Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Policy Page 33 of 35

A sense of perspective

How many Americans, a year, die from acts of terrorism? Well, if you limit it to US soil, just a few people, since 2001. (Worldwide, excluding soldiers in combat, you might rise to 10 a year. Maybe.)

What is the US government doing about it? Well, it started at least one unnecessary war, got 3000 US soliders killed, ripped the Constitution to shreds, and has driven the budget deficit to record levels.

How many Americans, a year, die in truck-related accidents? About 5000 a year.

What is the US government doing about it? Weakening safety regulations.

The Files

I spent a fair part of my early years living quite near the Iron Curtain. My childhood included more than the usual fun of bike rides and playing in the woods – it also included tanks rolling through the street in front of my house, calls in the middle of the night that had my father disappearing for weeks, and planning where I would hide out when the Soviets came.

On one of our school field trips, we went to Observation Point Alpha. We were told that if we stepped past the chain fence, we might get shot. Not a chainlink fence, but these little white posts connected by a single white chain. In retrospect, it was clearly an exaggeration by our guide, but most everyone in my class was aware of all the people that were shot trying to escape East Germany. If they would shoot their own people, they’d most certainly shoot us. When it was my turn to look through the binoculars, I wanted to see the faces of the people who would do that. It was hard to get a good view, but what I did see was this:

they looked just like us.

This is no great observation today, but do you remember what it was like, then? The awful evil scary Communists, lurking around every corner, waiting to kill us all? They looked just like us. It’s hard to describe just how much my world view has been shaped because of that field trip. Not necessarily because of what I saw and felt that day, but because what I saw and felt that day has moved me to question what I’ve been told, and keep asking questions, until I am satisfied.

One of the questions I asked, not so long after that, was of my German teacher, Herr Schmitt. Most of my American teachers would give slight variations on the same pat answer when I asked them about East Germany – “It’s a communist country, and communists are bad. They don’t believe in freedom.” Well, that’s fine, but what does that mean? That was a question that Herr Schmitt, alive when the walls went up and the curtains came down, was willing to answer.

East Germany was a very sad place, he said, because everyone was afraid. They were afraid of Americans, afraid of the Soviets, and afraid of each other. You couldn’t do anything in East Germany without someone knowing about it. If you did something someone thought the government would not approve of, they would tell on you, and it would go in your file. They keep files on normal people, like you and me. And those files are how the government watched people. If someone said or did too many things that the government didn’t like, the Stasi would come and throw them in jail, and their families would never hear from them again.

I don’t recall being entirely convinced, at the time. I mean, how could someone just disappear like that, without the family and everyone else doing something about it? And keeping records on everyone like that? Just seemed silly. Obviously, I didn’t understand.

What got me thinking and writing about this today? This:

[M]illions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.

[ . . . ]

Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department’s Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS’ analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Even better?

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

It all feels . . . distantly familiar.

Turkey & the EU

The European Commission has now suggested suspending accession talks with Turkey, in response to Turkey’s continued refusal to open its ports to (Greek) Cyprus. I think suspension of talks would be a big mistake, but at the same time, I wholeheartedly agree with this:

“It is Turkey that must adapt to the EU,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. “It’s not the other way around.”

It would take many pages to explain my own conflicted thoughts on what the EU is, and ought to be. For example, it think it should still only comprise the 15 countries it did in 1995, and have stayed at that point until it was clearer on its own purpose and future. But we are where we are, with the EU essentially offering membership, and Turkey clearly wanting it. If Turkey wants it, it is up to Turkey to meet the standards and requirements of the EU. To its credit, it has done quite a bit, and I truly hope that Turkey can gain membership. But the EU needs to be firm in its stance (while remaining continuously engaged), and not be swayed by the pressures of public perception.

And after Turkey becomes a member? The EU enlargement needs to stop. There is far too much internal work to be done to spend any more time on expansion.

(No) Transparency at the High Court

If I want to hear Supreme Court case as it is argued, I have the luxury of being able to pop across town and grab a seat to listen (if I get there early enough). The vast majority of you? For the most part – tough luck. Well, if you add a reminder on your calendar – say, well into the next year, you might be able to snag a recording somewhere. But you’re interested in hearing the process of deciding the most important legal issues of the day? You’ll just have to cross your fingers and hope that the Chief Justice deigns it to be appropriate to permit a time-delayed broadcast. As Dahlia Lithwick puts it:

It’s the modern-day equivalent of the feudal lord opening up the castle to his serfs for one drunken night at Christmas: It’s condescending, it’s irrational, and it reinforces the worst stereotypes about a secretive, elitist high court.

The next open castle will be on Monday, for two affirmative action cases. But don’t you, as a citizen, wonder what it is that the Court thinks makes you unworthy of hearing most of what are otherwise completely open proceedings? I think that Lithwick gets it exactly right – it’s a secretive elitist high court. And sadly (for this particular purpose), there’s nothing that can be done about it. The Court is the sole authority on its own operations, and has chosen to remain as closed as possible to the general public, even 20 years after the Senate opened its chambers to television cameras. All we can hope is that the new Chief Justice is given reason to seriously reconsider the Court’s position before he gets too comfortable with the insulated nature of the place.

I’m generally a strong defender of the judiciary, but in this case, I think they deserve all of the criticism and pressure we can muster.

Sunday Reading

Meet the real weapon of mass destruction:

The AK-47 has become the world’s most prolific and effective combat weapon, a device so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a live chicken. Depicted on the flag and currency of several countries, waved by guerrillas and rebels everywhere, the AK is responsible for about a quarter-million deaths every year.

I have no idea as to what can be done about it. It is very much a genie that was let out of a bottle.

~

So, the National Science Teachers Association isn’t interested in 50,000 free copies of An Inconvenient Truth. Well, I thought that a shame, but did give some credibility to their response, which said that “In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other “special interests” might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn’t want to offer “political” endorsement of the film”. Ah, okay. And then I read further:

But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.” One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

That’s the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it.

Fantastic job, guys.

~

Looking for good holiday gifts? Check out Make. I’m a subscriber, and a huge fan.

~

And in the “Hmm, there must be more” news, the UK seems to be declining to extend its 50 year copyright term to 95 years. It’s a shocking bit of good sense. We’ll see whether that remains in place. The real test will come in 2012, when the first Beatles recordings bump up against the 50 year term.

What do you do?

Another no-knock warrant gets an innocent killed.
92 years old.  Dead from a gunshot.
(This happened a few blocks away from my old apartment in Vine City.  Anyone kicking down pretty much any door in that neighborhood has a high probability of getting shot.)

AG Gonzales Mistakes Himself for the American People

Earlier today, Attorney General Alberto “Abu” Gonzales gave a speech at the Air Force Academy.

Some people will argue nothing could justify the government being able to intercept conversations like the ones the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] targets. Instead of seeing the government protecting the country, they see it as on the verge of stifling freedom.

But this view is shortsighted. Its definition of freedom – one utterly divorced from civic responsibility – is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people.

No, Alberto.  That view of freedom – one shared by our founding fathers, hundreds of years of jurisprudence, and me – is a grave threat to you and the fascists you serve.  Here, in case you missed it, is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Keep reading it until you understand, or get the hell out of my government.

Exporting Absurdity

The far-right, as based in the United States, has generally stepped up its efforts to export its ideology and policy abominations to the rest of the world (recall the teams of flat-taxers that descended upon eastern Europe in the early 90s, or the NRA’s latest efforts to make sure that anyone can have a gun anywhere).  This NY Times article gives us another example, of a Mr. Shikwati, a:

young teacher in western Kenya when he came across an article by Mr. Reed on the genius of capitalism. In this isolated village where Mr. Shikwati was raised, life revolved around mud huts and maize, not smokestacks. Still he dashed off a note to Midland, Mich., where Mr. Reed runs a think tank that promotes conservative economics and offers a program teaching others to do the same.

Ah, yes.  Just send a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and I’ll send you my materials, which will teach you how to get rich, rich, rich!  To be honest, though, it sounds like Mr. Reed has been generous enough to pick up the up-front costs:

Over the next four years, Mr. Reed sent books, reports, magazines, tracts — even occasional sums of money — as Mr. Shikwati embraced capitalist theory with a passion.

But nothing is free, right?  Especially when it comes to capitalism.  Perhaps you can see the future costs here:

On a continent where socialists have often held sway, Mr. Shikwati is now a conservative phenomenon. He has published scores of articles hailing business as Africa’s salvation; offered free-market lectures on five continents; and, defying the zeitgeist of the Bono age, issued scathing attacks on foreign assistance, which he blames for Africa’s poverty. When Western countries pledged to double African aid last year, an interview with an angry Mr. Shikwati filled two pages of Der Spiegel, the German magazine.

“For God’s sake, please stop the aid!” he told the magazine.

Now, I’m no socialist.  And I do think that, in the end, African countries would be better off with more open markets than most of them have right now.  But it’s a hell of a long way between here and there.  And to see these free market fanatics – who’s ideas can’t even work in developed Western countries – descend upon the rest of the world in an effort to sow the seeds of their idiocy (and, to be sure, their own great profit, should anything ever come of it) is just appalling.   Now, the free market conservative movement generally a patient one – they’ve been bankrolling American ideological institutions for decades, in a slow roll approach to shifting the cultural and political norms in the US.  But they’re not unwilling to take short term gains where they can.  Now guess what they’re getting out of Mr. Shikwati?

[N]ine months after he started his group, Western supporters flew him to the United States, where he joined a dinner of the conservative Heritage Foundation and toasted an A-list crowd that included Edwin Meese III, the former attorney general.

I guess J.C. Watts was busy.  Okay, I should probably have skipped the easy joke about how far Republicans are apparently willing to go to find a little color for their party.  Now take a look at the more serious consequences:

With no academic credentials, Mr. Shikwati made a mark as an author of opinion articles. He defended McDonald’s against critics of globalization and drug companies against charges of price gouging. He called for the legalization of the ivory trade, which he argues would protect elephant herds. Above all, he called for an end to foreign aid, saying it hurt local markets, corrupted governments and promoted dependency.

There’s the immediate payoff.  Add a local face and voice to nod and agree with your absurd no tax, no regulation, free market plans for a place that can’t yet manage basic education, roads, or utilities, and the Western press will treat it as credible.  Note:

His iconoclasm and his authenticity as an African made Mr. Shikwati attractive to the Western press, despite his lack of prominence at home. His views quickly traveled the globe, appearing in places as diverse as The Sydney Morning Herald, The Jerusalem Post, The Times of London, Forbes and The Washington Post.

Echoing his calls to end foreign aid, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times lauded Mr. Shikwati, who has a bachelor’s degree in education and no economics training, as nothing less than “a distinguished Kenyan economist.”

Maybe that’s the real American export, here – a trademark conservative method of claiming ideology as fact, by carefully packaging and repeating it.  Buyer beware.

Without comment.

Voting NO: It CAN make a difference

Let’s start with this:

[A] tossup: approval of a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

Support is down to 49 percent from 52 percent last month. With 45 percent now opposed, up from 42 percent last month, the measure – already adopted by 20 states – could go either way because the voter split is within the poll’s variable for error. Six percent are undecided.

Read that again. Shocking as it is, there is still a hope that Virginia can defeat the hateful bit of political deception that is Question #1 on the Virginia ballot. Its supporters claim that it amends Virginia’s constitution to reflect current law (gay marriage has been in illegal in Virginia to 30 years – when it comes to bigotry, most states got nothing on Virginia . . .), but it goes far beyond that. Here’s the text of the full amendment:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

If this amendment passes, it doesn’t merely throw another (significant) roadblock into eventually (as WILL happen) undoing the statutory ignorance that currently prohibits same-sex marriage, it goes much *much* further. How far? Take a look at what the Virginia Legal Review Committee has to say about it:

the [proposed Virginia] Amendment could be interpreted by Virginia courts to have the following effects:
• Invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under Virginia’s domestic violence laws;
• Undermine private employers’ efforts to attract top employees to Virginia by providing employee benefits to domestic partners, as the courts and public medical facilities may not be permitted to recognize those benefits; and
• Prevent the court’s from enforcing —
— private agreements between unmarried couples,
— child custody and visitation rights, and
— end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and advance medical directives, executed by unmarried couples.

Need some proof? Read the 70 page legal memorandum. Who’s the Virginia Legal Review Committee? Here’s a list of the over 200 Virginia lawyers, legal scholars, and constitutional officers that are members. Yes, that’s me on the list. And a number of excellent lawyers that I personally vouch for. Not enough? Then realize these names are on the list:

Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine, First Lady Anne Holton, and former Republican Governor Linwood Holton;

Former Attorneys General Stephen D. Rosenthal and Anthony F. Troy and former Republican candidate for Attorney General Wyatt B. Durette.

Also included are former Virginia Secretary of Education during the Wilder Administration, The Honorable James W. Dyke and former Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade, The Honorable Michael J. Schewel.

They might know something about Virginia law.

~

It’s hard for me to write well about this. I don’t believe that this is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree, and I’m not interesting in pretending than anything other than naked bigotry and partisan manipulation lays behind this amendment. So it’s extraordinarily hard to stay civil on this. And, in fact, I don’t really think one ought to stay civil. One of the bigger problems facing the America today is its unwillingness to laugh at and ridicule the racism, bigotry, and ignorance that seems to be driving so much of the political efforts. You might say that that someone voting yes on Question #1 is simply following his religious beliefs, and ought to be respected. I say he’s an ignorant bigot, who ought to be ridiculed in the public square.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I’ve really needed to stay quiet on this issue in the past month. Please help me not regret that – please *respect my basic dignity as a human being* – by voting NO on ballot question #1. Thank you. Sincerely.

Page 33 of 35

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén