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)
Thursday, June 02, 2011
US Rep. Lamar Smith's Statements attacking the news media
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-21st TX) is the chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdiction over the criminal and civil justice systems (all the federal courts, prosecutors, the nation's largest prison system of more than 215,000 prisoners, the rules of procedure and evidence), and critically important areas of substantive law: criminal law, copyright, trademark, antitrust, bankruptcy, administrative law.
This is the link to his floor and committee statements on his congressional webpage. In the last year, almost all of these statements are attacks on a few leading news organizations for alleged bias. What a curious set of priorities.
Whenever I think of Members of Congress attacking the news media, I reflect that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press (limited by the libel and slander laws) do not go as far as the explicit constitutional power for Members of Congress to tell lies set forth in Article I, Article 6: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
This is the link to his floor and committee statements on his congressional webpage. In the last year, almost all of these statements are attacks on a few leading news organizations for alleged bias. What a curious set of priorities.
Whenever I think of Members of Congress attacking the news media, I reflect that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press (limited by the libel and slander laws) do not go as far as the explicit constitutional power for Members of Congress to tell lies set forth in Article I, Article 6: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)