing himself to endorsing a candidate. It is true that I still respect Richardson (who I first met over twenty years ago when he was my congressman) and believe that he would do a fine job in any cabinet position, especially any that involved diplomacy, at which he has excelled. And it is true that I am glad that when he finally made a decision about choosing a candidate he chose Obama. That isn't easy to do. Bill Clinton reportedly got in his face and berated Richardson earlier in the campaign (not sure if it is the day the two of them pointedly watched the Super Bowl together) for not endorsing his wife then (asking whether two cabinet positions Richardson was appointed to during the Clinton administration was not enough to warrant an endorsement,) and the conversation that Richardson had with Hillary Clinton before he endorsed Obama was (according to Richardson, but reflecting what others have said about similar phone conversations), 'painful' and difficult. The sense of anger, frustration and resentment from the Clinton campaign is palpable, with Clinton friend and confidante James Carville noting that it happened just before Easter and comparing Richardson to Judas Iscariot and claiming that his 'betrayal' was for 'thirty pieces of silver.' It is clear that if Hillary beats the odds and ends up as President, Richardson won't be nominated for dogcatcher.
However I have to say that the quote by Richardson that he made his decision after hearing Obama's speech on race last week just doesn't feel right. It may well be that Richardson, after doing the delegate math and figuring out that Obama will most likely win, may have used the speech on race as the first major event that came along that he could reasonably cite as a reason to endorse Obama and hitch his wagon to the winning train. However, Richardson has always struck me as a good hard calculator and not one to get carried away with the emotion of the moment (one of the characteristics which has made him a good diplomat,) and as such I would much rather see him just go ahead and say so. Say he believes that Obama is going to be the nominee and that he is supporting him.
Richardson is rumored to want to be the Vice Presidential nominee, or if not that then Secretary of State.
He won't be the Vice Presidential nominee. Obama, assuming he wins the nomination, will need to unify the party. As such there will be a lot of pressure for him to accept Hillary Clinton as number two. If that doesn't happen (either because he resists the pressure or she refuses the job) then there are two somewhat contradictory schools of thought on how he could unify the party. One is to choose a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton if she doesn't want it herself, especially one who would help with the electoral math. Two men who are known to be on her short list, Senator (and former Governor) Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio-- both of whom also have the executive experience that Obama lacks, would likely be at the top of that list. The other train of thought in terms of getting Hillary supporters to accept Obama is that many women have waited for a long time to have a female President. To obviously reach and choose a woman (as Walter Mondale did when he chose congresswoman-- yes, Geraldine Ferraro-- in 1984) would seem to be a pander and would likely turn off a lot of voters who see Obama as being above that kind of thing. However he could without reaching look for and choose a highly qualified female candidate, especially a Governor who has proven she can do the job as an executive and would therefore make a good running mate for Obama. That may be easier said than done though. Three of the four Democratic Governors whose names come up first, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Christine Gregoire of Washington and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, endorsed Obama much earlier in the campaign, and might not help with hard-core Clinton supporters who support Clinton for her positions rather than her gender (and there are many of them, in fact.) The fourth, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a strong supporter of Clinton but runs afoul of the Constitutional requirement that if she became President she would have to be native-born (Granholm was born in Canada.) Uniting the party in the event that Hillary Clinton refuses to join the ticket or Obama feels that he can't accept her would be a problem for Obama, but it's not a problem the solution to which puts Bill Richardson on the radar screen in any way. For that matter, if Clinton-- after finishing a very strong second, were passed over in favor of the candidate who finished a very distant fourth and withdrew the day after the New Hampshire primary, that would probably be seen by Hillary and her supporters as the equivalent of a slap in the face, and with some justification. So the bottom line is that Richardson certainly won't be nominated to run for Vice President.
A much stronger likelihood is that Richardson is angling for the position of Secretary of State. He'd likely be very good at it too, based on his numerous diplomatic successes in all kinds of negotiations in the past. Richardson, in his position as a freelancing diplomat as well as U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, has successfully negotiated treaties with everyone from the dictatorship of North Korea to bands of thugs who have taken American hostages in remote and war-torn regions. Last year he negotiated a cease-fire in Darfur. Frankly, even if he had not endorsed Obama, Obama would be foolish not to pick Richardson for Secretary of State. Politically, Richardson may have the inside track on that job, especially if the other top contender is another former Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. Biden has been even more cautious about issuing an endorsement than Richardson, and while he has been the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, he has never personally gotten his hands dirty with the business of negotiating tough treaties in tough circumstances as Richardson has. Given Obama's inexperience in foreign policy, he needs the best Secretary of State he can get and that would be Bill Richardson.
So it's clear that Obama can give Richardson the position he wants. What Richardson brings is an appeal to Hispanic voters, a group that Obama has underperformed with. Further, by the timing of his annoucement, coming on virtually the same day as the 'passportgate' scandal which cast Obama in a role in which he was both the victimized party and able to forcefully but calmly demand an investigation, Richardson was able to give Obama two major news stories favorable to Obama within the same news cycle and blow Jeremiah Wright's sermons off the front page despite the best efforts of the right-wing media to keep them there. And in the news business, once news is old and replaced by new news, it doesn't tend to return unless there is something new to pull it back to top billing.
Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn said that Richardson's endorsement comes too late to really help Obama with Hispanic voters. Rarely do I agree with Mark Penn, but I think he has a point there. Nevada, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas have already voted (and all for Clinton). There is a small but possibly significant Hispanic concentration, oddly enough, in North Carolina (a state Obama is expected to win anyway) and some in Oregon, and then there is Puerto Rico's last-in-the-nation primary, but the truth is that the vast majority of Hispanic voters have already voted. Very likely, given the small margins by which Clinton won in both states, a Richardson endorsement and campaign on behalf of Obama in New Mexico and Texas would have swung both states to Obama but Richardson was too cautious and did not issue an endorsement in time for either state. However, Richardson could be a strong help to Obama if he does campaign in Puerto Rico, and in a general election may be just the antidote that Obama needs if he is willing to barnstorm for Obama, especially in his own state but also in other swing states.
But Richardson, in taking as long as he did to make the bold move, and appearing to worry too much about trying to please both sides (or perhaps it might be better said, trying to displease neither) until so late in the campaign, brought into sharp focus some of the weaknesses he had that probably hurt him during his own Presidential run.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
I wonder if any of these preachers will be covered as well as Reverend Wright?
We've heard over and over the statements by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor played on TV, in which he says, "Not God bless America. God damn America! It's in the Bible, for killing innocent people."
Now, I agree with Barack Obama when he said today that those statements are wrong and he does not agree with him. But when asking why Obama still attends that church, I wonder whether they are taking the time to ask whether the parishoners who continue to attend churches where ministers have made hateful statements about abortion, homosexuality and other perceived 'sins,' including that God will punish America for them, still attend those churches.
To cite just one group of examples, consider a few of the statements in 1998 by pastors who blamed the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina on God, as damnation for 'killing innocent people' (which they defined as abortion) and other similar reasons.
*--Steve Lefemine credited God: "In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent blood through abortion [...] Providence punishes national sins by national calamities, [...] Greater divine judgment is coming upon America unless we repent of the national sin of abortion."
*--Reverend Bill Shanks credits God; God's reasons: Abortion, debauchery, homosexuals, witchcraft...
"New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now, [...] God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again.
*--Rev. Dwight McKissic, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas said "New Orleans flaunts sin in a way that no other places do. They call it the Big Easy. There are 10 abortion clinics in Louisiana; five of those are in New Orleans. They have a Southern Decadence parade every year and they call it gay pride. When you study Scripture, it's not out of the boundaries of God to punish a nation for sin and because of sin. When I look at our country, at what's happening, and what's happening in New Orleans in particular, it's not beyond the realm of possibility."
*-- [Reverend] Fred Phelps credited Katrina as God's retribution for homosexuals: "New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. [...] Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans."
Doesn't sound to me like anything that Rev. Wright said is any more hateful (in fact not as hateful) compared to what some of these 'men of the cloth' were preaching. But I guarantee you that many of them will be sought out for their political support by the GOP (as they have been in the past) come November.
As far as Obama is concerned, it has been smear after smear after smear. Just to prove the point, there is one good thing about all the Rev. Wright controversy. At least the rumor that was being peddled about even a couple of weeks ago that Obama is actually a muslim who gets his world view from the Koran won't fly anymore.
Now, I agree with Barack Obama when he said today that those statements are wrong and he does not agree with him. But when asking why Obama still attends that church, I wonder whether they are taking the time to ask whether the parishoners who continue to attend churches where ministers have made hateful statements about abortion, homosexuality and other perceived 'sins,' including that God will punish America for them, still attend those churches.
To cite just one group of examples, consider a few of the statements in 1998 by pastors who blamed the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina on God, as damnation for 'killing innocent people' (which they defined as abortion) and other similar reasons.
*--Steve Lefemine credited God: "In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent blood through abortion [...] Providence punishes national sins by national calamities, [...] Greater divine judgment is coming upon America unless we repent of the national sin of abortion."
*--Reverend Bill Shanks credits God; God's reasons: Abortion, debauchery, homosexuals, witchcraft...
"New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now, [...] God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again.
*--Rev. Dwight McKissic, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas said "New Orleans flaunts sin in a way that no other places do. They call it the Big Easy. There are 10 abortion clinics in Louisiana; five of those are in New Orleans. They have a Southern Decadence parade every year and they call it gay pride. When you study Scripture, it's not out of the boundaries of God to punish a nation for sin and because of sin. When I look at our country, at what's happening, and what's happening in New Orleans in particular, it's not beyond the realm of possibility."
*-- [Reverend] Fred Phelps credited Katrina as God's retribution for homosexuals: "New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. [...] Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans."
Doesn't sound to me like anything that Rev. Wright said is any more hateful (in fact not as hateful) compared to what some of these 'men of the cloth' were preaching. But I guarantee you that many of them will be sought out for their political support by the GOP (as they have been in the past) come November.
As far as Obama is concerned, it has been smear after smear after smear. Just to prove the point, there is one good thing about all the Rev. Wright controversy. At least the rumor that was being peddled about even a couple of weeks ago that Obama is actually a muslim who gets his world view from the Koran won't fly anymore.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Patrolling in Kabul is 'romantic?' Either the President is delusional or kinky in a very strange way.
Well we now know what President Bush's definition of 'romantic' is. serving in the Afghan war.
I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.
Yeah. uh-huh. If he was younger he'd serve. This from a guy who pulled strings to get out of going to Vietnam.
Not seeing your family for months on end, patrolling streets half a world away and hoping not to encounter any suicide bombers along the way, or at least hoping that if there are any then you will find them before they find you. Seeing blood and death and carnage. Wondering why the administration didn't put in enough troops at the outset to do more than turn Afghanisan into an endless war of attrition against an enemy with a steady stream of recruits. Going to bed each night with the realization that you've cheated death once again and the time until you see your family again is one day shorter.
There are a lot of words that kind of image conjures up in my mind, but 'romantic' isn't one of them.
I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.
Yeah. uh-huh. If he was younger he'd serve. This from a guy who pulled strings to get out of going to Vietnam.
Not seeing your family for months on end, patrolling streets half a world away and hoping not to encounter any suicide bombers along the way, or at least hoping that if there are any then you will find them before they find you. Seeing blood and death and carnage. Wondering why the administration didn't put in enough troops at the outset to do more than turn Afghanisan into an endless war of attrition against an enemy with a steady stream of recruits. Going to bed each night with the realization that you've cheated death once again and the time until you see your family again is one day shorter.
There are a lot of words that kind of image conjures up in my mind, but 'romantic' isn't one of them.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Michigan proves it can be done. Except in Florida.
Michigan and Florida began on the same footing, both being stripped of their delegates to the Democratic convention, and both having held meaningless primaries which were nominally won by Hillary Clinton in the absence of a campaign.
Recently both of them have been discussing what to do about conducting a fair vote.
Michigan, however, is on the verge of having a plan in place which will allow a do-over primary. It does depend on Democrats raising funds to pay for it, but that is a reasonable expectation if the plan is otherwise put into place.
Florida in contrast seems to be completely clueless as to how to put something together. But it's not like a fair election couldn't be held, because Michigan will likely be holding one. Florida only has a long list of 'can't do its', even if the money were provided from outside.
Proving that Florida still doesn't know how to conduct an election, eight years after the 2000 election debacle, six years after the 2002 gubernatorial primary that was riddled with SNAFUS, and two years after a close congressional race in which hundreds of votes appeared to have been not counted but with no paper trail for backup.
Florida: Incompetent, inept, and inconsistent.
Recently both of them have been discussing what to do about conducting a fair vote.
Michigan, however, is on the verge of having a plan in place which will allow a do-over primary. It does depend on Democrats raising funds to pay for it, but that is a reasonable expectation if the plan is otherwise put into place.
Florida in contrast seems to be completely clueless as to how to put something together. But it's not like a fair election couldn't be held, because Michigan will likely be holding one. Florida only has a long list of 'can't do its', even if the money were provided from outside.
Proving that Florida still doesn't know how to conduct an election, eight years after the 2000 election debacle, six years after the 2002 gubernatorial primary that was riddled with SNAFUS, and two years after a close congressional race in which hundreds of votes appeared to have been not counted but with no paper trail for backup.
Florida: Incompetent, inept, and inconsistent.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The scarlet "H"
Well, you know what kind of week it's been when the names I hear most on the news after New York Democratic Governor Elliott Spitzer are Larry Craig, Bill Clinton and Jim McGreevey.
It also is a great opportunity to answer critics on the right who claim that somehow the media judges a Larry Craig or a Tom Foley more harshly when they are involved in sexual pecadillos than they judge a Bill Clinton or a Ted Kennedy.
The issue is not about sex. It's about hypocrisy.
Bill Clinton left office with a 60% plus approval rating, and that was after the impeachment trial. Voters in Massachusetts have returned Ted Kennedy to the Senate seven times since Chappaquiddick. Why is that?
The answer is quite simple. Whatever their faults (and I'm not defending them) neither Bill Clinton nor Ted Kennedy has told anyone how to live their personal life. They don't go out and preach what they don't practice.
Elliott Spitzer, in contrast, has practically no support in this case, and the reason is because he made his career by being tough on criminals (including prostitution rings) and being 'Mr. Clean' himself. Well, if you claim to be Mr. Clean then you better be exactly that.
Which leads to why Republicans like Larry Craig have gotten such a harsh rebuke from the public as well as from the media. They ran on 'family values' platforms, preaching (among other things) about the sanctity of marriage. And it probably earns them some votes. But when voters find that those votes were earned under false pretenses they feel far more betrayed than they would by say, yet another sex scandal involving Bill Clinton. There is a reason why the media doesn't report on any more Clinton sex scandals. It's because pretty much everybody knows by now that Bill has a zipper problem, and reporting details of another dalliance would be about as interesting to most people as it will be if the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates swap a couple of minor league prospects (yawwwn.) When a sinner is caught sinning, it's not exactly earth-shattering news. But when they bust the preacher who has been out railing against it, then it is.
For that matter, speaking of preachers, this pattern holds beyond politics. There is a reason why Hugh Grant is still making movies but Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard have mostly lost their careers after all three of them were caught consorting with prostitutes. That reason is because Hugh Grant never got out there and judged others for their personal failings. So both society at large and those who work with him are much more willing to forgive Hugh Grant and let him get on with things than they are willing to let those who engaged in a 'hang 'em high' brand of moralisitic judgement escape justice according to the same gallows that they have erected themselves.
But it isn't about the media not reporting scandals involving Democrats. Republicans are in fact more vulnerable to the fallout from sexual scandal precisely because they have cast themselves as the guardians of societies standards, of morality and decency. When preachy, judgemental Democrats like Spitzer or Gary Condit (who once called on Bill Clinton to step aside during the Lewinsky scandal) get caught with their pants down (in both senses of the word) then they face the same wrath from the public as Larry Craig and Mark Foley did.
Which leads us right back to what the Bible says about hypocrisy: If you live in a glass house then don't throw stones.
It also is a great opportunity to answer critics on the right who claim that somehow the media judges a Larry Craig or a Tom Foley more harshly when they are involved in sexual pecadillos than they judge a Bill Clinton or a Ted Kennedy.
The issue is not about sex. It's about hypocrisy.
Bill Clinton left office with a 60% plus approval rating, and that was after the impeachment trial. Voters in Massachusetts have returned Ted Kennedy to the Senate seven times since Chappaquiddick. Why is that?
The answer is quite simple. Whatever their faults (and I'm not defending them) neither Bill Clinton nor Ted Kennedy has told anyone how to live their personal life. They don't go out and preach what they don't practice.
Elliott Spitzer, in contrast, has practically no support in this case, and the reason is because he made his career by being tough on criminals (including prostitution rings) and being 'Mr. Clean' himself. Well, if you claim to be Mr. Clean then you better be exactly that.
Which leads to why Republicans like Larry Craig have gotten such a harsh rebuke from the public as well as from the media. They ran on 'family values' platforms, preaching (among other things) about the sanctity of marriage. And it probably earns them some votes. But when voters find that those votes were earned under false pretenses they feel far more betrayed than they would by say, yet another sex scandal involving Bill Clinton. There is a reason why the media doesn't report on any more Clinton sex scandals. It's because pretty much everybody knows by now that Bill has a zipper problem, and reporting details of another dalliance would be about as interesting to most people as it will be if the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates swap a couple of minor league prospects (yawwwn.) When a sinner is caught sinning, it's not exactly earth-shattering news. But when they bust the preacher who has been out railing against it, then it is.
For that matter, speaking of preachers, this pattern holds beyond politics. There is a reason why Hugh Grant is still making movies but Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard have mostly lost their careers after all three of them were caught consorting with prostitutes. That reason is because Hugh Grant never got out there and judged others for their personal failings. So both society at large and those who work with him are much more willing to forgive Hugh Grant and let him get on with things than they are willing to let those who engaged in a 'hang 'em high' brand of moralisitic judgement escape justice according to the same gallows that they have erected themselves.
But it isn't about the media not reporting scandals involving Democrats. Republicans are in fact more vulnerable to the fallout from sexual scandal precisely because they have cast themselves as the guardians of societies standards, of morality and decency. When preachy, judgemental Democrats like Spitzer or Gary Condit (who once called on Bill Clinton to step aside during the Lewinsky scandal) get caught with their pants down (in both senses of the word) then they face the same wrath from the public as Larry Craig and Mark Foley did.
Which leads us right back to what the Bible says about hypocrisy: If you live in a glass house then don't throw stones.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
California judge overreaches with ruling to criminalize homeschooling
Recently a ruling came down in California which could criminalize home schooling in that state.
Parents of the approximately 200,000 home-schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms — and go back to school themselves — if they want to continue teaching their own kids. On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Citing state law that goes back to the early 1950s, Croskey declared that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.
I believe that this ruling is absurd. There are many reasons why parents home school their children. And in nearly all cases, the children are schooled with far more diligence, care and personal attention than they get in a crowded classroom, with twenty or more kids competing for the attention of a single teacher (even though I believe that most public school teachers do an excellent job, especially for the poor pay they get.)
There is a view held by some opponents that homeschooling parents are all a bunch of relgious fanatics intent on indoctrinating their children and teaching them creationism. I'm not disputing, for that matter, that there are some who fit that description, but that is not who most homeschool parents are. I've known many of them, and very few if any strike me as fanatics.
I know, because my wife and I homeschooled our eldest daughter twice, for a year each time. And the reason was the same-- she wasn't getting the education she needed elsewhere. When she was in the first grade, we moved from Los Lunas to Belen, New Mexico. She was at the top of her class in the new school. But then it turned out that one reason why was because she was using the same textbook that she'd used in kindergarten at another school the year before. We didn't want her to be a year behind already by first grade, so we took her out and schooled her at home. Then when she was in fifth grade, we moved to Corpus Christi, Texas. In Texas they have these ISD's (Independent School Districts) where the idea is that the taxes raised in each district pretty much stay in the district. Well, we were living in the West Oso ISD (lots of apartments, low property values) and the budget of the school there was practically nothing. Some of the books were twenty years out of date (in fact someone told me that the entire budget for the high school was not much more than what the high school two districts down, Calallen, spent just on its football program alone.) So again, we homeschooled our daughter (and even hired a woman with an English degree to supplement some of what we were teaching her with some reading and writing.) Often, homeschooling parents have networks with each other so they can participate in group activities (and it was more than once I was asked to work with some high school aged kid on his or her math.)
In both cases, we were considered qualifiedby the states or school districts involved to teach because I have a master's degree in Mathematics (including a full slate of undergraduate classes, as well as a bachelor's degree in Chemistry.) My wife at the time did not have a degree but she has always been skilled in computers. The idea that either of us would have to go get a teaching degree is ridiculous (as well as the fact that on both of these occasions such a requirement would have been self-defeating since it takes a couple of years at least to get one and in each case we home-schooled for a year because of local conditions-- and we had to make that decision and prepare for it quickly.)
I've also known parents of special needs children who homeschooled because their local school districts would not or could not provide the specific help that they needed. One of my daughters' classmates has been homeschooled on and off because she has Krohn's disease and attending public school would be more difficult and at times embarrassing for her than it would be for other children (though she has also attended during times when her condition is under control.)
Now, there have occasionally been other, more sinister reasons why some parents may claim to be home-schooling, as was the case in the situation that led to this ruling:
The debacle originated with a suit over child abuse. One of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles couple, had filed a complaint of abuse and neglect with the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services. The agency determined that the Long children were being home schooled, taught by their uncredentialed mother while officially enrolled in independent study at Sunland Christian School. The DCFS then turned to the courts to mandate that the children attend public school so that teachers might spot evidence of abuse (a charge the parents deny). A juvenile court, however, determined that the Longs had a constitutional right to home school their children. The DCFS appealed and the case landed in Croskey's appellate court.
Clearly no child should be abused or not be educated (which is a form of abuse.) However it is ridiculous to prevent all homeschooling parents (there are 200,000 in California alone) from doing the best they can for their kids because of a handful of child abusers who are trying to use it to hide their crimes. Instead, why not require (as many states now do) that homeschooled kids get checked on once or twice a year so that their progress can be assessed and looked at for any signs of potential abuse, which can if necessary be followed up on with a home visit. And if a case of child abuse is discovered then the guilty parties should be prosecuted. But it seems to me that criminalizing homeschool is the wrong way to handle what is ultimately a much more narrow problem dealing with enforcement of existing law (child abuse is a felony no matter what the circumstances.)
Parents of the approximately 200,000 home-schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms — and go back to school themselves — if they want to continue teaching their own kids. On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Citing state law that goes back to the early 1950s, Croskey declared that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.
I believe that this ruling is absurd. There are many reasons why parents home school their children. And in nearly all cases, the children are schooled with far more diligence, care and personal attention than they get in a crowded classroom, with twenty or more kids competing for the attention of a single teacher (even though I believe that most public school teachers do an excellent job, especially for the poor pay they get.)
There is a view held by some opponents that homeschooling parents are all a bunch of relgious fanatics intent on indoctrinating their children and teaching them creationism. I'm not disputing, for that matter, that there are some who fit that description, but that is not who most homeschool parents are. I've known many of them, and very few if any strike me as fanatics.
I know, because my wife and I homeschooled our eldest daughter twice, for a year each time. And the reason was the same-- she wasn't getting the education she needed elsewhere. When she was in the first grade, we moved from Los Lunas to Belen, New Mexico. She was at the top of her class in the new school. But then it turned out that one reason why was because she was using the same textbook that she'd used in kindergarten at another school the year before. We didn't want her to be a year behind already by first grade, so we took her out and schooled her at home. Then when she was in fifth grade, we moved to Corpus Christi, Texas. In Texas they have these ISD's (Independent School Districts) where the idea is that the taxes raised in each district pretty much stay in the district. Well, we were living in the West Oso ISD (lots of apartments, low property values) and the budget of the school there was practically nothing. Some of the books were twenty years out of date (in fact someone told me that the entire budget for the high school was not much more than what the high school two districts down, Calallen, spent just on its football program alone.) So again, we homeschooled our daughter (and even hired a woman with an English degree to supplement some of what we were teaching her with some reading and writing.) Often, homeschooling parents have networks with each other so they can participate in group activities (and it was more than once I was asked to work with some high school aged kid on his or her math.)
In both cases, we were considered qualifiedby the states or school districts involved to teach because I have a master's degree in Mathematics (including a full slate of undergraduate classes, as well as a bachelor's degree in Chemistry.) My wife at the time did not have a degree but she has always been skilled in computers. The idea that either of us would have to go get a teaching degree is ridiculous (as well as the fact that on both of these occasions such a requirement would have been self-defeating since it takes a couple of years at least to get one and in each case we home-schooled for a year because of local conditions-- and we had to make that decision and prepare for it quickly.)
I've also known parents of special needs children who homeschooled because their local school districts would not or could not provide the specific help that they needed. One of my daughters' classmates has been homeschooled on and off because she has Krohn's disease and attending public school would be more difficult and at times embarrassing for her than it would be for other children (though she has also attended during times when her condition is under control.)
Now, there have occasionally been other, more sinister reasons why some parents may claim to be home-schooling, as was the case in the situation that led to this ruling:
The debacle originated with a suit over child abuse. One of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles couple, had filed a complaint of abuse and neglect with the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services. The agency determined that the Long children were being home schooled, taught by their uncredentialed mother while officially enrolled in independent study at Sunland Christian School. The DCFS then turned to the courts to mandate that the children attend public school so that teachers might spot evidence of abuse (a charge the parents deny). A juvenile court, however, determined that the Longs had a constitutional right to home school their children. The DCFS appealed and the case landed in Croskey's appellate court.
Clearly no child should be abused or not be educated (which is a form of abuse.) However it is ridiculous to prevent all homeschooling parents (there are 200,000 in California alone) from doing the best they can for their kids because of a handful of child abusers who are trying to use it to hide their crimes. Instead, why not require (as many states now do) that homeschooled kids get checked on once or twice a year so that their progress can be assessed and looked at for any signs of potential abuse, which can if necessary be followed up on with a home visit. And if a case of child abuse is discovered then the guilty parties should be prosecuted. But it seems to me that criminalizing homeschool is the wrong way to handle what is ultimately a much more narrow problem dealing with enforcement of existing law (child abuse is a felony no matter what the circumstances.)
Friday, March 07, 2008
If we are going to spend this much on defense then we should invest in human resources first.
We've heard all the arguments about how we need a secure America in justifying bloated defense budgets, which are many times more than any other nation in the world spends on its military.
Yet, we read all the time about proposed cuts in veterans programs, the attempt a few years ago by the Bush administration to cut the extra pay troops get when they are in combat, and (this affected my brother in law) when they flew troops home from Iraq on a short furlough, they dumped national guard troops off in cities on the east coast and they had to buy their own tickets home if they wanted to see their families (his Colorado national guard unit was flown to if I remember right either Atlanta or Baltimore). We've seen that our army has been stretched to the limit in Iraq, with tours of duty increased and rotation time back home cut as the only way to create the 'surge.' Four years ago, John Kerry said he would if President ask Congress to provide the funding for the creation of two new combat divisions. He lost the election, and the result is that they have not yet been created. We've seen that the chronically low pay in the military has meant that some military families have had to go on food stamps or other means of public assistance, especially during the times when one parent is deployed overseas. We've heard gut wrenching stories of veterans who have been left seriously injured by war, but who have not been given the support they need or have been denied the benefits that disabled veterans have been given in previous conflicts.
So this begs the question: In a military budget that runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, why can't we find more to pay and otherwise support our men and women in uniform, and why can't we find the relatively smaller amounts it would take to support the veterans administration which is now dealing with its own surge-- in Iraq and Afghan war veterans who need help when they get back home? Even things that they need right now-- like better body armor and up-armored humvees, have been slowed down by bureaucrats who apparently think that those items aren't important enough to put it in the 'urgent' box.
Yhe answer is the same as it always has been, but exaggerated by the twisted 'compassionate conservatism' of the Bush administration, in which individuals often have to deal with the effects of cuts in any kind of services, but there is no limit on the generosity of this government when it comes to corporate welfare.
For example, the biggest story right now involving military contracts is that a European company, Airbus, have been given a contract over Boeing to make air refueling tankers. It is true that one could argue that there are some security concerns regarding background checks, but I would think this would be a relatively minor concern, especially for a European company (we have more sensitive military components than that manufactured in China, for heaven's sake!) What this story has really exposed is that it is all about money. The Airbus model was superior to the Boeing proposal in five out of five criteria, so there is no question that it is a better product, but a lot of people are objecting because of the billions of dollars that will be spent on it (and which therefore won't go to Boeing.) Let me ask it this way: If you are an American pilot, wouldn't you want to have to depend on a more reliable fueling tanker? But somehow this never even has been brought up. We've heard about the money this will cost investors and the company, we've heard about the 44,000 jobs this will cost Americans, which is a legitimate concern, but let's face it-- these employees are being used as pawns for Boeing to hide behind; the real issues is the money. If you want proof, consider that this is actually a rebid contract-- the government official who shepherded through the initial, inflated contract which went to Boeing without a serious bidding process was subsequently hired by the company as a consultant and paid a lot more than any of those 44,000 workers would have earned.
We know the Pentagon is in love with high-tech gadgetry. And as far as developments like laser guided missiles and computer drones etc. have helped with efficiency and reduced casualties that is great. But it has also become an Achilles heel. As I mentioned earlier, many crucial components of our military weapons are manufactured abroad, including some in China. And today we saw a story about how Chinese hackers (who claim they are sometimes paid by the Government, a claim Beijing denies have penetrated the most secure of Pentagon websites In fact, it does not matter whether they are paid by the government or not. The point is that if there were ever a military conflict they could at a crucial time shut down most or all of our computers. If that happened it would depend on the American soldier, and not on all the high tech gadgetry.
I have faith that in such a situation the American soldier would still be able to prevail. But in that context, we have to ask why we are pouring so much money down an endless drain of fat military contracts to build ever and ever more expensive and ultimately more vulnerable weapons systems, while at the same time we spend less and less on the most important and fundamental weapons system we have-- the American serviceman.
Yet, we read all the time about proposed cuts in veterans programs, the attempt a few years ago by the Bush administration to cut the extra pay troops get when they are in combat, and (this affected my brother in law) when they flew troops home from Iraq on a short furlough, they dumped national guard troops off in cities on the east coast and they had to buy their own tickets home if they wanted to see their families (his Colorado national guard unit was flown to if I remember right either Atlanta or Baltimore). We've seen that our army has been stretched to the limit in Iraq, with tours of duty increased and rotation time back home cut as the only way to create the 'surge.' Four years ago, John Kerry said he would if President ask Congress to provide the funding for the creation of two new combat divisions. He lost the election, and the result is that they have not yet been created. We've seen that the chronically low pay in the military has meant that some military families have had to go on food stamps or other means of public assistance, especially during the times when one parent is deployed overseas. We've heard gut wrenching stories of veterans who have been left seriously injured by war, but who have not been given the support they need or have been denied the benefits that disabled veterans have been given in previous conflicts.
So this begs the question: In a military budget that runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, why can't we find more to pay and otherwise support our men and women in uniform, and why can't we find the relatively smaller amounts it would take to support the veterans administration which is now dealing with its own surge-- in Iraq and Afghan war veterans who need help when they get back home? Even things that they need right now-- like better body armor and up-armored humvees, have been slowed down by bureaucrats who apparently think that those items aren't important enough to put it in the 'urgent' box.
Yhe answer is the same as it always has been, but exaggerated by the twisted 'compassionate conservatism' of the Bush administration, in which individuals often have to deal with the effects of cuts in any kind of services, but there is no limit on the generosity of this government when it comes to corporate welfare.
For example, the biggest story right now involving military contracts is that a European company, Airbus, have been given a contract over Boeing to make air refueling tankers. It is true that one could argue that there are some security concerns regarding background checks, but I would think this would be a relatively minor concern, especially for a European company (we have more sensitive military components than that manufactured in China, for heaven's sake!) What this story has really exposed is that it is all about money. The Airbus model was superior to the Boeing proposal in five out of five criteria, so there is no question that it is a better product, but a lot of people are objecting because of the billions of dollars that will be spent on it (and which therefore won't go to Boeing.) Let me ask it this way: If you are an American pilot, wouldn't you want to have to depend on a more reliable fueling tanker? But somehow this never even has been brought up. We've heard about the money this will cost investors and the company, we've heard about the 44,000 jobs this will cost Americans, which is a legitimate concern, but let's face it-- these employees are being used as pawns for Boeing to hide behind; the real issues is the money. If you want proof, consider that this is actually a rebid contract-- the government official who shepherded through the initial, inflated contract which went to Boeing without a serious bidding process was subsequently hired by the company as a consultant and paid a lot more than any of those 44,000 workers would have earned.
We know the Pentagon is in love with high-tech gadgetry. And as far as developments like laser guided missiles and computer drones etc. have helped with efficiency and reduced casualties that is great. But it has also become an Achilles heel. As I mentioned earlier, many crucial components of our military weapons are manufactured abroad, including some in China. And today we saw a story about how Chinese hackers (who claim they are sometimes paid by the Government, a claim Beijing denies have penetrated the most secure of Pentagon websites In fact, it does not matter whether they are paid by the government or not. The point is that if there were ever a military conflict they could at a crucial time shut down most or all of our computers. If that happened it would depend on the American soldier, and not on all the high tech gadgetry.
I have faith that in such a situation the American soldier would still be able to prevail. But in that context, we have to ask why we are pouring so much money down an endless drain of fat military contracts to build ever and ever more expensive and ultimately more vulnerable weapons systems, while at the same time we spend less and less on the most important and fundamental weapons system we have-- the American serviceman.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Clinton wins make for a supreme irony for Florida, Michigan
Well, it is obvious that the battle for the nomination will go down to the wire with Hillary Clinton's wins tonight in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. I am of course an Obama supporter, but clearly Clinton is a fighter, and she's going to make sure that Obama has to earn it if he is the nominee.
She is clearly a winner tonight (as is John McCain, who finally mathematically clinched the Republican nomination, prompting Mike Huckabee to drop out.) Barack Obama is not a big loser, however. He won Vermont and will apparently clearly win the caucus portion of the Texas vote though narrowly losing the popular vote in the primary (meaning he may still win more delegates in Texas than Clinton will.)
But this makes it clear that there are two huge losers in this primary season, at least on the Democratic side: the states of Michigan and Florida. And even more than the fact that they are losers, is how they got there-- a supreme irony, that.
In 1999, Baylor had the football and a 24-21 lead in a football game against UNLV. With the clock running down, UNLV out of timeouts and Baylor inside the UNLV ten yard line, the Bears only had to kneel down and let the clock run out. Instead coach Kevin Steele threw sportsmanship to the winds and tried to run up the score, calling for a play to try and punch the ball into the endzone.
Only it didn't work out that way. In one of the most spectacular instances of comeuppance in sports history, the ball was fumbled on the goal line and the fumble was scooped up and returned 100 yards for a touchdown with no time remaining and a 27-24 UNLV victory. By trying to run up the score instead of walking off the field and into the pressroom with a hard-fought victory, Steele instead had to explain an inexplicable loss.
That serves as an introduction to what happened to Michigan and Florida. They violated party rules and 'jumped the gun' by scheduling their primaries in January, in violation of party rules which spelled out which states had early primaries. Their thinking was that if they held the primaries earlier, they'd 1) get the candidates to come there and campaign, 2) get more national media attention and the attendant dollars that an active campaign would bring into the state, 3) have the candidates focus on issues of importance to them (such as the auto industry in Michigan and senior issues in Florida) and 4) have a real say in choosing the nominee (instead of having the race already decided by the time it was their turn to vote.)
By so doing, they badly miscalculated, at least on the Democratic side (Republicans competed in both states, and in fact Florida turned out to be the key win for McCain, juicing his campaign and deflating Mitt Romney's just in time for Super-Duper Tuesday.) But on the Democratic side, the DNC stripped both states of their delegates (rendering both contests devoid of real meaning,) had the candidates sign pledges not to compete (in fact Obama and most of the other candidates even took their names off of the ballot in Michigan) and even is refusing to seat super delegates from the states (such as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for and signed the early primary law into effect.)
And the irony is that both states, especially Michigan are reaping what they sowed (Florida can at least take some solace in the hard fought Republican campaign there and the role the state played in making McCain the nominee. Michigan in contrast, didn't even have much of a Republican contest, with Mitt Romney getting his biggest win of the primary season, which wasn't really all that big.)
In the most competitive Democratic race in decades, it is likely that Democratic voters in EVERY OTHER state EXCEPT Florida and Michigan will get to cast votes that mean something. In short, to note the above four points, 1) the candidates didn't campaign in either one, 2) they aren't getting all the national attention that we've seen lavished this week on, for example, Ohio and Texas, 3) watched the candidates talk about other issues, but not much about the auto industry or-- surprisingly-- senior issues, and 4) not only will the voters not have a say, but even their elected officials-- superdelegates otherwise, will not be seated at the convention. I doubt when Governor Granholm signed the bill she knew she was even signing away her own vote at the convention.
On top of that, recently Florida Governor Charlie Crist proposed scheduling another Democratic primary later this year. Crist, a supporter of John McCain, wants to do so because if Florida's delegates were added back in to the total, it would likely just push the finish line back farther and drag things out longer (you can see the crocodile tears he is shedding over the Florida Democratic party.)
She is clearly a winner tonight (as is John McCain, who finally mathematically clinched the Republican nomination, prompting Mike Huckabee to drop out.) Barack Obama is not a big loser, however. He won Vermont and will apparently clearly win the caucus portion of the Texas vote though narrowly losing the popular vote in the primary (meaning he may still win more delegates in Texas than Clinton will.)
But this makes it clear that there are two huge losers in this primary season, at least on the Democratic side: the states of Michigan and Florida. And even more than the fact that they are losers, is how they got there-- a supreme irony, that.
In 1999, Baylor had the football and a 24-21 lead in a football game against UNLV. With the clock running down, UNLV out of timeouts and Baylor inside the UNLV ten yard line, the Bears only had to kneel down and let the clock run out. Instead coach Kevin Steele threw sportsmanship to the winds and tried to run up the score, calling for a play to try and punch the ball into the endzone.
Only it didn't work out that way. In one of the most spectacular instances of comeuppance in sports history, the ball was fumbled on the goal line and the fumble was scooped up and returned 100 yards for a touchdown with no time remaining and a 27-24 UNLV victory. By trying to run up the score instead of walking off the field and into the pressroom with a hard-fought victory, Steele instead had to explain an inexplicable loss.
That serves as an introduction to what happened to Michigan and Florida. They violated party rules and 'jumped the gun' by scheduling their primaries in January, in violation of party rules which spelled out which states had early primaries. Their thinking was that if they held the primaries earlier, they'd 1) get the candidates to come there and campaign, 2) get more national media attention and the attendant dollars that an active campaign would bring into the state, 3) have the candidates focus on issues of importance to them (such as the auto industry in Michigan and senior issues in Florida) and 4) have a real say in choosing the nominee (instead of having the race already decided by the time it was their turn to vote.)
By so doing, they badly miscalculated, at least on the Democratic side (Republicans competed in both states, and in fact Florida turned out to be the key win for McCain, juicing his campaign and deflating Mitt Romney's just in time for Super-Duper Tuesday.) But on the Democratic side, the DNC stripped both states of their delegates (rendering both contests devoid of real meaning,) had the candidates sign pledges not to compete (in fact Obama and most of the other candidates even took their names off of the ballot in Michigan) and even is refusing to seat super delegates from the states (such as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for and signed the early primary law into effect.)
And the irony is that both states, especially Michigan are reaping what they sowed (Florida can at least take some solace in the hard fought Republican campaign there and the role the state played in making McCain the nominee. Michigan in contrast, didn't even have much of a Republican contest, with Mitt Romney getting his biggest win of the primary season, which wasn't really all that big.)
In the most competitive Democratic race in decades, it is likely that Democratic voters in EVERY OTHER state EXCEPT Florida and Michigan will get to cast votes that mean something. In short, to note the above four points, 1) the candidates didn't campaign in either one, 2) they aren't getting all the national attention that we've seen lavished this week on, for example, Ohio and Texas, 3) watched the candidates talk about other issues, but not much about the auto industry or-- surprisingly-- senior issues, and 4) not only will the voters not have a say, but even their elected officials-- superdelegates otherwise, will not be seated at the convention. I doubt when Governor Granholm signed the bill she knew she was even signing away her own vote at the convention.
On top of that, recently Florida Governor Charlie Crist proposed scheduling another Democratic primary later this year. Crist, a supporter of John McCain, wants to do so because if Florida's delegates were added back in to the total, it would likely just push the finish line back farther and drag things out longer (you can see the crocodile tears he is shedding over the Florida Democratic party.)
Monday, March 03, 2008
White men as swing voters?
After an earlier story run before the South Carolina primary on CNN backfired on the network, in which they asked black women whether they supported Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, with the obvious subtext that the election was about race vs. gender, the networks seem beside themselves in discovering that the new 'swing voters' are white men in the Democratic party. The theory goes, apparently, that since black voters are voting heavily for Obama and white women are mostly voting for Clinton, Obama's recent success is courtesy of white men choosing Obama over Clinton.
The subtext to this one is that the white men are more sexist than they are racist, which is why we (I am a white male Democrat) are supporting Obama.
Which is utter and complete bologna, and I reject their analysis.
To begin with, let's consider who white male Democrats are. As we know, the preferred party of white men in general is the Republican party. And white men who are either racist or sexist are much more likely to feel at home in an anti-abortion party that opposes affirmative action, child care and anti-poverty programs than they are in today's Democratic party. Very likely they've already left.
The white men who are left, such as myself, are therefore likely to be the most liberal of white men, those who reject the essense of the Republican party.
And the truth is, Hillary Clinton has not been getting the votes of these men because she is the more conservative candidate. The Iraq war vote in 2002 was huge, but that isn't all. Her reluctance to question the wisdom of that vote and renounce it (a la John Edwards) spoke volumes. But she also voted for NCLB, Patriot I, Patriot II, the bankrupcty bill, and just to show that she still hadn't learned anything, the Iran vote last year. So the reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton isn't because she was a woman, the reason I didn't vote for her is because her hawkish foreign policy reminded me of Joe Lieberman (I didn't vote for him either when he ran for President in 2004.)
A friend of mine feels the same way, but he told me about how he had been roundly excoriated by some female friends of his who believe that he based his vote on gender. This is of course ridiculous. In fact, the last time when there was a serious competition between a white woman and a black man within the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi in 2005 defeated former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee to become minority leader (and then accede to speaker after the 2006 elections.) Most Democratic men I know, if they had a strong opinion of the race, felt that it was better that Pelosi won because she better represents the traditional views of the Democratic party. I agree with that assessment.
But the idea that white male Democrats decide who to vote for based on gender (or race for that matter) is insulting at the deepest level to many of us who have spent a great deal of time and effort supporting the candidate who we believe is better.
The subtext to this one is that the white men are more sexist than they are racist, which is why we (I am a white male Democrat) are supporting Obama.
Which is utter and complete bologna, and I reject their analysis.
To begin with, let's consider who white male Democrats are. As we know, the preferred party of white men in general is the Republican party. And white men who are either racist or sexist are much more likely to feel at home in an anti-abortion party that opposes affirmative action, child care and anti-poverty programs than they are in today's Democratic party. Very likely they've already left.
The white men who are left, such as myself, are therefore likely to be the most liberal of white men, those who reject the essense of the Republican party.
And the truth is, Hillary Clinton has not been getting the votes of these men because she is the more conservative candidate. The Iraq war vote in 2002 was huge, but that isn't all. Her reluctance to question the wisdom of that vote and renounce it (a la John Edwards) spoke volumes. But she also voted for NCLB, Patriot I, Patriot II, the bankrupcty bill, and just to show that she still hadn't learned anything, the Iran vote last year. So the reason I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton isn't because she was a woman, the reason I didn't vote for her is because her hawkish foreign policy reminded me of Joe Lieberman (I didn't vote for him either when he ran for President in 2004.)
A friend of mine feels the same way, but he told me about how he had been roundly excoriated by some female friends of his who believe that he based his vote on gender. This is of course ridiculous. In fact, the last time when there was a serious competition between a white woman and a black man within the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi in 2005 defeated former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee to become minority leader (and then accede to speaker after the 2006 elections.) Most Democratic men I know, if they had a strong opinion of the race, felt that it was better that Pelosi won because she better represents the traditional views of the Democratic party. I agree with that assessment.
But the idea that white male Democrats decide who to vote for based on gender (or race for that matter) is insulting at the deepest level to many of us who have spent a great deal of time and effort supporting the candidate who we believe is better.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Millions incarcerated. But do they all need to be?
So it's here.
The day when 1%, 1 out of a hundred of the U.S. adult population is incarcerated.
NEW YORK (AP) -- For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report.
The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.
Using updated state-by-state data, the report said 2,319,258 adults were held in U.S. prisons or jails at the start of 2008 -- one out of every 99.1 adults, and more than any other country in the world....
"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."
The nationwide figures, as of January 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails -- a total 2,319,258 out of almost 230 million American adults.
There are of course some people for whom there is no other option than to keep them in prison-- incorrigible, violent criminals. But what we've done in seeking to always get tougher and tougher on crime is create a system which threatens to collapse under its own weight.
To cite one example, using the statistics cited in the report, it costs $21,000 per inmate to house them, including security, food clothing and medical care. Those costs fall on the rest of the population to pay, and together with years of tax cuts and otherwise tight state budgets it is quickly becoming far too burdensome for many states to pay.
The standard response from many staunch conservatives when you cite prison costs is to 'make them pay.' They want to create more work crews so the inmates can 'pay' for their stay. Of course this is ridiculous. I'm not against putting inmates to work, but when organized into work crews it takes additional security, as well as the costs of transportation, and if anyone really thinks that the value of the work they do picking up litter on the side of the road is valuable enough to offset these higher costs they are really out of touch with reality. Work crews are for the benefit of the inmates who we want to incentivize to stay out of prison in the future, and of society in general (or to satisfy those who want to make sure prison isn't a 'walk in the park'). But financially they only add to the bill. Imagine how much your employer would be in the hole if they had to post a crew of licensed and trained guards to watch you do menial and simple tasks while providing secure transportation to and from your work site every work day, even if they didn't have to pay you.
The second response from staunch conservatives is that limiting appeals and hastening the death penalty would reduce the prison population. This also fails to recognize numerical reality. I remember reading a few years ago that if you took every person on death row at that time in the country and executed them immediately, the prison population would be back where it was in two weeks. I don't know if that statistic is still true, but I'm sure it is not too far different from that. Even if we ignore the flaws in a death penalty system in which over a hundred people who had been on death row have by now been exonerated, the numbers are so small that arguing over them in the context of the prison population is like waiting until a flood goes through your house and then arguing over whether turning the sink off will do anything about the flood. Just as a matter of scale, it won't.
There are three questions we can ask here. The first is how we got into this situation, The second is whether locking this many people up is an effective way to fight crime and worth what it is costing us,and the third is what we can do instead of incarcerating people.
The answer to the first question is that it is a confluence of many factors. The most obvious is that during the 1990's we spent a lot of money to build more prisons. More prisons so that we could lock up more inmates for a longer time, and then we passed legislation like mandatory decades long prison sentences for selling drugs and three strikes laws to help stock the new prisons and make sure that they all became just as full as the old ones. Getting tough on drugs has really made a difference in the prison population, and even today half of all crimes are drug crimes-- and many ordinary addicts (and even most sellers got there by being addicts) spend a lot of time in prison, and ironically don't get any help with breaking their addiction (so as soon as they are out they are able to renew it-- and maybe get back to prison.)
But that is not the only explanation. It is also true that in the 1970's and 1980's, we shut down many of the mental institutions. This came about by an unlikely alliance of liberals and conservatives. The liberals felt that locking someone up in one indefinitely was a moral dilemma-- even more so given the expose of abuses that had occurred in some mental institutions, and painted in the worst possible light by movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The conservatives felt that the mental institutions were expensive and with a typical Social Darwinist attitude felt that the best therapy was to let the mentally ill or deficient survive in the real world and compete against everyone else on equal footing. The result has in fact been a tragic miscalculation by both sides. The prison system is where the highest concentration of mentally ill individuals end up, and as we see their conditions of confinement are much worse than they ever were in the old mental hospitals. Furthermore, rather than learning to survive in the real world, many, perhaps most of them have proven that they are not suited for life on the outside and have gone to a place where they require much more security and supervision than where they were. And to put the cherry on top, the only chance that they might improve is through treatment, but the budget for that is cut by legislatures as they try to figure out ways of paying for more and better prisons.
The answer to the second question is to note that while crime did in fact go down during the 1990's (the period of new prison construction), it is much lower still in industrialized countries that don't lock so many people up. So at best the idea that it prevents crime is limited to the obvious fact that while a person is locked up they aren't on the outside committing a crime. But it doesn't go beyond that, and then we have to ask whether it is legitimate to spend thousands of dollars per year just to make sure someone doesn't steal any more pizza (the now infamous crime that earned a hapless prisoner in California the first 'three strikes and you're out' life sentence.)
The answer to the third sentence is that there are better ways of dealing with some criminals-- especially non-violent offenders, primarily drug offenders. According to the article, Texas and Kansas are leaders in looking for more efficient ways to treat criminals without locking them all up. Often various combinations of fines (which add money to the system rather than subtracting from it), probation and other punishments are more appropriate than prison or jail time. This is a good start. But we also need to combat recidivism by giving prisoners help with reforming their lives after they leave prison. Crime is always available as a career path, so we have to make sure that there are other career paths available to them. I once wrote a post entitled, "The prison which follows prison" in which I pointed out that no matter how much people like to run down rehabilitation programs, we have to keep trying because it is certain that virtually everyone in prison-- other than the very few who will stay there until they die-- will sooner or later be back out among us. We certainly should do everything we can to make sure that rehab programs are as efficient and as successful as possible, but given the cost of failure, not trying is not an option (though ironically, programs designed to provide education and job training to prisoners are invariably among the first to face cuts from misguided state legislators who are focused on that year's budget and willing to shunt aside the costs associated with their decisions-- both the economic and human costs-- to future years, and future legislators.) As I wrote in my post on prisons linked to above,
Now, I'm not going to stupidly sit here and say that if we funded more of these things, you wouldn't still have recidivism. Some people are habitual criminals and you could hand them a million dollars in cash and make them the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, and the next day they would still be out running a con, knocking over a liquor store or beating someone up or raping or killing someone.
People like that need to be in prison, and there is little anyone can do to change that. But I am saying that regardless of the success rate (or failure rate) of rehabilitation programs, we as a society have an obligation to TRY. Because except for lifers or people on death row, the rest of the prison population will sooner or later be out among the rest of us, either rehabilitated or not.
We also should consider re-establishing (and/or expanding where they still exist) state mental hospitals. That way people who need treatment rather than incarceration will be able to get it (and it goes without saying that a prison atmosphere, with all the attendant sources of added stress and danger is probably not the ideal atmosphere to recover from a mental illness). A great deal more is known about mental illness and the psychology and biochemistry of the brain than was known in the past, so it would be much more difficult for someone to 'fake' their way into a mental institution in order to avoid prison. In any case though, to not invest in mental health care because we are worried about someone who doesn't need it 'gaming' the system is like not building a building because you are worried there might be termites someday. The way to handle it is to prosecute fraud aggressively when it is found, but not deny the benefits of treatment to the hundreds of thousands who need it because you are worried about a few 'McMurphees' (to also refer to the afformentioned movie.)
We also have to do a much better job of integrating prisoners back into society after they leave prison. There are far fewer halfway houses now than there were, and as I wrote in the previous prison post linked to above,
However, in some cases, we seem to be going beyond the pale in meting out punishment AFTER the punishment that the legal system decreed has been paid. In other cases, we are, simply by the mechanisms we put in place in society, setting them up to fail and return to crime (a career choice which is, after all, always available if no other options are).
For example, we say that convicted felons have the right to seek employment. However, we have for years cut the budgets for prison programs that seek to educate inmates about a trade (I have first hand knowledge of several educational institutions that suspended or ended their prison programs because of state or Federal budget cuts). We have also cut funding for job placement programs and halfway houses for prisoners. So, not surprisingly, when people who get out of a long term in prison with nothing to show on their resume other than a long stint in prison, have trouble getting a job, they often find that the easiest, and perhaps the only, way to earn a living wage, is through returning to a life of crime.
Another problem is that many people frankly expect and even want felons to fail. That is part of their dogma. As I blogged (ironically defending a campaign worker for conservative Republican Fred Thompson),
First and foremost, it's a matter of time. I wrote a post once, called "the prison that follows prison" that dealt with how hard it is for a convicted felon in America to become a productive member of society, or for that matter to be anything other than a convicted felon in the eyes of most people. For that matter, unless he's had his rights restored, Philip Martin would not be allowed to vote in most states. But look, his last conviction was TWENTY-FOUR years ago! TWENTY-FOUR bloody years ago! Do we EVER forgive anybody, or let them move ahead with their lives? The man has kept out of trouble for nearly a quarter of a century, and some people want to haul up what he did in 1979 or 1983. Guess what? Besides it being a long time ago, he was also a lot younger then. Sometimes younger people do foolish things, and then they learn from them. All the evidence is that Philip Martin did learn from his mistakes.
The attitude that prevailed towards Philip Martin prevails in the eyes of many if someone has ever been convicted, of anything (for the record he had two drug convictions that are decades old.)
It is understandable that many people would prefer to hire someone who is not a convicted felon. However, it seems as though our entire societal structure, between our indifference to the difficulties faced by those who genuinely want to make a living within the law and without committing any crimes, and our active hostility to those who may have once upon a time (even decades in the past) made a mistake, almost seem to be telling felons that they are always felons, and cannot ever fully repent.
A system which neither forgives nor forgets, and continues to punish people forever no matter how hard they try to change.
It's a good thing that God doesn't use the same standard of justice.
The day when 1%, 1 out of a hundred of the U.S. adult population is incarcerated.
NEW YORK (AP) -- For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report.
The report, released Thursday by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.
Using updated state-by-state data, the report said 2,319,258 adults were held in U.S. prisons or jails at the start of 2008 -- one out of every 99.1 adults, and more than any other country in the world....
"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."
The nationwide figures, as of January 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails -- a total 2,319,258 out of almost 230 million American adults.
There are of course some people for whom there is no other option than to keep them in prison-- incorrigible, violent criminals. But what we've done in seeking to always get tougher and tougher on crime is create a system which threatens to collapse under its own weight.
To cite one example, using the statistics cited in the report, it costs $21,000 per inmate to house them, including security, food clothing and medical care. Those costs fall on the rest of the population to pay, and together with years of tax cuts and otherwise tight state budgets it is quickly becoming far too burdensome for many states to pay.
The standard response from many staunch conservatives when you cite prison costs is to 'make them pay.' They want to create more work crews so the inmates can 'pay' for their stay. Of course this is ridiculous. I'm not against putting inmates to work, but when organized into work crews it takes additional security, as well as the costs of transportation, and if anyone really thinks that the value of the work they do picking up litter on the side of the road is valuable enough to offset these higher costs they are really out of touch with reality. Work crews are for the benefit of the inmates who we want to incentivize to stay out of prison in the future, and of society in general (or to satisfy those who want to make sure prison isn't a 'walk in the park'). But financially they only add to the bill. Imagine how much your employer would be in the hole if they had to post a crew of licensed and trained guards to watch you do menial and simple tasks while providing secure transportation to and from your work site every work day, even if they didn't have to pay you.
The second response from staunch conservatives is that limiting appeals and hastening the death penalty would reduce the prison population. This also fails to recognize numerical reality. I remember reading a few years ago that if you took every person on death row at that time in the country and executed them immediately, the prison population would be back where it was in two weeks. I don't know if that statistic is still true, but I'm sure it is not too far different from that. Even if we ignore the flaws in a death penalty system in which over a hundred people who had been on death row have by now been exonerated, the numbers are so small that arguing over them in the context of the prison population is like waiting until a flood goes through your house and then arguing over whether turning the sink off will do anything about the flood. Just as a matter of scale, it won't.
There are three questions we can ask here. The first is how we got into this situation, The second is whether locking this many people up is an effective way to fight crime and worth what it is costing us,and the third is what we can do instead of incarcerating people.
The answer to the first question is that it is a confluence of many factors. The most obvious is that during the 1990's we spent a lot of money to build more prisons. More prisons so that we could lock up more inmates for a longer time, and then we passed legislation like mandatory decades long prison sentences for selling drugs and three strikes laws to help stock the new prisons and make sure that they all became just as full as the old ones. Getting tough on drugs has really made a difference in the prison population, and even today half of all crimes are drug crimes-- and many ordinary addicts (and even most sellers got there by being addicts) spend a lot of time in prison, and ironically don't get any help with breaking their addiction (so as soon as they are out they are able to renew it-- and maybe get back to prison.)
But that is not the only explanation. It is also true that in the 1970's and 1980's, we shut down many of the mental institutions. This came about by an unlikely alliance of liberals and conservatives. The liberals felt that locking someone up in one indefinitely was a moral dilemma-- even more so given the expose of abuses that had occurred in some mental institutions, and painted in the worst possible light by movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The conservatives felt that the mental institutions were expensive and with a typical Social Darwinist attitude felt that the best therapy was to let the mentally ill or deficient survive in the real world and compete against everyone else on equal footing. The result has in fact been a tragic miscalculation by both sides. The prison system is where the highest concentration of mentally ill individuals end up, and as we see their conditions of confinement are much worse than they ever were in the old mental hospitals. Furthermore, rather than learning to survive in the real world, many, perhaps most of them have proven that they are not suited for life on the outside and have gone to a place where they require much more security and supervision than where they were. And to put the cherry on top, the only chance that they might improve is through treatment, but the budget for that is cut by legislatures as they try to figure out ways of paying for more and better prisons.
The answer to the second question is to note that while crime did in fact go down during the 1990's (the period of new prison construction), it is much lower still in industrialized countries that don't lock so many people up. So at best the idea that it prevents crime is limited to the obvious fact that while a person is locked up they aren't on the outside committing a crime. But it doesn't go beyond that, and then we have to ask whether it is legitimate to spend thousands of dollars per year just to make sure someone doesn't steal any more pizza (the now infamous crime that earned a hapless prisoner in California the first 'three strikes and you're out' life sentence.)
The answer to the third sentence is that there are better ways of dealing with some criminals-- especially non-violent offenders, primarily drug offenders. According to the article, Texas and Kansas are leaders in looking for more efficient ways to treat criminals without locking them all up. Often various combinations of fines (which add money to the system rather than subtracting from it), probation and other punishments are more appropriate than prison or jail time. This is a good start. But we also need to combat recidivism by giving prisoners help with reforming their lives after they leave prison. Crime is always available as a career path, so we have to make sure that there are other career paths available to them. I once wrote a post entitled, "The prison which follows prison" in which I pointed out that no matter how much people like to run down rehabilitation programs, we have to keep trying because it is certain that virtually everyone in prison-- other than the very few who will stay there until they die-- will sooner or later be back out among us. We certainly should do everything we can to make sure that rehab programs are as efficient and as successful as possible, but given the cost of failure, not trying is not an option (though ironically, programs designed to provide education and job training to prisoners are invariably among the first to face cuts from misguided state legislators who are focused on that year's budget and willing to shunt aside the costs associated with their decisions-- both the economic and human costs-- to future years, and future legislators.) As I wrote in my post on prisons linked to above,
Now, I'm not going to stupidly sit here and say that if we funded more of these things, you wouldn't still have recidivism. Some people are habitual criminals and you could hand them a million dollars in cash and make them the CEO of a Fortune 500 Company, and the next day they would still be out running a con, knocking over a liquor store or beating someone up or raping or killing someone.
People like that need to be in prison, and there is little anyone can do to change that. But I am saying that regardless of the success rate (or failure rate) of rehabilitation programs, we as a society have an obligation to TRY. Because except for lifers or people on death row, the rest of the prison population will sooner or later be out among the rest of us, either rehabilitated or not.
We also should consider re-establishing (and/or expanding where they still exist) state mental hospitals. That way people who need treatment rather than incarceration will be able to get it (and it goes without saying that a prison atmosphere, with all the attendant sources of added stress and danger is probably not the ideal atmosphere to recover from a mental illness). A great deal more is known about mental illness and the psychology and biochemistry of the brain than was known in the past, so it would be much more difficult for someone to 'fake' their way into a mental institution in order to avoid prison. In any case though, to not invest in mental health care because we are worried about someone who doesn't need it 'gaming' the system is like not building a building because you are worried there might be termites someday. The way to handle it is to prosecute fraud aggressively when it is found, but not deny the benefits of treatment to the hundreds of thousands who need it because you are worried about a few 'McMurphees' (to also refer to the afformentioned movie.)
We also have to do a much better job of integrating prisoners back into society after they leave prison. There are far fewer halfway houses now than there were, and as I wrote in the previous prison post linked to above,
However, in some cases, we seem to be going beyond the pale in meting out punishment AFTER the punishment that the legal system decreed has been paid. In other cases, we are, simply by the mechanisms we put in place in society, setting them up to fail and return to crime (a career choice which is, after all, always available if no other options are).
For example, we say that convicted felons have the right to seek employment. However, we have for years cut the budgets for prison programs that seek to educate inmates about a trade (I have first hand knowledge of several educational institutions that suspended or ended their prison programs because of state or Federal budget cuts). We have also cut funding for job placement programs and halfway houses for prisoners. So, not surprisingly, when people who get out of a long term in prison with nothing to show on their resume other than a long stint in prison, have trouble getting a job, they often find that the easiest, and perhaps the only, way to earn a living wage, is through returning to a life of crime.
Another problem is that many people frankly expect and even want felons to fail. That is part of their dogma. As I blogged (ironically defending a campaign worker for conservative Republican Fred Thompson),
First and foremost, it's a matter of time. I wrote a post once, called "the prison that follows prison" that dealt with how hard it is for a convicted felon in America to become a productive member of society, or for that matter to be anything other than a convicted felon in the eyes of most people. For that matter, unless he's had his rights restored, Philip Martin would not be allowed to vote in most states. But look, his last conviction was TWENTY-FOUR years ago! TWENTY-FOUR bloody years ago! Do we EVER forgive anybody, or let them move ahead with their lives? The man has kept out of trouble for nearly a quarter of a century, and some people want to haul up what he did in 1979 or 1983. Guess what? Besides it being a long time ago, he was also a lot younger then. Sometimes younger people do foolish things, and then they learn from them. All the evidence is that Philip Martin did learn from his mistakes.
The attitude that prevailed towards Philip Martin prevails in the eyes of many if someone has ever been convicted, of anything (for the record he had two drug convictions that are decades old.)
It is understandable that many people would prefer to hire someone who is not a convicted felon. However, it seems as though our entire societal structure, between our indifference to the difficulties faced by those who genuinely want to make a living within the law and without committing any crimes, and our active hostility to those who may have once upon a time (even decades in the past) made a mistake, almost seem to be telling felons that they are always felons, and cannot ever fully repent.
A system which neither forgives nor forgets, and continues to punish people forever no matter how hard they try to change.
It's a good thing that God doesn't use the same standard of justice.
My daughter gives a great zinger.
Yesterday Barack Obama gave a rousing speech in Beaumont, Texas. I was watching it on MSN just now, and part of it went like this, when he started talking about the need for parents to be more involved with their children:
"Am I right? So turn off the TV set. Put the video game away. Buy a little desk. Or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give ‘em help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make ‘em go to bed at a reasonable time! Keep ‘em off the streets! Give ‘em some breakfast!"
One of my sixth grade daughters (who also loves Obama) came out of the computer room just as he got to the line, "Make 'em go to bed at a reasonable time!" So I gaver her a nudge on the back and said, "See?"
She quickly turned around and joked back at me, "Can I change to Hillary Clinton?"
If that Clinton commercial about her working late at night comes on, I'm changing the channel.
Well, she's eleven, but she keeps asking me when she will be able to run for precinct committeeperson. I'm sure she'll be a good one, but for right now I still get to tell her when it's time to turn the light off.
"Am I right? So turn off the TV set. Put the video game away. Buy a little desk. Or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give ‘em help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make ‘em go to bed at a reasonable time! Keep ‘em off the streets! Give ‘em some breakfast!"
One of my sixth grade daughters (who also loves Obama) came out of the computer room just as he got to the line, "Make 'em go to bed at a reasonable time!" So I gaver her a nudge on the back and said, "See?"
She quickly turned around and joked back at me, "Can I change to Hillary Clinton?"
If that Clinton commercial about her working late at night comes on, I'm changing the channel.
Well, she's eleven, but she keeps asking me when she will be able to run for precinct committeeperson. I'm sure she'll be a good one, but for right now I still get to tell her when it's time to turn the light off.
Monday, February 25, 2008
What is Patriotism anyway?
Today Barack Obama fought back against charges that he is not sufficiently patriotic.
He and his wife have recently been accused of this by the right wing, citing three main pieces of 'evidence', 1) a photograph taken last year at Tom Harkin's steak fry in which Obama stands at attention but with his hands clasped in front of him rather than with one over his heart during the playing of the national anthem (Harkin and fellow candidate Bill Richardson are in the photograph as well in a more traditional pose;) 2) the fact that Obama last year during the campaign stopped wearing a small American flag button on his lapel, and 3) the statement that Michelle Obama made last week saying that 'for the first time in my adult life,' she was proud of her country.
Obama responded forcefully today, saying,
"The way I will respond to it is with the truth: that I owe everything I am to this country."
But more to the point, he said that his choice not to put his hand over his heart would 'would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game.'
In regard to his wife's comments, he said that she meant to say for the first time she was proud of the way politics was conducted in this country, and had misspoken. Well, that's what he said, and either you believe it or not, but it's not like people never say anything they regret later. That's why I rarely pay attention to political gaffes (even President Bush's frequent ones) unless they are clearly well thought out and repeated and thereby give one a window into the soul of the person who says it (i.e. 'macaca.')
His point (and the reason he removed the lapel pin) is this: Patriotism is something that a person holds in his or her heart, and it should not be measured by counting the number of American flags or yellow ribbons or whatever other outward signs someone displays.
I have a tattered flag in front of my door that I put there on Sept. 11, 2001, and haven't taken down since. That is my choice. But it would be just as much my choice if I chose NOT to have it there, and it would make me no less patriotic if I did not.
I consider patriotism to be fighting against attempts to cut funding for veterans programs or deny disability for disabled veterans coming back from Iraq.
I consider patriotism to be trying to create a nation in which all Americans have a stake in the country.
I consider patriotism being to fight for the rights that our Founding Fathers fought for, including the right to NOT be compelled to say anything (or by failing to display any symbol, be assumed to be saying anything.)
Surely it would have been politically easier for Barack Obama to do the 'safe' thing and keep the lapel pin on and put his hand on his heart during the pledge. But lately that has become a requirement instead of an option, and a requirement like that is in effect tyranny. And expecting it as 'part of the drill,' frankly cheapens its value for those who DO choose to wear a flag pin or otherwise follow the 'expected' rules for 'patriots.'
He and his wife have recently been accused of this by the right wing, citing three main pieces of 'evidence', 1) a photograph taken last year at Tom Harkin's steak fry in which Obama stands at attention but with his hands clasped in front of him rather than with one over his heart during the playing of the national anthem (Harkin and fellow candidate Bill Richardson are in the photograph as well in a more traditional pose;) 2) the fact that Obama last year during the campaign stopped wearing a small American flag button on his lapel, and 3) the statement that Michelle Obama made last week saying that 'for the first time in my adult life,' she was proud of her country.
Obama responded forcefully today, saying,
"The way I will respond to it is with the truth: that I owe everything I am to this country."
But more to the point, he said that his choice not to put his hand over his heart would 'would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game.'
In regard to his wife's comments, he said that she meant to say for the first time she was proud of the way politics was conducted in this country, and had misspoken. Well, that's what he said, and either you believe it or not, but it's not like people never say anything they regret later. That's why I rarely pay attention to political gaffes (even President Bush's frequent ones) unless they are clearly well thought out and repeated and thereby give one a window into the soul of the person who says it (i.e. 'macaca.')
His point (and the reason he removed the lapel pin) is this: Patriotism is something that a person holds in his or her heart, and it should not be measured by counting the number of American flags or yellow ribbons or whatever other outward signs someone displays.
I have a tattered flag in front of my door that I put there on Sept. 11, 2001, and haven't taken down since. That is my choice. But it would be just as much my choice if I chose NOT to have it there, and it would make me no less patriotic if I did not.
I consider patriotism to be fighting against attempts to cut funding for veterans programs or deny disability for disabled veterans coming back from Iraq.
I consider patriotism to be trying to create a nation in which all Americans have a stake in the country.
I consider patriotism being to fight for the rights that our Founding Fathers fought for, including the right to NOT be compelled to say anything (or by failing to display any symbol, be assumed to be saying anything.)
Surely it would have been politically easier for Barack Obama to do the 'safe' thing and keep the lapel pin on and put his hand on his heart during the pledge. But lately that has become a requirement instead of an option, and a requirement like that is in effect tyranny. And expecting it as 'part of the drill,' frankly cheapens its value for those who DO choose to wear a flag pin or otherwise follow the 'expected' rules for 'patriots.'
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Obama literature appears fair on health care but not on NAFTA; I think he should get rid of it anyway.
I was a bit distressed today to see a story out about campaign literature sent by the Obama campaign in Ohio, which Hillary Clinton is calling 'shameful' and comparing to Karl Rove type-tactics, saying bluntly that the literature falsifies her positions on NAFTA and health care. The Obama campaign has responded that the literature is correct.
Now, I've been clear in my support for Obama, for whom I voted. And I still believe he is the best nominee for our party and would make the best President in the general. But that doesn't mean that I support a sudden shift towards negative campaigning, if that is what this is. Obama will win the nomination if he continues doing what he has been, and if he does then he will need a united party and needlessly antagonizing supporters of Hillary (many of whom are very passionate in their support) would be a serious mistake. At the same time if the literature is accurate and points out a matter of record then she should respond on the issue and not complain about the fact that he is sending it out.
On NAFTA, she takes issue with a line in the literature that says that she was a champion of NAFTA when it was signed but now wants to make adjustments in it. This I believe is an unfair attack. For one thing, when NAFTA was signed she was the first lady and her husband was signing it, and it would be very difficult to gauge what her true feelings were on the subject from public statements she made at the time. First ladies don't undermine their husbands in public, and I wouldn't expect that she would do so even if she didn't agree with it-- she might tell him behind closed doors but neither I nor anyone from the Obama campaign would know whether she did or not. So that line should not be included in the literature.
On healthcare, the charge is that her plan would force people to buy health insurance even if they could not afford it (as opposed to Obama's plan which still gives people the right to not buy health insurance.)
So I decided to test his charge by downloading her plan from her website here it is and I find that he may well be justified in his concern.
On page 4 she states that
• Individuals: will be responsible for getting and keeping insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible. (which she reiterates on page 8).
Of course we knew that already, that she proposes mandates while Obama does not. Further down on page four she indicates that
• Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.
I'd feel a lot more sanguine about this if it was defined somewhere what a 'crushing burden' is. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and therefore any additional cost at all would be such a burden.
She then goes on to explain how she will do this:
• Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.
Something similar is in John McCain's plan as a matter of fact, and he spells out the amount ($5000 per family.) She does not, but given that the cost right now of premiums for an average family exceed $12,000 it is clear that she would need to more than double McCain's proposal (which is disastrously low) to match the cost of premiums. Of course even if this were the case, there are some problems here. Tax refunds (including refundable tax credits) come once per year, and even if the tax credit were given the year before initially, there would be some people who would be unable to pay their premiums because it would be more than the tax credit for them (for example if they are cancer surivors or have a chronic illness or otherwise have much higher premiums.) Also, many people's tax refunds (and presumably refundable tax credits) are tied up in collections, bankruptcy proceedings, old IRS debt, child support and a whole host of other issues. If a family is barely making ends meet but one of the spouses owes child support to a previous spouse (or to the state for payments made to a previous spouse), or has a judgement against them from a creditor or bankruptcy court, then that is where any kind of tax refunds go, and suddenly the family (which may also have children) is stuck being mandated to pay for insurance without having any additional money with which to pay for it. You can rail against so-called 'deadbeat parents' or 'bankruptcy bums' if you want to, but it is a fact that there are millions of people, including current family members of people with a judgement against them who may have nothing to do with the reason for the tax garnishments, but who could be stuck in a situation where this plan would require them to spend money they don't have while the money that is supposed to help them pay for it would be directed by the government and the courts to go to someone else.
Further in the Clinton plan it says
Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.
What percentage? Right now the $12,000 I referred to above is about a quarter of the average family income in the United States. Is 25% the figure that will be used? Will it apply to everyone (i.e. would someone earning $100,000 have to pay $25,000 in premiums so that a family earning $8,000 per year would only be charged $2,000?) There are no numbers here, which causes me to wonder. Obama's plan is similarly short on numbers (there are some) but since there is no mandate that is less of a concern (if you don't like his numbers then you still have the right to decline the option to purchase the insurance.) This is sometimes compared to mandatory auto insurance but the differences are that 1. some people don't have a car (which is a choice for some of them at least, though not all) and 2. the price of auto insurance, especially if you drive a car that is only designed to get you around with no frills is far, far less than what health insurance costs.
So having looked at this, I have to conclude that the Obama campaign's claim is right on target-- clearly there will be some people who would be mandated to buy health insurance by Clinton's plan but who won't be able afford it.
But I still think he should consider pulling the literature and keep on running the positive, uplifting campaign that has made many in the country, including myself consider him the better candidate. She hasn't found a way to beat Obama yet when he does.
Now, I've been clear in my support for Obama, for whom I voted. And I still believe he is the best nominee for our party and would make the best President in the general. But that doesn't mean that I support a sudden shift towards negative campaigning, if that is what this is. Obama will win the nomination if he continues doing what he has been, and if he does then he will need a united party and needlessly antagonizing supporters of Hillary (many of whom are very passionate in their support) would be a serious mistake. At the same time if the literature is accurate and points out a matter of record then she should respond on the issue and not complain about the fact that he is sending it out.
On NAFTA, she takes issue with a line in the literature that says that she was a champion of NAFTA when it was signed but now wants to make adjustments in it. This I believe is an unfair attack. For one thing, when NAFTA was signed she was the first lady and her husband was signing it, and it would be very difficult to gauge what her true feelings were on the subject from public statements she made at the time. First ladies don't undermine their husbands in public, and I wouldn't expect that she would do so even if she didn't agree with it-- she might tell him behind closed doors but neither I nor anyone from the Obama campaign would know whether she did or not. So that line should not be included in the literature.
On healthcare, the charge is that her plan would force people to buy health insurance even if they could not afford it (as opposed to Obama's plan which still gives people the right to not buy health insurance.)
So I decided to test his charge by downloading her plan from her website here it is and I find that he may well be justified in his concern.
On page 4 she states that
• Individuals: will be responsible for getting and keeping insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible. (which she reiterates on page 8).
Of course we knew that already, that she proposes mandates while Obama does not. Further down on page four she indicates that
• Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.
I'd feel a lot more sanguine about this if it was defined somewhere what a 'crushing burden' is. Many people live paycheck to paycheck and therefore any additional cost at all would be such a burden.
She then goes on to explain how she will do this:
• Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.
Something similar is in John McCain's plan as a matter of fact, and he spells out the amount ($5000 per family.) She does not, but given that the cost right now of premiums for an average family exceed $12,000 it is clear that she would need to more than double McCain's proposal (which is disastrously low) to match the cost of premiums. Of course even if this were the case, there are some problems here. Tax refunds (including refundable tax credits) come once per year, and even if the tax credit were given the year before initially, there would be some people who would be unable to pay their premiums because it would be more than the tax credit for them (for example if they are cancer surivors or have a chronic illness or otherwise have much higher premiums.) Also, many people's tax refunds (and presumably refundable tax credits) are tied up in collections, bankruptcy proceedings, old IRS debt, child support and a whole host of other issues. If a family is barely making ends meet but one of the spouses owes child support to a previous spouse (or to the state for payments made to a previous spouse), or has a judgement against them from a creditor or bankruptcy court, then that is where any kind of tax refunds go, and suddenly the family (which may also have children) is stuck being mandated to pay for insurance without having any additional money with which to pay for it. You can rail against so-called 'deadbeat parents' or 'bankruptcy bums' if you want to, but it is a fact that there are millions of people, including current family members of people with a judgement against them who may have nothing to do with the reason for the tax garnishments, but who could be stuck in a situation where this plan would require them to spend money they don't have while the money that is supposed to help them pay for it would be directed by the government and the courts to go to someone else.
Further in the Clinton plan it says
Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.
What percentage? Right now the $12,000 I referred to above is about a quarter of the average family income in the United States. Is 25% the figure that will be used? Will it apply to everyone (i.e. would someone earning $100,000 have to pay $25,000 in premiums so that a family earning $8,000 per year would only be charged $2,000?) There are no numbers here, which causes me to wonder. Obama's plan is similarly short on numbers (there are some) but since there is no mandate that is less of a concern (if you don't like his numbers then you still have the right to decline the option to purchase the insurance.) This is sometimes compared to mandatory auto insurance but the differences are that 1. some people don't have a car (which is a choice for some of them at least, though not all) and 2. the price of auto insurance, especially if you drive a car that is only designed to get you around with no frills is far, far less than what health insurance costs.
So having looked at this, I have to conclude that the Obama campaign's claim is right on target-- clearly there will be some people who would be mandated to buy health insurance by Clinton's plan but who won't be able afford it.
But I still think he should consider pulling the literature and keep on running the positive, uplifting campaign that has made many in the country, including myself consider him the better candidate. She hasn't found a way to beat Obama yet when he does.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Rick Renzi indicted
Well, it took some time.
In spite of all that Alberto Gonzalez and George W. Bush did to help their friend Rick Renzi, including pushing aside one of the most effective U.S. attorneys they had this morning came the announcement that Congressman Renzi has been indicted.
Renzi created a complex tangle of numbers to try and hide a land deal that helped James Sandlin, one of his friends, violate campaign finance laws by overpaying Renzi for a piece of land so he could quickly raise the money in 2002 to get elected to Congress, where he paid Sandlin back by misusing his position to, among other things, write legislation that helped increase the value of another piece of land that Sandlin owned. Renzi, even before the Sandlin land deal was known, was already considered one of the most corrupt congressmen in Washington for such other ethical lapses as using his official position to help steer up to a billion dollars in Federal contracts to his father's business. As it later turned out even that was part of the web he was weaving to try and cover up the original land deal.
Renzi's scheme to cover up the land deal actually resulted in two separate probes into two pieces of his scheme, and as I predicted eventually merged into one giant investigation.
Unfortunately not enough was known about the deal to prevent Renzi from getting re-elected last time when he ran for Congress. He ran his usual smear campaign against Ellen Simon by using lies, innuendos and distortions just as he has always done in his electoral campaigns. But last year it all broke open when the FBI raided Renzi's wife's business (where he had apparently hidden some of the evidence), ironically at the very same time as Alberto Gonzalez was on Capitol Hill answering questions about the firing of U.S. attorneys, in which Renzi's name figured prominently in connection with the firing of Paul Charltonn who had been investigating him. Last year Renzi finally was forced to announce that he would not seek re-election though he still is trying to remain in Congress (maybe he can have lunch with Larry Craig, because no one even in their own party is talking to either of them.)
Rick Renzi apparently thought that he was smarter than other people. He thought he was smart enough to create such a murky cloud of obfuscation around his financial misdeeds that no one would be able to figure out what he had done. He thought he could get away with it.
But criminals always think that way. But eventually justice does catch up to them. Just ask Renzi's former colleagues, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney.
In spite of all that Alberto Gonzalez and George W. Bush did to help their friend Rick Renzi, including pushing aside one of the most effective U.S. attorneys they had this morning came the announcement that Congressman Renzi has been indicted.
Renzi created a complex tangle of numbers to try and hide a land deal that helped James Sandlin, one of his friends, violate campaign finance laws by overpaying Renzi for a piece of land so he could quickly raise the money in 2002 to get elected to Congress, where he paid Sandlin back by misusing his position to, among other things, write legislation that helped increase the value of another piece of land that Sandlin owned. Renzi, even before the Sandlin land deal was known, was already considered one of the most corrupt congressmen in Washington for such other ethical lapses as using his official position to help steer up to a billion dollars in Federal contracts to his father's business. As it later turned out even that was part of the web he was weaving to try and cover up the original land deal.
Renzi's scheme to cover up the land deal actually resulted in two separate probes into two pieces of his scheme, and as I predicted eventually merged into one giant investigation.
Unfortunately not enough was known about the deal to prevent Renzi from getting re-elected last time when he ran for Congress. He ran his usual smear campaign against Ellen Simon by using lies, innuendos and distortions just as he has always done in his electoral campaigns. But last year it all broke open when the FBI raided Renzi's wife's business (where he had apparently hidden some of the evidence), ironically at the very same time as Alberto Gonzalez was on Capitol Hill answering questions about the firing of U.S. attorneys, in which Renzi's name figured prominently in connection with the firing of Paul Charltonn who had been investigating him. Last year Renzi finally was forced to announce that he would not seek re-election though he still is trying to remain in Congress (maybe he can have lunch with Larry Craig, because no one even in their own party is talking to either of them.)
Rick Renzi apparently thought that he was smarter than other people. He thought he was smart enough to create such a murky cloud of obfuscation around his financial misdeeds that no one would be able to figure out what he had done. He thought he could get away with it.
But criminals always think that way. But eventually justice does catch up to them. Just ask Renzi's former colleagues, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Meet Mr. McCain-- part II (The Sopranos aren't finished yet)
NOTE: THIS WAS ORIGINIALLY POSTED IN DECEMBER 2006 UNDER THE TITLE Married to the Mob.
Ever since the 2000 election, when Vietnam combat veteran John McCain burst onto the scene in the Republican Presidential primaries as a 'moderate alternative' to George W. Bush, it seems that he has led a charmed political life. George Bush is known to detest McCain personally, but he has needed him. Liberals held their fire because every now and then McCain throws them a bone (in fact John Kerry wasted valuable time and effort trying to convince McCain, who was the chair of the Bush campaign in Arizona, to defect and run on a ticket with him; what it also meant was that when John Kerry picked John Edwards for the ticket, everyone knew he was a second choice.) Independents ooze over the conservative McCain (and conservative he is, just look at his voting record,) as if they think he is one of them. Even Bush backers, like Pat Robertson (who thoroughly trashed McCain in South Carolina) have warmed up to him.
And one of McCain's biggest assets, according to most of these people is that he eschews negative campaigning.
There is a good reason for that though. It's a tale that involves organized crime, corruption and murder. Let's say that John McCain never runs a negative ad against his opponents because he doesn't want them to dig too hard.
It's because McCain is where he is because of his marriage to his second wife, Cindy. No, Cindy Hensley McCain is not where the story begins. She was a young 25 when McCain married her (he was 43). According to the Arizona Republic on June 5, 1999, McCain joked that his marriage was based on a 'tissue of lies.' Both he and she had lied to each other, she claiming to be older than she was and he claiming to be younger. Yeah, I know-- what a good foundation for a marriage to start off on. To their credit the McCains however have stayed together. Or maybe there are other reasons...
One wonders what Cindy told McCain about her father. When did McCain learn how his father-in-law Jim Hensley made his fortune? Sooner or later he had to be dealt in on the 'family jewels.' After all, they helped finance a run for Congress and not long after that for the Senate.
Jim Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work after World War II for Kemper Marley, a wealthy wholesale liquor distributor. Marley, in fact, had once been a bookie, getting his start working for the Transamerica Wire Service, a betting service established by mafiosi Gus Greenbaum (who was murdered with his wife when their throats were slashed in bed in 1958). Until 1947, liquor was rationed by the government. Apparently Marley did quite well in spite of the restrictions, and in 1948 the reason why became clear. Eugene and Jim Hensley were convicted of falsifying records on behalf of Marley's distributorship, United Liquor (along with fifty other Marley employees) to conceal the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. Jim Hensley got a six month suspended sentence.
In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was once more charged for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American Mafia.com, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:
When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.
That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.
In fact, Marley was interested in more than just liquor. In 1976, then Gov. Raul Castro, a Democrat, appointed Marley, then a billionaire and the state's richest man, to the state racing commission.
And that's when one of those pesky investigative reporters got in the way. The reporter's name was Don Bolles and he worked for the Arizona Republic. Bolles discovered a land fraud ring and other crimes that appeared to lead to Sen. Barry Goldwater and other movers and shakers in Arizona. And he discovered that Kemper Marley, newly appointed to the State Board Racing Commission, had connections to the Mafia. In fact, Marley was a close associate of Peter Licavoli, the mob boss for Arizona. Marley had also served as Chairman of the Board for Valley National Bank, which helped bankroll Bugsy Siegel's construction of the Flamingo in Las Vegas. Digging into Marley's past also uncovered his earlier work for Gus Greenbaum. The revelations forced Marley to resign from the commission.
And Kemper Marley and his associates in the Mafia weren't people whose business you interfered with lightly.
On June 2, 1976, Bolles climbed into his car and was blown apart by a bomb under the driver's seat. Pieces of his body were strewn around the parking lot. Bolles amazingly survived for eleven days and said to investgators on the scene, "They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey) Adamson."
Adamson was later convicted of the murder. But who hired him? That trail was never really followed up on, according to members of the Arizona Project, a group of reporters who began looking into mob ties after the murder.
Following Bolles' death, more than 30 journalists from the then-newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) group arrived in Phoenix to carry out their late colleague's work....
Don Devereux, another Arizona Project reporter, feels the IRE team may have trusted the authorities too much. "We accepted very uncritically their scenario. In retrospect, we were very naive to get lead around. It really isn't something that we should be running around congratulating ourselves about," says Devereux of the IRE investigation...
"The biggest disservice we did to Bolles was not paying more attention to him," says Devereux. "His dying words were words we should have glommed onto a little more seriously, because when he was lying on the pavement he said: `Adamson, Emprise, Mafia. ... Emprise was almost Bolles' white whale. He was obsessed by them...."
Emprise, a Buffalo, NY based sports concessionire with known mob ties, had a circuit of Greyhound racing tracks in Arizona. So who was named to the Racing Commission was of vital interest to Emprise. Enter Kemper Marley. Exit Kemper Marley, courtesy of Bolles.
The Phoenix police theorized that Marley wanting revenge enlisted the help of local contractor Max Dunlap. Dunlap then allegedly hired Adamson to carry out the bombing. Adamson claimed that plumber James Robison assisted him.
Over the years, Dunlap and Robison have maintained their innocence. Dunlap remains incarcerated.** Although, Robison gained acquittal in a retrial, he is still awaiting release from prison on a related charge. Meanwhile, the state paroled Adamson [in 1996], and he disappeared into the federal witness protection program.
The Phoenix police never even arrested Marley, who died in 1990.
**-- Dunlap has since died in prison after the source article was published.
Meanwhile, Jim Hensley remained a close confidante and associate of Kemper Marley. In fact, it was Bolles who wrote that the Hensleys had bought Ruidoso Downs horse racing track in New Mexico on behalf of Marley. Eugene Hensley later sold the track to a buyer linked to Emprise (linked here as described in the Phoenix Gazette, Jan. 4, 1990.)
One thing that Marley and Hensley didn't have-- governmental authority themselves. They had to depend on their friends in government to help them out. But then Hensley got a gift-- his daughter married the former Navy pilot and decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, John McCain. Hensley knew right away what to do. According to an article published in 2000 by the Phoenix New Times,
[McCain] retired from the military in 1980, divorced his first wife, wed Arizona native Cindy Lou Hensley and moved here to plunge into the world of politics. His first job in Arizona was as a public affairs agent for Hensley & Company, one of the nation's largest beer distributors. He was paid $50,000 in 1982 to travel the state, touting the company's wares. But he was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer. A better job description might have been "candidate."
Then in 1982, McCain ran for Congress. That takes some quick money, and McCain had access to it-- thanks to his father in law (whose employees at his liquor distributorship were 'persuaded' to donate thousands of dollars to McCain), and one of Hensley's friends, Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L (I won't get into the Lincoln S&L scandal here because it is pretty well known by now that McCain was one of the 'Keating Five.') To seal the deal, Jim Hensley and Cindy Hensley McCain invested $359,100 in one of Keating's projects. In fact, when McCain first ran for the Senate, in 1986, even Kemper Marley, through his son Kemper Jr. (who was now running United Liquor-- Marley himself had become politically radioactive) donated money to him.
It has been said that the Mafia never really left, they have just moved upscale. That is certainly the case in Las Vegas, where the casinos are corporations and run in a businesslike manner (so a Bugsy Siegel would be an anachronism, but I'm also not sure I'd want to make an enemy out of some of the folks who have those offices on the top floor.) The original Cosa Nostra may have been largely broken up, but the remnants of the Mafia are still around, mostly in fat family bank accounts and people they have helped push into positions of power, and John McCain is privvy to one and is the other.
Ever since the 2000 election, when Vietnam combat veteran John McCain burst onto the scene in the Republican Presidential primaries as a 'moderate alternative' to George W. Bush, it seems that he has led a charmed political life. George Bush is known to detest McCain personally, but he has needed him. Liberals held their fire because every now and then McCain throws them a bone (in fact John Kerry wasted valuable time and effort trying to convince McCain, who was the chair of the Bush campaign in Arizona, to defect and run on a ticket with him; what it also meant was that when John Kerry picked John Edwards for the ticket, everyone knew he was a second choice.) Independents ooze over the conservative McCain (and conservative he is, just look at his voting record,) as if they think he is one of them. Even Bush backers, like Pat Robertson (who thoroughly trashed McCain in South Carolina) have warmed up to him.
And one of McCain's biggest assets, according to most of these people is that he eschews negative campaigning.
There is a good reason for that though. It's a tale that involves organized crime, corruption and murder. Let's say that John McCain never runs a negative ad against his opponents because he doesn't want them to dig too hard.
It's because McCain is where he is because of his marriage to his second wife, Cindy. No, Cindy Hensley McCain is not where the story begins. She was a young 25 when McCain married her (he was 43). According to the Arizona Republic on June 5, 1999, McCain joked that his marriage was based on a 'tissue of lies.' Both he and she had lied to each other, she claiming to be older than she was and he claiming to be younger. Yeah, I know-- what a good foundation for a marriage to start off on. To their credit the McCains however have stayed together. Or maybe there are other reasons...
One wonders what Cindy told McCain about her father. When did McCain learn how his father-in-law Jim Hensley made his fortune? Sooner or later he had to be dealt in on the 'family jewels.' After all, they helped finance a run for Congress and not long after that for the Senate.
Jim Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work after World War II for Kemper Marley, a wealthy wholesale liquor distributor. Marley, in fact, had once been a bookie, getting his start working for the Transamerica Wire Service, a betting service established by mafiosi Gus Greenbaum (who was murdered with his wife when their throats were slashed in bed in 1958). Until 1947, liquor was rationed by the government. Apparently Marley did quite well in spite of the restrictions, and in 1948 the reason why became clear. Eugene and Jim Hensley were convicted of falsifying records on behalf of Marley's distributorship, United Liquor (along with fifty other Marley employees) to conceal the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. Jim Hensley got a six month suspended sentence.
In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was once more charged for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American Mafia.com, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:
When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.
That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.
In fact, Marley was interested in more than just liquor. In 1976, then Gov. Raul Castro, a Democrat, appointed Marley, then a billionaire and the state's richest man, to the state racing commission.
And that's when one of those pesky investigative reporters got in the way. The reporter's name was Don Bolles and he worked for the Arizona Republic. Bolles discovered a land fraud ring and other crimes that appeared to lead to Sen. Barry Goldwater and other movers and shakers in Arizona. And he discovered that Kemper Marley, newly appointed to the State Board Racing Commission, had connections to the Mafia. In fact, Marley was a close associate of Peter Licavoli, the mob boss for Arizona. Marley had also served as Chairman of the Board for Valley National Bank, which helped bankroll Bugsy Siegel's construction of the Flamingo in Las Vegas. Digging into Marley's past also uncovered his earlier work for Gus Greenbaum. The revelations forced Marley to resign from the commission.
And Kemper Marley and his associates in the Mafia weren't people whose business you interfered with lightly.
On June 2, 1976, Bolles climbed into his car and was blown apart by a bomb under the driver's seat. Pieces of his body were strewn around the parking lot. Bolles amazingly survived for eleven days and said to investgators on the scene, "They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey) Adamson."
Adamson was later convicted of the murder. But who hired him? That trail was never really followed up on, according to members of the Arizona Project, a group of reporters who began looking into mob ties after the murder.
Following Bolles' death, more than 30 journalists from the then-newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) group arrived in Phoenix to carry out their late colleague's work....
Don Devereux, another Arizona Project reporter, feels the IRE team may have trusted the authorities too much. "We accepted very uncritically their scenario. In retrospect, we were very naive to get lead around. It really isn't something that we should be running around congratulating ourselves about," says Devereux of the IRE investigation...
"The biggest disservice we did to Bolles was not paying more attention to him," says Devereux. "His dying words were words we should have glommed onto a little more seriously, because when he was lying on the pavement he said: `Adamson, Emprise, Mafia. ... Emprise was almost Bolles' white whale. He was obsessed by them...."
Emprise, a Buffalo, NY based sports concessionire with known mob ties, had a circuit of Greyhound racing tracks in Arizona. So who was named to the Racing Commission was of vital interest to Emprise. Enter Kemper Marley. Exit Kemper Marley, courtesy of Bolles.
The Phoenix police theorized that Marley wanting revenge enlisted the help of local contractor Max Dunlap. Dunlap then allegedly hired Adamson to carry out the bombing. Adamson claimed that plumber James Robison assisted him.
Over the years, Dunlap and Robison have maintained their innocence. Dunlap remains incarcerated.** Although, Robison gained acquittal in a retrial, he is still awaiting release from prison on a related charge. Meanwhile, the state paroled Adamson [in 1996], and he disappeared into the federal witness protection program.
The Phoenix police never even arrested Marley, who died in 1990.
**-- Dunlap has since died in prison after the source article was published.
Meanwhile, Jim Hensley remained a close confidante and associate of Kemper Marley. In fact, it was Bolles who wrote that the Hensleys had bought Ruidoso Downs horse racing track in New Mexico on behalf of Marley. Eugene Hensley later sold the track to a buyer linked to Emprise (linked here as described in the Phoenix Gazette, Jan. 4, 1990.)
One thing that Marley and Hensley didn't have-- governmental authority themselves. They had to depend on their friends in government to help them out. But then Hensley got a gift-- his daughter married the former Navy pilot and decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, John McCain. Hensley knew right away what to do. According to an article published in 2000 by the Phoenix New Times,
[McCain] retired from the military in 1980, divorced his first wife, wed Arizona native Cindy Lou Hensley and moved here to plunge into the world of politics. His first job in Arizona was as a public affairs agent for Hensley & Company, one of the nation's largest beer distributors. He was paid $50,000 in 1982 to travel the state, touting the company's wares. But he was promoting himself as much as he was Budweiser beer. A better job description might have been "candidate."
Then in 1982, McCain ran for Congress. That takes some quick money, and McCain had access to it-- thanks to his father in law (whose employees at his liquor distributorship were 'persuaded' to donate thousands of dollars to McCain), and one of Hensley's friends, Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L (I won't get into the Lincoln S&L scandal here because it is pretty well known by now that McCain was one of the 'Keating Five.') To seal the deal, Jim Hensley and Cindy Hensley McCain invested $359,100 in one of Keating's projects. In fact, when McCain first ran for the Senate, in 1986, even Kemper Marley, through his son Kemper Jr. (who was now running United Liquor-- Marley himself had become politically radioactive) donated money to him.
It has been said that the Mafia never really left, they have just moved upscale. That is certainly the case in Las Vegas, where the casinos are corporations and run in a businesslike manner (so a Bugsy Siegel would be an anachronism, but I'm also not sure I'd want to make an enemy out of some of the folks who have those offices on the top floor.) The original Cosa Nostra may have been largely broken up, but the remnants of the Mafia are still around, mostly in fat family bank accounts and people they have helped push into positions of power, and John McCain is privvy to one and is the other.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Wow. Republicans in Legislature finally propose a good gun bill.
Rarely, if ever, do I agree with any piece of legislation proposed by right-wing bogeyman Russell Pearce.
But his proposal to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry weapons on college or grade school campuses makes a lot of sense.
Had any of the students had a concealed weapon available when Steven Kaczmierczek opened fire this week in a classroom at Northern Illinois University then maybe some of the five people he murdered or the eighteen people he wounded would have been spared the carnage that he inflicted in what according to all accounts lasted less than two minutes.
The University had put in place a plan for dealing with such an eventuality after the Virginia Tech shootings last year, and by all accounts the system worked as it should have. The police were on the scene within minutes, the campus was placed on lockdown and computers sent the news and the alert zipping around campus.
However, in spite of the quick response, it was too late. Kaczmierczek had already taken his own life at the end of the rampage even before the police arrived.
Contrast that to what happened several weeks ago in a church near Colorado Springs. A man named Matthew Murray, armed with over a thousand rounds of ammunition and several weapons entered the building after murdering two people the night before and two more in the parking lot, clearly intent on carrying out a massacre. But he failed, because Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the church, had a gun which she used to take him down after he ignored her order to halt. Dozens, scores, or maybe even hundreds, of lives were saved thereby.
Fred Boice, the director of the board of regents for the University system in Arizona was quoted in today's Arizona Republic as expressing concern about allowing eighteen to twenty-five year olds on campus with a firearm and apparently raising the specter of tempers flaring into a firefight compared with a 'one in a million' chance. Of course on a grade school campus it would generally be only the teachers and staff who might have a CCW permit, so let's focus on universities, where he presumably is concerned about eighteen to twenty-five year old students.
Wrong on both counts. On the first count, getting a permit requires an evaluation and is not something you can do on a whim. Further, soldiers in the armed forces carry weapons all the time and don't start gunning each other down because of a dispute over a parking place or a seating arrangement. Why would military members be more mature about stuff like that than college students? They're not. Both groups are mature enough to be trusted, especially if they've gone to the length of getting a CCW permit. Of course it is true that if someone started firing at everyone in an army barracks, then they would obviously be killed themselves before they got very far-- but that's exactly the reason why maybe we SHOULD allow firearms on college campuses.
As to the 'one in a million' chance-- that is dead wrong as well. There are less than 200 division I colleges, and since 1991 we've seen mass shootings (which I will define as three or more murders, not counting the shooters themselves) at the University of Iowa, San Diego State University, The University of Arizona Nursing College (remember that), Virginia Tech and now Northern Illinois University. That is more like a 'one in forty' chance than 'one in a million.' Certainly enough of a chance to take very seriously.
To put it in perspective, the five incidents that I just listed are more than the number of major fires that have killed three or more people at the same universities during the same time frame, but we would never think about letting students go to school in universiites that did not include fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escapes and other features that are part of the building code.
I've certainly been critical of Republicans in the legislature (especially Pearce) and even on second amendment issues, where I'm most likely to agree with them they've been kind of nutty in the recent past. For example they passed a bill last year (which was vetoed, because our Governor at least is sane) requiring businesses to provide gun lockers or else allow customers to walk around with weapons on them. This would have required, among other things, a late night clerk working alone at a convenience store to allow someone to literally walk right up to the counter brandishing a weapon or else step out from behind the counter to take the weapon and store it. This of course would have negated their silent alarm, weapon under the counter or whatever other security system they had in place (why not call it the 'hello, my name is Rob' bill?)
But this bill makes sense, for once.
But his proposal to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry weapons on college or grade school campuses makes a lot of sense.
Had any of the students had a concealed weapon available when Steven Kaczmierczek opened fire this week in a classroom at Northern Illinois University then maybe some of the five people he murdered or the eighteen people he wounded would have been spared the carnage that he inflicted in what according to all accounts lasted less than two minutes.
The University had put in place a plan for dealing with such an eventuality after the Virginia Tech shootings last year, and by all accounts the system worked as it should have. The police were on the scene within minutes, the campus was placed on lockdown and computers sent the news and the alert zipping around campus.
However, in spite of the quick response, it was too late. Kaczmierczek had already taken his own life at the end of the rampage even before the police arrived.
Contrast that to what happened several weeks ago in a church near Colorado Springs. A man named Matthew Murray, armed with over a thousand rounds of ammunition and several weapons entered the building after murdering two people the night before and two more in the parking lot, clearly intent on carrying out a massacre. But he failed, because Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the church, had a gun which she used to take him down after he ignored her order to halt. Dozens, scores, or maybe even hundreds, of lives were saved thereby.
Fred Boice, the director of the board of regents for the University system in Arizona was quoted in today's Arizona Republic as expressing concern about allowing eighteen to twenty-five year olds on campus with a firearm and apparently raising the specter of tempers flaring into a firefight compared with a 'one in a million' chance. Of course on a grade school campus it would generally be only the teachers and staff who might have a CCW permit, so let's focus on universities, where he presumably is concerned about eighteen to twenty-five year old students.
Wrong on both counts. On the first count, getting a permit requires an evaluation and is not something you can do on a whim. Further, soldiers in the armed forces carry weapons all the time and don't start gunning each other down because of a dispute over a parking place or a seating arrangement. Why would military members be more mature about stuff like that than college students? They're not. Both groups are mature enough to be trusted, especially if they've gone to the length of getting a CCW permit. Of course it is true that if someone started firing at everyone in an army barracks, then they would obviously be killed themselves before they got very far-- but that's exactly the reason why maybe we SHOULD allow firearms on college campuses.
As to the 'one in a million' chance-- that is dead wrong as well. There are less than 200 division I colleges, and since 1991 we've seen mass shootings (which I will define as three or more murders, not counting the shooters themselves) at the University of Iowa, San Diego State University, The University of Arizona Nursing College (remember that), Virginia Tech and now Northern Illinois University. That is more like a 'one in forty' chance than 'one in a million.' Certainly enough of a chance to take very seriously.
To put it in perspective, the five incidents that I just listed are more than the number of major fires that have killed three or more people at the same universities during the same time frame, but we would never think about letting students go to school in universiites that did not include fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escapes and other features that are part of the building code.
I've certainly been critical of Republicans in the legislature (especially Pearce) and even on second amendment issues, where I'm most likely to agree with them they've been kind of nutty in the recent past. For example they passed a bill last year (which was vetoed, because our Governor at least is sane) requiring businesses to provide gun lockers or else allow customers to walk around with weapons on them. This would have required, among other things, a late night clerk working alone at a convenience store to allow someone to literally walk right up to the counter brandishing a weapon or else step out from behind the counter to take the weapon and store it. This of course would have negated their silent alarm, weapon under the counter or whatever other security system they had in place (why not call it the 'hello, my name is Rob' bill?)
But this bill makes sense, for once.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Meet Mr. McCain-- part I (the conservative Republican)
The media likes to harp on John McCain as some kind of a 'moderate' (not a conservative). And recently he has been only reluctantly accepted by many conservatives while others have continued to whine about his getting the nomination. They claim that because of his support and authorship of a few specific bills that McCain is 'not a true conservative.'
Well, they don't need to worry. He is. And trust me, by the time the election rolls around all or virtually all of the conservatives will be back on board. President Bush already is, and has been lavish in his praise of the man who gave his former rival, Bush, the notorious 'Hug' at the 2004 GOP convention:
Don't ever forget that hug, because it makes it clear like nothing else ever could who McCain's master is, and where his loyalty lies. The trick will be to get people tho believe that McCain is some kind of a 'moderate' to realize that he isn't.
Start with the fact that McCain has a lifetime 82% rationg from the American Conservative Union. This puts him much more in line with most Senate Republicans than it does with 'moderates.' McCain has a 100% anti-choice voting record in the Senate and uniformly supports any kind of a bill that opposes abortion. Of course hardcore conservatives like to harp on the fact that he hasn't supported amending the Constitution to make abortion illegal, but part of the reason is because McCain is smart enough to realize that such an amendment (just like an anti-gay marriage amendment) is a pipe dream that would never be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4 of the states, as required by law. So he instead pushes legislation to make it as restrictive as possible.
Further, when asked about Supreme Court nominees, McCain recently asserted his support of the Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice John Roberts. He disparaged Justice Antonin Scalia for 'wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.' This upset some talk show hosts but the truth of the matter is that if McCain appoints judges like John Roberts-- quiet conservatives who keep their conservatism hidden deep down in their vest pockets-- the result will be the same as if he appointed a loudmouth like Scalia. So look at what happens: John McCain is portrayed as a moderate, but the result if he is elected is that we will get more consevative judges.
John McCain has long opposed what he sees as 'pork' spending. Of course most so-called 'pork' is money that is invested in projects, especially in rural areas, which help people and communities but might not be affordable without the federal support. Recently though he has in fact redoubled his attacks and suggested that he will if he is President simply veto bills that have 'pork' in them, regardless of whether they are worthwhile projects or not.
Now granted, one could ask the 'anti-pork' crusader whether President Bush should have vetoed his own bill that directed $10 million to create the William H. Rehnquist Center here in Arizona (memorializing another arch-conservative Supreme Court justice who McCain admires a great deal.) But certainly his promise to blanket veto spending on such projects is hardly 'moderate.' It could be justified as hard-nosed fiscal responsibility though, if it weren't for his stance on the Bush tax cuts. Though McCain, still angry over his 2000 loss to Bush opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he now supports making them permanent. And of course that will cost the government far more in revenue that the relative trifle he plans to save with his vetoes.
Health care? Well, just read what John McCain's own website says about it (if you dig deep enough and scroll down to near the bottom.)
Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families)
Now, the average family insurance policy now costs in excess of $12,000. So in other words, McCain plans to discourage your employer from continuing to offer you insurance, and replace it with a tax credit for less than half of what the premium is now (so if your employer pays half your premium now, then you will be $1,000 in the hole.) And of course if you or a family member has health issues like being a cancer survivor or having a chronic illness or disability then your premium will go much, much higher (if you can buy insurance at all once your employer quits covering you) but Mr. McCain's partial tax subsidy won't rise to cover it. So the bottom line is that the McCain plan will create more uninsured than there are now. Yup, that's what conservatives do too.
Above all, McCain is a strong conservative on foreign policy, especially the Iraq war. McCain is the chairman of the Board of Directors for the International Republican Insitute (IRI). The IRI is a para-governmental organization which was originally founded by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other conservatives during the Reagan administration to provide a counter to Jimmy Carter's work certifying foreign elections. It found a new lease on life during the Bush administration. Because it is not a governmental agency, the IRI can conduct foreign policy (including setting up elections and educating foreign voters and perhaps less laudible goals than that-- including spreading American-style conservatism) where direct involvement by the State Department could violate U.S. or foreign laws. A quick glance at the full membership of the Board of Directors shows that in addition to McCain, it includes Paul Bremer (the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the war), Bush I-era cronies Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, former GOP chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and three other sitting or former Congressmen or Senators (all Republicans) and various members of the military-industrial complex.
McCain voted enthusiastically for the AUMF in October 2002 and was a supporter of the 'surge' from its opening days. He has spared no expense, supporting close to a trillion dollars in new Iraq spending (all while grousing about a few million in 'pork'; well, McCain recently admitted that he didn't understand economics.) McCain recently said that he is willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (Yikes!) So it is obvious that on the Iraq war, a McCain administration would be another four years of the Bush administration.
Part of the appeal that John McCain has to independents and moderates is that they don't see him as being as 'bad' as other Republicans.
Well, he is every bit as bad. Maybe he can see the benefits of working with Democrats on a handful of issues that will get him a lot of press, but on the issues that count, he's still just as conservative. And like his 'huggy buddy' McCain gets stuck on an issue, and he is a stubborn jackass who won't change his mind even when everyone can see that he is wrong.
So don't be fooled by John McCain. He's a conservative. He's just a smart enough conservative that he knows how to play the media game and once in a while keep up appearances. But his supporters in Virginia who the other night when he finally won the primary broke into chants of, 'four more years,' know better. They are Bush backers, and this year McCain is their man.
Well, they don't need to worry. He is. And trust me, by the time the election rolls around all or virtually all of the conservatives will be back on board. President Bush already is, and has been lavish in his praise of the man who gave his former rival, Bush, the notorious 'Hug' at the 2004 GOP convention:
Don't ever forget that hug, because it makes it clear like nothing else ever could who McCain's master is, and where his loyalty lies. The trick will be to get people tho believe that McCain is some kind of a 'moderate' to realize that he isn't.
Start with the fact that McCain has a lifetime 82% rationg from the American Conservative Union. This puts him much more in line with most Senate Republicans than it does with 'moderates.' McCain has a 100% anti-choice voting record in the Senate and uniformly supports any kind of a bill that opposes abortion. Of course hardcore conservatives like to harp on the fact that he hasn't supported amending the Constitution to make abortion illegal, but part of the reason is because McCain is smart enough to realize that such an amendment (just like an anti-gay marriage amendment) is a pipe dream that would never be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4 of the states, as required by law. So he instead pushes legislation to make it as restrictive as possible.
Further, when asked about Supreme Court nominees, McCain recently asserted his support of the Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, especially Chief Justice John Roberts. He disparaged Justice Antonin Scalia for 'wearing his conservatism on his sleeve.' This upset some talk show hosts but the truth of the matter is that if McCain appoints judges like John Roberts-- quiet conservatives who keep their conservatism hidden deep down in their vest pockets-- the result will be the same as if he appointed a loudmouth like Scalia. So look at what happens: John McCain is portrayed as a moderate, but the result if he is elected is that we will get more consevative judges.
John McCain has long opposed what he sees as 'pork' spending. Of course most so-called 'pork' is money that is invested in projects, especially in rural areas, which help people and communities but might not be affordable without the federal support. Recently though he has in fact redoubled his attacks and suggested that he will if he is President simply veto bills that have 'pork' in them, regardless of whether they are worthwhile projects or not.
Now granted, one could ask the 'anti-pork' crusader whether President Bush should have vetoed his own bill that directed $10 million to create the William H. Rehnquist Center here in Arizona (memorializing another arch-conservative Supreme Court justice who McCain admires a great deal.) But certainly his promise to blanket veto spending on such projects is hardly 'moderate.' It could be justified as hard-nosed fiscal responsibility though, if it weren't for his stance on the Bush tax cuts. Though McCain, still angry over his 2000 loss to Bush opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he now supports making them permanent. And of course that will cost the government far more in revenue that the relative trifle he plans to save with his vetoes.
Health care? Well, just read what John McCain's own website says about it (if you dig deep enough and scroll down to near the bottom.)
Reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families)
Now, the average family insurance policy now costs in excess of $12,000. So in other words, McCain plans to discourage your employer from continuing to offer you insurance, and replace it with a tax credit for less than half of what the premium is now (so if your employer pays half your premium now, then you will be $1,000 in the hole.) And of course if you or a family member has health issues like being a cancer survivor or having a chronic illness or disability then your premium will go much, much higher (if you can buy insurance at all once your employer quits covering you) but Mr. McCain's partial tax subsidy won't rise to cover it. So the bottom line is that the McCain plan will create more uninsured than there are now. Yup, that's what conservatives do too.
Above all, McCain is a strong conservative on foreign policy, especially the Iraq war. McCain is the chairman of the Board of Directors for the International Republican Insitute (IRI). The IRI is a para-governmental organization which was originally founded by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other conservatives during the Reagan administration to provide a counter to Jimmy Carter's work certifying foreign elections. It found a new lease on life during the Bush administration. Because it is not a governmental agency, the IRI can conduct foreign policy (including setting up elections and educating foreign voters and perhaps less laudible goals than that-- including spreading American-style conservatism) where direct involvement by the State Department could violate U.S. or foreign laws. A quick glance at the full membership of the Board of Directors shows that in addition to McCain, it includes Paul Bremer (the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the war), Bush I-era cronies Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, former GOP chairman Frank Fahrenkopf and three other sitting or former Congressmen or Senators (all Republicans) and various members of the military-industrial complex.
McCain voted enthusiastically for the AUMF in October 2002 and was a supporter of the 'surge' from its opening days. He has spared no expense, supporting close to a trillion dollars in new Iraq spending (all while grousing about a few million in 'pork'; well, McCain recently admitted that he didn't understand economics.) McCain recently said that he is willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years (Yikes!) So it is obvious that on the Iraq war, a McCain administration would be another four years of the Bush administration.
Part of the appeal that John McCain has to independents and moderates is that they don't see him as being as 'bad' as other Republicans.
Well, he is every bit as bad. Maybe he can see the benefits of working with Democrats on a handful of issues that will get him a lot of press, but on the issues that count, he's still just as conservative. And like his 'huggy buddy' McCain gets stuck on an issue, and he is a stubborn jackass who won't change his mind even when everyone can see that he is wrong.
So don't be fooled by John McCain. He's a conservative. He's just a smart enough conservative that he knows how to play the media game and once in a while keep up appearances. But his supporters in Virginia who the other night when he finally won the primary broke into chants of, 'four more years,' know better. They are Bush backers, and this year McCain is their man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)