David Brooks wonders where the liberals have gone. Just as farmers weed the fields and sailors maintain their ships, Democrats who create government programs have an obligation to prune. He is right, of course.
The "war on drugs," a program that huge majorities recognize is not working, would be an excellent area for pruning. By the way, the Obama Administration cancelled the "Safe and Drug-Free Schools" program because it was not working, not because it was indifferent to teenage drug use.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Santorum tells N.H. he would ignore the Constitutional powers of the States to enforce his moral views
On Thurs., Jan. 5, 2012, I was in New Hampshire and heard Rick Santorum, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, at a town hall event.* The last questioner, obviously believing the Santorum was a conservative, prefaced her question by noting that it is a core conservative principle that state and local governments have the power to govern themselves without federal interference, and asked, "if you were president would you protect gay marriage and medical marijuana laws and allow them to operate without federal interference?"
After the long digressions he is famous for, and being prodded by the audience for an answer at 3:21 in that video, Santorum said,
I have to wonder how many of the conservatives who voted for Santorum, or are planning to vote for him because of his religious and social views, are comfortable with such an expansive and cavalier view of the President's power to disregard the Constitution based on his "moral" judgement. For a candidate who cites wide ranges of sources in his speeches, he cited no authority other than his own ability to discern harms to people and to make a "moral" decision.
Would any strict constructionist or partisan of the "original intent" school of constitutional interpretation find Santorum's analysis a tolerable conception of the President's power?
*The town hall meeting was at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH at the College Convention 2012 organized by New England College and sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the AARP.
After the long digressions he is famous for, and being prodded by the audience for an answer at 3:21 in that video, Santorum said,
"states under the Constitution probably have the right to do medical marijuana laws but -- legally, but I don't think they morally have the right to do things that are harmful to the people in their community and therefore I think the federal government should step in."Whoa Nellie! Notwithstanding his understanding that the Constitution legally permits states to "do medical marijuana laws," if he were President, he would direct the federal government to step in to stop them.
I have to wonder how many of the conservatives who voted for Santorum, or are planning to vote for him because of his religious and social views, are comfortable with such an expansive and cavalier view of the President's power to disregard the Constitution based on his "moral" judgement. For a candidate who cites wide ranges of sources in his speeches, he cited no authority other than his own ability to discern harms to people and to make a "moral" decision.
Would any strict constructionist or partisan of the "original intent" school of constitutional interpretation find Santorum's analysis a tolerable conception of the President's power?
*The town hall meeting was at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH at the College Convention 2012 organized by New England College and sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the AARP.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Heckling Santorum with college students in New Hampshire
GOP Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was taking questions from students at the College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy was one of the official sponsoring organizations. I helped arrange the sponsorship by SSDP.
At the very end of the session, SSDP student, Carly (Gladyce) Thomasett from the slashroot collective in New Paltz, NY asked Santorum if he supported the conservative principle that state laws, like New Hampshire's that permit gay marriage, and those of the 15 medical marijuana state's that protect patients, should not be subject to federal preemption. Santorum compared it to state laws that authorized sterilization of people against their will. Then, refuting conservative principles said that as President, he would use federal power to over rule such state laws! He cut off the questioning and exited to a chorus of boos
The Santorum exchange has made global news coverage: U.K. Telegraph USA TODAY CBSNEWS
In one of the first questions of the afternoon, he was asked why he personally opposed gay marriage. Not answering the question, he turned the question into an attempt at a Socratic dialogue and lecture. Santorum said the burden of proof was on the student questioner as why the laws prohibit the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should be changed. Without a reason to do so, it should not be done he said, as students hollered out "All Men are created equal" and "Equal Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Santorum then said, well what did the student think about whether three men should marry. "Irrelevant," I hollered. He insisted on suggesting that was something that could or would follow -- but no one is calling for legislation allowing three or more men or three lesbians to marry. But challenging Santorum's absurd logic, many shouted out, "Go for it," and "It's okay with me." Again he insisted that the student had to explain why allowing plural marriage was a bad idea. "Are you stupid?" I muttered so loudly folks in several rows around could hear me.
He insisted that no one had provided any reason why gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed. I can't believe he is so obtuse.
At the very end of the session, SSDP student, Carly (Gladyce) Thomasett from the slashroot collective in New Paltz, NY asked Santorum if he supported the conservative principle that state laws, like New Hampshire's that permit gay marriage, and those of the 15 medical marijuana state's that protect patients, should not be subject to federal preemption. Santorum compared it to state laws that authorized sterilization of people against their will. Then, refuting conservative principles said that as President, he would use federal power to over rule such state laws! He cut off the questioning and exited to a chorus of boos
The Santorum exchange has made global news coverage: U.K. Telegraph USA TODAY CBSNEWS
In one of the first questions of the afternoon, he was asked why he personally opposed gay marriage. Not answering the question, he turned the question into an attempt at a Socratic dialogue and lecture. Santorum said the burden of proof was on the student questioner as why the laws prohibit the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should be changed. Without a reason to do so, it should not be done he said, as students hollered out "All Men are created equal" and "Equal Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Santorum then said, well what did the student think about whether three men should marry. "Irrelevant," I hollered. He insisted on suggesting that was something that could or would follow -- but no one is calling for legislation allowing three or more men or three lesbians to marry. But challenging Santorum's absurd logic, many shouted out, "Go for it," and "It's okay with me." Again he insisted that the student had to explain why allowing plural marriage was a bad idea. "Are you stupid?" I muttered so loudly folks in several rows around could hear me.
He insisted that no one had provided any reason why gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed. I can't believe he is so obtuse.
Santorum says Federal government does not send non-violent drug offenders to prison
Santorum says Federal government does not send non-violent drug offenders to prison.
Marriage is a celebration of love
I was called out Thursday afternoon, Jan.5, 2012, by a lovely Christian woman for heckling former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum in Concord, New Hampshire this afternoon during his many comments attacking state laws that permit gay marriage. She politely shamed me for being disrespectful and setting a bad example for her three well behaved children. Gay marriage was very hard on her family, she said. Another lovely woman of hers also said gay marriage was hard on her family. I believe them -- but it wasn't appropriate for me then to press them on exactly why or how it is hard.
Later, I was trying to figure out what Santorum thought gay marriage is. I have attended two weddings for same sex couples. Gay and lesbian marriages are celebrations of love.
We need more celebrations of love in America. How does Rick Santorum, the Congress or the U.S. Government get to decide who you can celebrate love with?
The fundamental premise of Santorum's insistence that among various loving couples, the love of gay couple or a lesbian couple is inferior and second class love. His premise says to gay and lesbian couples your partnership with your partner is second class and your marriage to your spouse ought to remain second class. How can he not see this is cruel?
This is a despicable presumption on the part of Santorum's.
Later, I was trying to figure out what Santorum thought gay marriage is. I have attended two weddings for same sex couples. Gay and lesbian marriages are celebrations of love.
We need more celebrations of love in America. How does Rick Santorum, the Congress or the U.S. Government get to decide who you can celebrate love with?
The fundamental premise of Santorum's insistence that among various loving couples, the love of gay couple or a lesbian couple is inferior and second class love. His premise says to gay and lesbian couples your partnership with your partner is second class and your marriage to your spouse ought to remain second class. How can he not see this is cruel?
This is a despicable presumption on the part of Santorum's.
Dr. Gingrich blows hemp history orals; flunks Washington and Jefferson 101
The Internet is buzzing about the Newt Gingrich comment in Concord, NH, Jan. 4,
This was a bigtime inaccurate answer to a question from a student about Washington and Jefferson growing marijuana at Mount Vernon and Monticello, and why it is illegal today. The student used the government approved term for the hemp plant to avoid confusing Dr. Gingrich. There is no record of Washington or Jefferson growing any psycho-active varieties of the hemp plant (i.e. marijuana) or using it to get high. The student's point had nothing to do with getting high. The student, Patrick Fitzgerald, a member of the New Paltz, NY slashroot collective, was participating with Students for Sensible Drug Policy at the College Convention 2012 at the convention center in Concord.
Here's an excellent 90 second video of official guides at Mount Vernon providing a tour explaining hemp production under George Washington's expert and profitable management. It made me wonder if Newt Gingrich ever did "the tourist thing" and visited Mount Vernon while he served in Congress.
Sam Stein at Huffington Post provided a more detailed report of the whole exchange.
Should Gingrich have known that Washington and Jefferson cultivated hemp and would never threaten cultivators?
Federal law has forbade "hemp" cultivation, even the non-psychoative kind grown by the founding fathers (since it "looks" like marijuana) since 1937. With no hemp industry in the last 84 years (except for World War II, see "Hemp for Victory") we could expect that many Americans and Members of Congress would be ignorant of the fact that marijuana, then called hemp, was widely cultivated in 18th and 19th century America.
Newt's Ph.D. from Tulane University was in Modern European History, so if his study of history ignored early U.S. history to favor his academic specialty, his ignorance of Jefferson and Washington would be perfectly excusable.
But in his campaign stump speeches he purports to be an expert on the founding fathers: what they believed, how virtuous and industrious they were, how they knew the value of a profit and how to make one, etc. I may be used to an unusually high standard in History professors since I took courses with Roger Lane at Haverford College.
But I think it would be unlikely that a well educated historian concerned about the lessons of Revolutionary times would be ignorant that hemp was a widespread major crop in America, one of the "Naval Stores" (cordage, tar, pitch and timber) that were important to build wooden 18th century sailing ships for trade and war.
In 2010 Newt Gingrich wrote two novels about George Washington and the Revolutionary War. Perhaps he is not a particularly curious researcher.
Or perhaps he was just trying to B.S. his clever way around a question that he want to sneer at.
As it happened, seven hours later on Wednesday evening, another SSDP student, Brian Broom-Peltz, caught Governor Romney leaving his rally in Peterborough, NH to ask him about "industrial hemp." Governor Romney said he didn't know what that was. Oh well, maybe if Brian had said industrial marijuana or cannabis hemp or something else, the governor would have made the connection.
"I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques of dealing with it would have been more violent."I was there! I heard the answer, and I was shocked at the blunder!
This was a bigtime inaccurate answer to a question from a student about Washington and Jefferson growing marijuana at Mount Vernon and Monticello, and why it is illegal today. The student used the government approved term for the hemp plant to avoid confusing Dr. Gingrich. There is no record of Washington or Jefferson growing any psycho-active varieties of the hemp plant (i.e. marijuana) or using it to get high. The student's point had nothing to do with getting high. The student, Patrick Fitzgerald, a member of the New Paltz, NY slashroot collective, was participating with Students for Sensible Drug Policy at the College Convention 2012 at the convention center in Concord.
Here's an excellent 90 second video of official guides at Mount Vernon providing a tour explaining hemp production under George Washington's expert and profitable management. It made me wonder if Newt Gingrich ever did "the tourist thing" and visited Mount Vernon while he served in Congress.
Sam Stein at Huffington Post provided a more detailed report of the whole exchange.
Should Gingrich have known that Washington and Jefferson cultivated hemp and would never threaten cultivators?
Federal law has forbade "hemp" cultivation, even the non-psychoative kind grown by the founding fathers (since it "looks" like marijuana) since 1937. With no hemp industry in the last 84 years (except for World War II, see "Hemp for Victory") we could expect that many Americans and Members of Congress would be ignorant of the fact that marijuana, then called hemp, was widely cultivated in 18th and 19th century America.
Newt's Ph.D. from Tulane University was in Modern European History, so if his study of history ignored early U.S. history to favor his academic specialty, his ignorance of Jefferson and Washington would be perfectly excusable.
But in his campaign stump speeches he purports to be an expert on the founding fathers: what they believed, how virtuous and industrious they were, how they knew the value of a profit and how to make one, etc. I may be used to an unusually high standard in History professors since I took courses with Roger Lane at Haverford College.
But I think it would be unlikely that a well educated historian concerned about the lessons of Revolutionary times would be ignorant that hemp was a widespread major crop in America, one of the "Naval Stores" (cordage, tar, pitch and timber) that were important to build wooden 18th century sailing ships for trade and war.
In 2010 Newt Gingrich wrote two novels about George Washington and the Revolutionary War. Perhaps he is not a particularly curious researcher.
Or perhaps he was just trying to B.S. his clever way around a question that he want to sneer at.
As it happened, seven hours later on Wednesday evening, another SSDP student, Brian Broom-Peltz, caught Governor Romney leaving his rally in Peterborough, NH to ask him about "industrial hemp." Governor Romney said he didn't know what that was. Oh well, maybe if Brian had said industrial marijuana or cannabis hemp or something else, the governor would have made the connection.
Historian Gingrich on our God-given right to bear arms
At the Concord, NH Holiday Inn Wednesday morning at about 10:45, I was leaning through a doorway into the absolutely jam-packed Newt Gingrich event struggling to hear.
Newt was in full blown professorial form elucidating our liberties from our founding texts.
At one point, after noting Jefferson's soaring ode to liberty "that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," Newt said God gave us the right to bear arms.
Really? Was this in the time of Adam, or of Moses, or the Prophets?
Was this left out of the New Testament?
Perhaps, God only gave us the right after the first firearms were invented -- anticipating the American revolution.
Did God give the right to bear arms to all other persons in all other countries?
Do the God-given rights mentioned in our Bill of Rights apply to all persons in other countries too?
Or did God only give these rights to the American people?
How did the Members of Congress and the Senators at the First U.S. Congress get the message?
Newt was in full blown professorial form elucidating our liberties from our founding texts.
At one point, after noting Jefferson's soaring ode to liberty "that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," Newt said God gave us the right to bear arms.
Really? Was this in the time of Adam, or of Moses, or the Prophets?
Was this left out of the New Testament?
Perhaps, God only gave us the right after the first firearms were invented -- anticipating the American revolution.
Did God give the right to bear arms to all other persons in all other countries?
Do the God-given rights mentioned in our Bill of Rights apply to all persons in other countries too?
Or did God only give these rights to the American people?
How did the Members of Congress and the Senators at the First U.S. Congress get the message?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A quick guide for writing well
This article on the American Bar Association website is an outstanding guide for any writer! Every student should take five minutes to read this!
Friday, October 07, 2011
Heart broken citizen
Is it intrinsic to being a citizen to have your heart broken?
I put a big burden on citizens. To my mind, to merit the honorific of "citizen" with regard to elections, one is required not merely to cast a ballot (which sounds so passive), but to become educated about the candidates and their issues, to care about the outcome, and if finding an important contest and a worthy candidate, to commit to the the victory of the best candidate.
Like I said, I put a big burden on those whom I honor as "citizens."
But that may be an excessively high standard for the title of citizen. Because, it seems to me today, that the price of such commitment is to have one's heart broken.
In 1960, in the 6th grade, I gave a speech to the elementary school 4th, 5th and 6th graders on behalf of John F. Kennedy. Of course, like most citizens my heart was broken by Lee Harvey Oswald.
In 1964, in the 10th grade, I had put "LBJ for the USA" bumper stickers on the family cars, and went to the "LBJ for the USA" election eve rally in Madison Square Garden, head lined by Gregory Peck. By 1967, Lyndon had broken my heart and I campaigned in 1968 for Gene McCarthy in the Pennsylvania primary. That summer I was Putnam County youth coordinator for McCarthy until the convention. I did nothing for Hubert Humphrey.
Later I supported Jimmy Carter, and still later, Bill Clinton, but both were heart breakers in their own ways.
And now, Barack Obama, yet another heart-breaker.
In March 2009, two months in office when he held his "virtual" town hall meeting, the most widely endorsed questions were about marijuana legalization. He was asked about the potential benefits to the economy of legalizing the multi-billion marijuana industry. I was shocked at his unnecessary smirking and contemptuous response ("I don't know what this says about the online audience, but ...") which, of course, failed to indicate that he had even thought about the number of jobs, the tax revenue, or the savings in government expenditures. No sense that he was even curious to actually look at the numbers.
In August 2011, he was asked at a town hall meeting in Minnesota about medical marijuana. His stumbling response as reported by Raw Story:
And now, in October 2011, Obama is unleashing the U.S. Justice Department on the medical marijuana dispensaries of California. His U.S. Attorneys held a press conference announcing they are going after the dispensaries.
Were the federal prosecutors accompanied by mayors from around the state insisting their police have been hapless in controlling their towns' doctors and medical marijuana patients? No.
Has the California Governor or Attorney General called for salvation from Washington to stem some kind of medical marijuana dispensary crisis? No.
This is a blatant act of federal intervention in state and local law?
What is behind this? Does the Obama Administration think this threatened "crackdown" will improve our relations with the Mexican government? Do they think they are "signalling" that the U.S. is doing something constructive to reduce U.S. demand for marijuana from Mexico? If so, that's absurd.
I think that the DEA, and cops who hate losing elections, and hate giving up the easy overtime pay that accompanies easy marijuana arrests, have pressured the prosecutors to act. The Attorney General, politically weak from the start, and never highly regarded for his brains (think about how he got rolled approving Clinton's last minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich), and now deep in a political foxhole regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, is simply not in control of his department. The Justice Department is not being driven by its ostensible leader, but by the career prosecutors, politically ambitious and hungrdy for headlines (think Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor in Manhattan in New York, eyeing the mayor's office and the White House).
Obama seems to hold so many people in contempt, and now it is clear this includes his own supporters. Perhaps he has looked at the Republican field and concluded that the citizens who supported him in 2008 won't abandon him in November 2012.
Just how out of touch with reality is he, or is his staff? In November 1996 in California, Proposition 215 for medical marijuana was on the ballot, along with Bill Clinton, running for re-election, and Bob Dole. Medical marijuana received ONE MILLION more votes than Bill Clinton did, as he carried California. Since then voters and legislators have passed such laws in 15 states!
But I fear that, at his electoral peril, he sadly underestimates the disgust that millions of his former supporters now have for him.
We probably won't vote for Perry or Romney, but millions of won't vote for Obama! We'll go to the polls, and we'll vote for Senators, Representatives, and other "down ballot" positions. For president, perhaps, we'll write in our own name, or perhaps, Gary Johnson, or Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet of TV's West Wing.
Yes, this will probably elect the Republican. But how can we vote for Obama and maintain our self-respect?
I put a big burden on citizens. To my mind, to merit the honorific of "citizen" with regard to elections, one is required not merely to cast a ballot (which sounds so passive), but to become educated about the candidates and their issues, to care about the outcome, and if finding an important contest and a worthy candidate, to commit to the the victory of the best candidate.
Like I said, I put a big burden on those whom I honor as "citizens."
But that may be an excessively high standard for the title of citizen. Because, it seems to me today, that the price of such commitment is to have one's heart broken.
In 1960, in the 6th grade, I gave a speech to the elementary school 4th, 5th and 6th graders on behalf of John F. Kennedy. Of course, like most citizens my heart was broken by Lee Harvey Oswald.
In 1964, in the 10th grade, I had put "LBJ for the USA" bumper stickers on the family cars, and went to the "LBJ for the USA" election eve rally in Madison Square Garden, head lined by Gregory Peck. By 1967, Lyndon had broken my heart and I campaigned in 1968 for Gene McCarthy in the Pennsylvania primary. That summer I was Putnam County youth coordinator for McCarthy until the convention. I did nothing for Hubert Humphrey.
Later I supported Jimmy Carter, and still later, Bill Clinton, but both were heart breakers in their own ways.
And now, Barack Obama, yet another heart-breaker.
In March 2009, two months in office when he held his "virtual" town hall meeting, the most widely endorsed questions were about marijuana legalization. He was asked about the potential benefits to the economy of legalizing the multi-billion marijuana industry. I was shocked at his unnecessary smirking and contemptuous response ("I don't know what this says about the online audience, but ...") which, of course, failed to indicate that he had even thought about the number of jobs, the tax revenue, or the savings in government expenditures. No sense that he was even curious to actually look at the numbers.
In August 2011, he was asked at a town hall meeting in Minnesota about medical marijuana. His stumbling response as reported by Raw Story:
What the hell? What is "that"? Could it be that he is fundamentally ignorant of how any of the medical marijuana programs operate? Is he, the former professor of constitutional law, unwilling to discuss with the people his view of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article V or the extent of Congress's power under the commerce clause in Article I?“If you can’t legalize marijuana, why can’t you just legalize medical marijuana?” a woman asked the president.
“A lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana,” Obama explained. “As a controlled substance, the issue is then that is it being prescribed by a doctor as opposed to… you know, well, I’ll leave it at that.”
And now, in October 2011, Obama is unleashing the U.S. Justice Department on the medical marijuana dispensaries of California. His U.S. Attorneys held a press conference announcing they are going after the dispensaries.
Were the federal prosecutors accompanied by mayors from around the state insisting their police have been hapless in controlling their towns' doctors and medical marijuana patients? No.
Has the California Governor or Attorney General called for salvation from Washington to stem some kind of medical marijuana dispensary crisis? No.
This is a blatant act of federal intervention in state and local law?
What is behind this? Does the Obama Administration think this threatened "crackdown" will improve our relations with the Mexican government? Do they think they are "signalling" that the U.S. is doing something constructive to reduce U.S. demand for marijuana from Mexico? If so, that's absurd.
I think that the DEA, and cops who hate losing elections, and hate giving up the easy overtime pay that accompanies easy marijuana arrests, have pressured the prosecutors to act. The Attorney General, politically weak from the start, and never highly regarded for his brains (think about how he got rolled approving Clinton's last minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich), and now deep in a political foxhole regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, is simply not in control of his department. The Justice Department is not being driven by its ostensible leader, but by the career prosecutors, politically ambitious and hungrdy for headlines (think Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor in Manhattan in New York, eyeing the mayor's office and the White House).
Obama seems to hold so many people in contempt, and now it is clear this includes his own supporters. Perhaps he has looked at the Republican field and concluded that the citizens who supported him in 2008 won't abandon him in November 2012.
Just how out of touch with reality is he, or is his staff? In November 1996 in California, Proposition 215 for medical marijuana was on the ballot, along with Bill Clinton, running for re-election, and Bob Dole. Medical marijuana received ONE MILLION more votes than Bill Clinton did, as he carried California. Since then voters and legislators have passed such laws in 15 states!
But I fear that, at his electoral peril, he sadly underestimates the disgust that millions of his former supporters now have for him.
We probably won't vote for Perry or Romney, but millions of won't vote for Obama! We'll go to the polls, and we'll vote for Senators, Representatives, and other "down ballot" positions. For president, perhaps, we'll write in our own name, or perhaps, Gary Johnson, or Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet of TV's West Wing.
Yes, this will probably elect the Republican. But how can we vote for Obama and maintain our self-respect?
Friday, July 29, 2011
July 29, 2011 - clock ticking on the fate of the economy
The United States is in a political bind. The political impasse in Washington is pointing toward a default by the United States on some of its debt obligations next week.
The Republican Party, the party of Capitalism, seems like it can't organize its elected representatives to protect the American dollar, and the capitalist structure that depends upon the dollar's credibility and strength. The leadership of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill not only lacks the ability to educate its legislative rank and file about the nature of governance and the role of the government in the economy, it has failed to mobilize its civil society allies to discipline and direct its rank and file.
I am reminded of the political conditions 150 years ago. American democracy, after decades of struggle, could not resolve politically its conflict over slavery, and the nation went into civil war. Commitment to "absolute" principles of state's rights (the conservative position then) led state after state to secede from the Union. Weren't the folks who created the Civil War -- the secessionists -- the spiritual parents of the anti-spending absolutists of today? Will President Obama rank in history with President Buchanan as supremely ineffectual in failing to mobilize the sentiment of the nation to compel a resolution to this "crisis?"
A default -- which seems imminent-- will raise interest rates. It will cost tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars that would not be spent if the default is avoided. As to the broader impact on investor confidence in the strength of the American economy in the face of such political failure, no one really knows whether we will have another stock market crash. In the absence of a stock market crash, those who have been playing chicken in driving the government and the economy toward a cliff will think they "won." Oh, dear, what stupidity!
The news media have also failed their audience. Deciding what should be broadcast on television news, the news directors can't shake their obsession with how hot it is. So a quarter of their coverage is devoted to stating the most obvious, least news-worthy condition of the day. Two words: "It's hot!" And now for some real journalism. . . What could a "deal" on the debt crisis realistically look like.
The "coverage" of the effort to find a "deal" has been remarkable for the lack of articulation about what a deal could be. No real effort to explain the reality. Numbers like $1.2 trillion dollars tell us nothing about what money is available to run the National Parks, to pay soldiers, to pay some actual number of medicare recipients some actual number of medical procedures, to incarcerate so many hundred thousand federal prisoners, to conduct so many search and rescue missions of missing boaters, etc.
The media could make this clearer by making concrete the utter abstractions in which this discussion is being carried out.
Why haven't the parties to this "negotiation" or "crisis" (or analysts hired by the news media) posted sets of giant pie charts -- one pair for each year of a proposed approach -- that reveal in some detail exactly what is proposed to be spent that year on the various government expenditures and programs, and what are the proposed sources of revenue, both by type, and by who is paying.
Then, at least, we could visualize the changes over time from the current course. We could visualize the differences between proposals. We the people would be somewhat informed about what the actual stakes of this argument are about in terms of the actual programs we care or don't care about.
As I think about the expenditures, I wonder, what do soldiers think about how the military budget should look next year, five years from now or ten. Do they want hundreds of billions spent on high tech hardware, such as hundred million dollar missiles, hundred plus million dollar aircraft, billion dollar vessels? How much war would they like us to be budgeting for? How many prosthetic legs should we planning to build and provide in order to assure that we have "boots" on the ground in Asia and Africa?
Does this "debate" seems as lopsided, incoherent, and inane as a drunken argument between the various fans of some athletic team about the blown call by a referee or some bungled play? And those who can cast votes? . . . Well maybe their insistence on voting "no" reflects their profound sense that Speaker Boehner and his team have said little that is persuasively concrete other than "I want your vote."
The Republican Party, the party of Capitalism, seems like it can't organize its elected representatives to protect the American dollar, and the capitalist structure that depends upon the dollar's credibility and strength. The leadership of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill not only lacks the ability to educate its legislative rank and file about the nature of governance and the role of the government in the economy, it has failed to mobilize its civil society allies to discipline and direct its rank and file.
I am reminded of the political conditions 150 years ago. American democracy, after decades of struggle, could not resolve politically its conflict over slavery, and the nation went into civil war. Commitment to "absolute" principles of state's rights (the conservative position then) led state after state to secede from the Union. Weren't the folks who created the Civil War -- the secessionists -- the spiritual parents of the anti-spending absolutists of today? Will President Obama rank in history with President Buchanan as supremely ineffectual in failing to mobilize the sentiment of the nation to compel a resolution to this "crisis?"
A default -- which seems imminent-- will raise interest rates. It will cost tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars that would not be spent if the default is avoided. As to the broader impact on investor confidence in the strength of the American economy in the face of such political failure, no one really knows whether we will have another stock market crash. In the absence of a stock market crash, those who have been playing chicken in driving the government and the economy toward a cliff will think they "won." Oh, dear, what stupidity!
The news media have also failed their audience. Deciding what should be broadcast on television news, the news directors can't shake their obsession with how hot it is. So a quarter of their coverage is devoted to stating the most obvious, least news-worthy condition of the day. Two words: "It's hot!" And now for some real journalism. . . What could a "deal" on the debt crisis realistically look like.
The "coverage" of the effort to find a "deal" has been remarkable for the lack of articulation about what a deal could be. No real effort to explain the reality. Numbers like $1.2 trillion dollars tell us nothing about what money is available to run the National Parks, to pay soldiers, to pay some actual number of medicare recipients some actual number of medical procedures, to incarcerate so many hundred thousand federal prisoners, to conduct so many search and rescue missions of missing boaters, etc.
The media could make this clearer by making concrete the utter abstractions in which this discussion is being carried out.
Why haven't the parties to this "negotiation" or "crisis" (or analysts hired by the news media) posted sets of giant pie charts -- one pair for each year of a proposed approach -- that reveal in some detail exactly what is proposed to be spent that year on the various government expenditures and programs, and what are the proposed sources of revenue, both by type, and by who is paying.
Then, at least, we could visualize the changes over time from the current course. We could visualize the differences between proposals. We the people would be somewhat informed about what the actual stakes of this argument are about in terms of the actual programs we care or don't care about.
As I think about the expenditures, I wonder, what do soldiers think about how the military budget should look next year, five years from now or ten. Do they want hundreds of billions spent on high tech hardware, such as hundred million dollar missiles, hundred plus million dollar aircraft, billion dollar vessels? How much war would they like us to be budgeting for? How many prosthetic legs should we planning to build and provide in order to assure that we have "boots" on the ground in Asia and Africa?
Does this "debate" seems as lopsided, incoherent, and inane as a drunken argument between the various fans of some athletic team about the blown call by a referee or some bungled play? And those who can cast votes? . . . Well maybe their insistence on voting "no" reflects their profound sense that Speaker Boehner and his team have said little that is persuasively concrete other than "I want your vote."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Obama's Illegal War on Lbya
Read Louis Fisher's excellent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 28, 2011. Fisher was the senior analyst on separation of powers for the Congressional Reference Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress for forty years and is now Scholar in Residence at The Constitution Project.
"It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to transfer the powers of Congress to an international (U.N.) or regional (NATO) body." (p.3) But that is what Obama claims in saying the war against Libya is authorized by the U.N. Security Council or by NATO. "Nothing in these...communications from the administration can identify a source of authorization from NATO for military operations." (p.4)
The idea that this is not a war because there are not a lot of U.S. casualties is absurd. "If another nation bombed the U.S. without suffering significant casualties, would we call it war? Obviously we would. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the United States immediately knew it was at war regardless of the extent of military losses by Japan." (p.4)
"It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to transfer the powers of Congress to an international (U.N.) or regional (NATO) body." (p.3) But that is what Obama claims in saying the war against Libya is authorized by the U.N. Security Council or by NATO. "Nothing in these...communications from the administration can identify a source of authorization from NATO for military operations." (p.4)
The idea that this is not a war because there are not a lot of U.S. casualties is absurd. "If another nation bombed the U.S. without suffering significant casualties, would we call it war? Obviously we would. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the United States immediately knew it was at war regardless of the extent of military losses by Japan." (p.4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)