Controversy By Association -- Redux

Questions for McCain, if you're a fan of "controversy by association".

Controversy By Association -- A Bad Idea

The Media, the Clinton campaign, and I am assured, in time, the GOP, have and will continue to make great hay out of the fact that the Rev. Wright, Barack Obama's pastor, has some ideas about HIV, or said he had those ideas, that are fairly crazy.

I think there's a limit to how much crap one should have to accept for beliefs of people that candidates associate with.

Frankly, I feel the same way about McCain's 2006 reconciliation with Rev. Falwell. Rev. Falwell, as you will recall, said, in regard to the 9/11 attacks:

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

--Jerry Falwell, quoted in the Washington Post, 9/14/01.

It is the nature of life, the nature of politics, and the nature perhaps of spiritual belief that we sometimes take the bad with the good, that we respect people in part for whom we see some really dumbshit ideas in other places. I'm sure that, having read this blog, you think I have some pretty dumbshit ideas, and yet you continue to read it. QED. :)

I do think it was fair to ask Sen. Obama how he feels about Rev. Wrights statements about HIV, I similarly think it's fair to ask Sen. McCain about Falwell's comments about whether gays and atheists and people who give a damn about civil liberties are the responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But I don't think there's any reason to take Obama's repudiation of those beliefs, or any repudiation that McCain would make (if anyone bothered to ask him, that is) about Falwell's beliefs, at less than face value. Asked and answered--can we please move the hell on to things that actually matter, like Iraq, the ethics of torture, the budget debt, the housing crisis, or the coming demise of Social Security and Medicare? I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Why aren't you entitled to an apology when *your* privacy is infringed upon?

When a candidate's privacy is infringed on, Secretary of State Rice issued an apology.

Don't you deserve one, too?

GOP on the Protect America Act

Click for the GOP ad over at Youtube

One of the key provisions, which the GOP fought to be included in this act, is retroactive immunity for any illegal acts communication giants such as AT&T may have done when handing over your private data to the government without a warrant.

Those companies are already protected against anything they did that's legal.

Those companies are already protected against anything they handed over with a warrant.

So, what's the urgency of that provision? Hmmm? The commercial doesn't seem to cover that question.

Well, here's one theory. It's a little bit rude, but if you have anything better, just say so.

This act would invalidate existing lawsuits against the putatively illegal actions of these telephone companies. In doing so, it would stop the pre-trial discovery in those cases, discovery which would help sort out whistleblowers's contentions that the illegal warrantless wiretaps predate the 9/11 attacks.

When the GOP brings "24" sensibilities and minor chords to selling you on the idea that it is trying to Protect America, perhaps you should ask yourself if that is really what, or who, they're trying to protect.

California same-sex marriage amicus briefs

Amicus briefs in the California same-sex marriage cases. There's a lot of good stuff in there, e.g., the awesome NAACP brief. The primary arguments are here.

"Stealing from our Children"

60 Minutes: Head of the GAO explains the budget debt crisis, in words even small enough for politicians to understand.

List of unpledged superdelegates

List of unpledged superdelegates. Hey, some of those are folks I should write. :)

Obama 2008

It's Super Duper Fat Tuesday Eve, and as has been the case most of my life, I'm not feeling deeply connected with the political mindsets of any of the major candidates. Nonetheless, unlike many past elections, I will be voting in this primary for a major-party candidate, Barack Obama, and I'll be doing so with a reasonable amount of comfort.

There's much that Obama and I disagree on, and let me outline some of that laundry list:

I don't believe, as he does, that "civil unions" create equality, I think that any thinking person must be suspicious of any system which attempts to create "separate but equal" queues for its citizens.

Obama's support of the death penalty, while one I can relate to, is not my own, I believe the horrifyingly bad record of Death Penalty jurisprudence in the United States demonstrates problems that give me qualms about such "final penalties".

Obama supported the 2006 version of the USA Patriot Act.

Obama supports "cap and trade", rather than emissions tax approaches to CO2 harm reduction. It is my feeling that the systems he supports rely too much on protecting existing industries from the problems created by their past practices and not enough on creating a system that balances any emissions against other economic and environmental goods.

So, why Obama?

Two issues dominate my thinking this election. Foreign policy in Iraq, and the economic health of the country. On the Republican side, the race is largely left to McCain at this point, and he refuses to accept the enormous failure of policy and of government that our involvement in Iraq represents even today. This blinds him to the economic damage being done as well. For someone who had (to me) a fairly convincing record in years past as someone who believed in fiscal responsibility, McCain seems to have taken a dark turn, one matched by his sudden shift towards rights-sapping 'social conservatism' and, well, thanks but no thanks.

On the Democratic side, I find little basis in direct policy on which to choose between Clinton and Obama. Either, I think, could make a pretty decent president. I think both recognize the problems in Iraq without ignoring the enormous practical difficulties and consequences of immediate withdrawal--and recognize just what the war in Iraq is costing is. (They both have plans which concern me economically, too.) Neither supports same-sex marriage. And the election of either would represent a historic moment for the country in either case.

I'm not saying there aren't policy differences between the two. It's simply that, when I count up the differences, they seem small and offsetting, and that leads me to consider a factor that moves beyond one of pure issues.

The power of the presidency resides in part in the "bully pulpit", the ability to have oneself heard and to apply pressure on issues to affect change. In the end, while I believe Clinton has made enormous strides at speaking well and effectively (in particular, during the last debate), I personally believe that Obama is arguably the strongest speaker we've had up for a presidential race in the past twenty years, and, left "in balance" on specific issues, it's my best estimation that this speaking ability will allow Obama to be an even more effective leader.

We need that. We need direction, purpose and change in this country, and while I am always cynical about what we'll really see, I think Obama represents the best hope we have for a brighter tomorrow.

A timely reminder on FactCheck.Org

The Annenberg Project's FactCheck.org is an excellent non-partisan caller of bullshit, highly recommended.

Any other recommendation for organizations doing this sort of work, whether on a local, national or global basis?

Privacy shimvacy

Redefine "privacy", says Bush administration principal deputy director of national intelligence. After redefining "torture", "weapons of mass destruction", "terrorism", a "voter mandate", the Bill of Rights and what it means to win a presidential election, this should come as little surprise, in fact, I suspect many of this administration to retire into lexicography.

How the GOP could win in 2008

I've said that 2008 would be the Democratic Party's race to lose, and despite their lackluster efforts to do anything significant to distinguish themselves on Iraq since taking office, I still think that's the case.

However, pissing off the apparatus of a battleground state in order to "punish them" is an example of the sort of self-inflicted injury that could allow the GOP to somehow salvage the race. I'm sure Mitt Romney has no complaints....

Oh look, I'm not the only Whacko

From Salon, Democratic Responsibility in Bush Extremism. It's nice to see someone cover the politically cooperative, rather than competitive aspects of the erosion of individual rights and liberties in the United States.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

"The Democratic-led U.S. Senate, amid warnings of further attacks on the United States, approved a bill on Friday that would allow President George W. Bush to maintain his controversial domestic spying program."

Your share of the debt, from USA Today

How is your houdsehold planning to pay off that half a millon bucks?

Why would I ever want to vote Green?

While I'd guess that more of my readers are sympathetic to Greens rather than Libertarians, my friends and readers cover a wide political spectrum, and my hope in this series of posts is to demonstrate the issues that each of the parties, in my mind, demonstrates constructive and positive leadership with.

Now, I don't identify as Green, or as a representative member of ANY party. I have a number of concerns about many Green policies and beliefs. Folks seemed to have trouble understanding that I don't feel well-represented by any party when I wrote my last post, I'm sorry you had trouble understanding that, but it was pretty clear both in that post and in this blog in general, if you haven't gotten the message I respectfully submit that perhaps you are just not listening. In both this and the previous post, I'm listing those issues which pull me toward a particular party, regardless of the issues that mitigate that support. Kapish?

When I see Republicans and Democrats working together to eliminate competition, I want to vote Green, for their leadership in promoting proportional representation.

When I remember the roll call of people who voted against the Patriot Act, and think about the harm it's done to our civil liberties, I want to vote Green, for their consistent opposition to that Act.

When I look at children being raised by same-sex partners denied the protections that would come to them if their parents were allowed to marry, and remember that the Green Party is the only notably sized party to include marriage equality in its platform, I want to vote Green.

When I see the consistent giveaways of federally-owned natural resources, I want to vote Green to support their use. Yes, the natural resources "owned by the government", gas, oil, timber, minerals, yes, many of those will need to be used, but to work "well" in the context of a capitalistic framework it's critical that the indirect, environmental and opportunity costs involved in resource extraction be modeled in determining appropriate royalties. Ditto grazing fees, etc.

When pufferfish (toxins intact) get sold as food, and thousands of pets die from poisons in the pet food supply, the Green party's pre-crisis support for agricultural regionalization looks forward-thinking and attractive.

And when I remember the words of JFK, that the "gross national product":

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product...if we should judge American by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans." Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968.

...and reading those words, when I recognize that the Green Party is the only party I'm aware of that specifically recognizes that "economic growth measured by GDP" is not the only thing in life that we should necessarily optimize for, well, voting Green sure sounds, even if only for a moment, like a damn fine idea.

Saturday Linkage

Densar on LJ links a video of Bill Maher and Ron Paul finding common ground on the subject of foreign policy. This is an excellent example of one of the primary themes of Liberty Cocktail--that issues, individual issues, are more important than the choice of the "red or blue" team, and that there are important ideas to be heard from many parts of the spectrum.

Why would I ever want to vote Libertarian?

As I stress repeatedly, my politics are pretty complicated and often not well-served by any particular political label. You can see in my political beliefs elements of thinking from the libertarian, Green, Democratic and old-school Republican thought. For all that variety, though, the label that seems to elicit the most derision and "running away shrieking" is the L-word, libertarian.

And some of that running away shrieking is understandable, the usual images of libertarians tends toward Stan Jones, rather than Milton Friedman, and frankly, most people, myself included, do think that government-provided fire departments are probably a good idea.

(And, by the by, for those party-line Democrats in the audience who think that Milton Friedman and Satan are synonymous, I'll remind you to reflect on his participation in the ending of the draft.)

This leaves me in an awkward position, however, since people tend to recoil so much by the adjective "libertarian" that they stop hearing whatever else I'm going to say. So I've decided to try and talk about the moments when I feel my impulses run in that specific direction, and hope that litany will provide some insight.

When I have to "show my papers" to get an "over-the-counter" remedy for my sniffles, and nobody in power thinks this is stupid, I want to vote Libertarian.

When owning a few harmless sex toys is a crime, and nobody in power thinks this is stupid, I want to vote Libertarian.

When "freedom of religion" feels limited to Christian beliefs, and nobody in power seems concerned, I want to vote Libertarian.

When the Ninth Amendment is held by courts to have no effect or meaning, and nobody in power is concerned in the least, I want to vote Libertarian.

When most of the money paid by the uninsured for prescriptions go to pharmacies, not pharmaceutical manufacturers, and yet the political debate on prescriptions is focused on the latter, easiest targets, I want to vote Libertarian, or at least "something else."

When the FDA prohibits uninsured people I care about from buying drugs from overseas, when "Canada" is made out to be a third-world country only for the purposes of the quality of drugs that happen to be shipped there to serve political and financial ends, and when few in power can stand up and stay "this is stupid... and hurting people", I want to vote Libertarian.

When the FCC is more concerned about the word "fuck" than people having their heads blown off, and nobody in power is willing to say this is stupid, I dream of voting Libertarian.

And when people I care about can't enjoy the legal protections marriage would afford the children they are raising, when those kids are put at risk out for reasons that fail to meet any sensible interpretation of "freedom of religion", and when not a single major-party political candidate can come out and simply state "This is wrong, this is stupid, this is harmful, this shall not stand.", I feel the urge, strongly, to vote Libertarian.

And for those of you who care about your major parties, I urge you to think about your own parties participation in these failures of government. I urge you to try and see if you can make a difference in even a single stupidity from this list. Because, if you can't, I might be tempted, despite better judgment, to not vote for the "lesser of two evils" in '08 and vote again, as I did in '04, for someone outside the major party duopoly.

You wouldn't want that, would you? At times it feels as if many of you almost assume that, by virtue of claiming to be the "lesser of two evils", hold the deed and title to my vote. You don't, and neither does your party.

Marriage Equality

As California waits quietly for its state Supreme Court to decide on the same-sex marriage issue, it's time to consider a likely unthinkable solution to one of the fundamental problems inherent in reconciling "equality of marriage" in California with the unavoidable context of the Defense of Marriage Act.

To my mind, the California Constitution is quite clear in it's intent to provide equal protections to all citizens. The state is prohibited from treating different classes of citizens differently, and part of the fuss is the question of whether treating same-sex relationships differently than opposite-sex ones really stems from a different treatment of individuals, an argument which seems to me to fail to see the sweeping scope of the Constitutional text. But that's not my point today.

My point today is different. Let us assume, for a moment, that the Supreme Court finds that prohibiting same-sex marriages to GLBT couples does violate the Equal Protection clause. The question then becomes, what remedy should the court fashion?

The obvious solution, and the only one that anyone ever talks about is granting same-sex marriage rights to Californians. And on the face of it, that would be a delightful turn of events, no question. But one might argue, and I will argue, that that's not enough.

But let's step back for a moment. Let's consider a hypothetical where the US federal government decides to offer $10,000 to each person who graduates from high school with a "class-A" award. In this hypothetical, the definition of "class-A" is, in the name of federalism, deferred to individual states, that is, California might have different rules than Ohio. Now let us assume that California considers a law in which only men are eligible for class-A awards, and in which only women are eligible for class-B awards, and moreover that they California give $20 to recipients of either award.

While the benefit of the thousand dollars is clearly provided by the federal government, and while the benefit of $20 is provided by itself in an arguably non-discriminatory manner, it is without question the action of the state which confers a discriminatory benefit to (some) men, and I have little doubt that such a restriction would be found in violation of the California state Constitution.

If we further assume that the federal government had imposed a restriction that no "class-A" awards can be awarded to women, I see nothing legally or ethically that has changed. The act of awarding "class-A" and "class-B" awards has as its primary effect the creation of a large discriminatory financial bias. As unpleasant as it would be, the only way to reconcile equal protection with the existing framework of far more significant federal law would be to stop giving out class-A awards entirely.

And so it is with marriage. Should the California Supreme Court decide to require same-sex marriage in the state, it will be an active participant in the federal discrimination against same-sex couples. One might propose, modestly enough, that the only way to clearly reconcile California's equal protection with the existing federal landscape is to simply stop issuing marriage licenses entirely.

Karl Rove subpoenas

The US Congress is working today to subpoena subpoena Karl Rove and other aides in connection with the firing of several Justice department attorneys, perhaps in connection with a probe of corruption in the CIA. Of course, the White House asserts that those aides are exempt from such oversight because of executive privilege.

Fortunately it is unlikely that the US Supreme Court will grant the executive branch such unchecked power. In United States v. Nixon the court found that the invocation of executive privilege was far from absolute. In that decision, writing for the putatively unanimous court, Chief Justice Berger affirmed that President Nixon's withholding of papers was not covered by executive privilege "absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets." Similarly, President Clinton was denied the unchecked use of executive privilege during his impeachment hearings surrounding the (ahem) Lewinsky affair.

The need for oversight in all areas of government is a fundamental protection against corruption, and that need is historically recognized in our system of government. The White House's claim that details of the firing of those attorneys somehow merits an exception flies in the face of this principle. That claim should not, and likely will not, stand.

Shocked, shocked!

The FBI has been abusing it's authority under the Patriot Act, according to a DOJ audit. I don't mean to make more of this than it is, but it underscores why there's such an opposition to parts of the Patriot Act... there is a lot of power in those provisions, it's not balanced by appropriate checks that would prevent the abuse of that power when it happens, it's used in non-emergency contexts, and so on.

The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.

Still, "we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concludes.

One can only conclude from this that "serious misuses of national security letter authorities" aren't considered criminal. That's an enormous flaw to begin with.

Over the entire three-year period, the audit found the FBI issued 143,074 national security letters requesting customer data from businesses.

140,000? All claimed to have a significant relationship to "national security"? I'm incredulous.