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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)