PoliLaw

Super Committee--Super Failure

2011-11-18T11:46:00.001-06:00

It's looking now as if the super committee--the bipartisan committee that was supposed to come up with a plan to close a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit--won't have a plan at all. The deadline is November 23, and reports are that members are not even close to reaching a deal.

This whole plan was a part of the compromise (what a horrible word!) to raise the debt ceiling back in August. That means that the committee had three months to come up with a workable solution. If it didn't--we were told--there would be massive cuts to virtually every federal program. The Democrats supposedly had an incentive to compromise because there would be some significant changes to Medicare. The Republicans supposedly had an incentive because there would be major cuts to military spending. Here's the catcher, though: these cuts won't take effect until 2013--plenty of time for the House and Senate to come up with their own plan.

Here's the main problem with the super committee. Nothing it does is binding on the rest of Congress. Congress can repeal any law it wants. Members could repeal the Social Security Act tomorrow if they wanted. So, if the committee doesn't reach a deal by Wednesday, all Congress has to do is repeal the part of the law that created the super committee in the first place. Something tells me we'll be arguing about this same subject a year from now. And if you think nothing is getting done now, wait until an election year.

Here is another problem--and I don't usually pick on any political party on this blog--but all six of the Republicans on the super committee have signed anti-tax man Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes under any circumstances. So now, in their interest of not seeing this country fall off of a cliff (is that already happening?), the Republicans on the committee are between a rock and a hard place. Do they do what's best and vote for more tax revenue, or do they stick to their pledge and have a much greater chance at getting reelected? I think you know the answer.

Just yesterday, Republican Lindsey Graham said he was open to finding ways to raise more revenue (raising taxes). To that comment, Grover Norquist replied: "Well that's fine if he wants to do that, but he'll have to go to the voters in South Carolina and explain to them why he lied to get into office."

Is it any wonder Congress' approval rating is at a historical low of nine percent?

Funny Debate Moments

2011-11-12T11:44:00.000-06:00

In the wake of Rick Perry's gaffe the other night, I was reminded of some other funny debate moments in history. Enjoy.

Quayle had been comparing himself to Kennedy on the campaign trail. His advisors told him not to use that line in the debate because he would get crushed. Bentsen's people told him, "Here's what you say if Quayle compares himself to Kennedy." You can see Bentsen's face light up when Quayle begins the comparison, and watch Quayle's Adam's apple bobbing up and down when Bentsen is delivering the line.

Admiral Stockdale was just not a good choice as a running mate. At times, he appeared either crazy or just not with it. This is one of those "just not with it moments."

Al Gore often came across as pompous, which was in stark contrast to Bush's down-home image. Throughout this particular debate, Gore audibly sighed and, in this clip, walked over to Bush and looked down on him. Very awkward.

All you need to watch here for the classic moment is the first few seconds. George H.W. Bush was clearly uncomfortable and checked his watch right after he had finished answering a woman's question about people losing their jobs and their homes. Clinton's response was excellent, but the watch-checking moment was another nail in the coffin for Bush's '92 campaign.

Reagan turns the table on the age issue. After this response, the age issue never came up again.

Personhood

2011-11-06T10:01:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't heard, Mississippians will vote on Tuesday on whether an amendment should be added to that state's constitution to declare that a fertilized egg--a zygote-- is a person. If it passes--which is highly likely--all abortions will be murder and, therefore, illegal. Certain types of birth control--most notably RU486 (the morning-after pill)--will also be illegal.

Let's get this out of the way first: the law is unconstitutional. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a law that is more blatantly unconstitutional than this one. Because of this, the law will never go into effect. If voters approve it, there will be a lawsuit, and a federal judge will prevent the state from enforcing the law.

However, it does bring up interesting implications that I think most proponents of the law never considered. For instance, I'm assuming that these zygotes will be citizens of Mississippi. They will not, however, be U.S. citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens--not all persons conceived. So, imagine a French couple vacationing in Mississippi (unlikely, I know, but play along). They conceive in Mississippi but the child is born in France. Does that child now have dual citizenship, and is he/she entitled to any of the rights that citizens of Mississippi are entitled to (whatever those might be)?

Suppose a girl gets pregnant in the state. Her parents give her money to get RU486, which she must obtain in another state. She and the boyfriend drive to Alabama to get the pill. They then drive back to Mississippi, where the girl takes the pill. The girl, the boyfriend, and the parents are now guilty of premeditated murder, are they not? They all participated in the crime and, therefore, they are all eligible for the death penalty.

Finally, imagine this. Mississippi has an income tax. Can mothers and fathers claim the zygotes as dependents on their tax returns? Do the zygotes count for purposes of receiving certain welfare benefits under state law?

Like I said, none of these scenarios will ever present themselves because the law won't go into effect. If voters approve it, however, it will give a green light to other pro-life interest groups around the country to start pushing for the same law in other states. Stay tuned.

Mitt Romney's Mormon Speech

2011-10-30T16:52:00.002-05:00

Just last week, Mitt Romney was asked at a town hall meeting whether he planned to give a speech to "correct some of the misinformation" regarding his Mormon faith. His short answer was ,"no."--that the American people would choose the best candidate to "get the country going again." Judging from the polls, however, he might want to think again.

Romney is currently trailing Herman Cain, and there's reason for the Romney campaign to be deeply concerned. Many Republicans don't trust him. They see him as a moderate who is taking conservative positions for purely political reasons. And nothing he has done so far as calmed their fears. Think about it: he's been campaigning for this spot for basically four years, and he can't get more than about 25% support in any poll.

On top of his image as a flip-flopper on abortion rights and gay marriage, and his "Romney care," which served as a blueprint for the Affordable Care Act, many Republicans are still very uneasy about Romney's faith. As this recent Gallup poll shows, almost 20 percent of Republicans will not vote for a Mormon. That might not seem much, but it's a massive amount in a primary race, where several candidates are vying for the top spot.

Much of this hesitation comes from the party's strong evangelical wing, many of whom reject equating Mormonism with Christianity. This whole notion became front and center earlier this month when a Baptist pastor from Dallas called Mormonism a cult on national TV. Soon after, the issue was brought up in one of the debates. The candidates did a masterful job of dodging the issue, with all saying something along the lines of, "a candidate's faith doesn't matter--but it really does." On a side note, ask Barack Obama how much a candidate's faith matters.

So, what's Mitt to do? He needs to take a lesson from a Democrat (the horror!), and make a speech to calm the fears of the Republican electorate regarding his faith. In 1960, with Election Day just two months away, JFK delivered an incredibly effective speech to protestant ministers explaining that he would not in any way be indebted to the Vatican when making decisions regarding the well being of the country. Up until then, Kennedy's Catholic faith had been a major issue (even among some Democrats).

In some ways, Romney has an even harder uphill battle than Kennedy had. Catholicism didn't have the mysticism surrounding it that Mormonism does today. That alone makes Romney's speech even more of a necessity. And he's absolutely got nothing to lose. Giving a speech detailing the similarities between his faith and evangelical Christianity will do a lot of good, and should help his poll numbers.

Political Party Identification

2011-10-20T20:08:00.001-05:00

Occasionally, I take polls of my students regarding various issues. I like to know what students think about what's happening in politics, and the results always provide a good discussion. This week, it's a poll regarding political parties. I also asked a couple of nonparty-related questions, which you'll see below.

(1) Do you identify more with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

Democratic Party- 59% Republican Party- 41%

(2) Which party does a better job with the following issues?

(a) crime- D- 47% R- 53%

(b) terrorism- D- 40% R- 60%

(d) environment D- 83% R- 17%

(e) healthcare D- 57% R- 43%

(f) Social Security D- 66% R- 34%

(g) taxes D- 47% R- 53%

(3) Do you think that the Republican Party favors the rich over the middle class and the poor?

Yes- 78% No- 22%

(4) Do you think that the Democratic Party favors the poor over the middle class and the rich?

Yes- 57% No- 43%

(5) Should the deficit and debt be reuced by spending cuts only, tax cuts only, or both?

Spending cuts only- 36%

Raising taxes only- 7%

Both- 57%

(6) If the presidential election were held today, would you vote for Barack Obama or the Republican candidate?

Obama- 53%

Republican- 47%

There were 58 students surveyed, mostly college-aged. The group is fairly diverse, so I imagine it's a pretty good sample of all the students here at our Sugar Land campus. I could analyze the results in great detail, but two things are readily apparent.

First, Obama is in trouble. Several Democrats said they would vote for the Republican candidate. Of course, it's quite long time until the election, and we have no idea who the Republican nominee will be, but that's an interesting find.

Second, this poll solidifed what we have known for quite some time: the Republican Party has an image problem. The average person--even independents--perceive that the Republicans favor the rich over everyone else. What I found amusing is that several Republican Party identifiers readily admitted it.

Rick Perry's Downfall

2011-10-14T08:39:00.000-05:00

A couple of months ago, political pundits were ready to hand Rick Perry the Republican nomination for president. Rush Limbaugh pleaded for him to enter the race. He was the Tea Party's darling. He was the conservative answer to Barack Obama. And now? Not so much. He was supposed to have a wow factor, but apparently all he has is a blah factor.

It's fascinating what has happened to Perry since he got into the fray. After stumbling around in the debates and failing to adequately defend some of his decisions as governor, he has fallen to third in the polls behind Mitt Romney and the upstart, Herman Cain. After a horrible start to the campaign, Perry will have to struggle mightily just to be seen as a viable candidate again.

Perry's campaign claim to fame is that he has never lost an election. That is true, but he has also never been seriously challenged. Even when he did face a worthy opponent, he always raised more money, turned on his swagger and charm, and did just enough to convince voters that he was the right man for job. And once he became governor, after W vacated the office to run for president, Perry was a shoo-in to win as long as he wanted to run. He always "out-conservatived" his primary opponent (remember Kay Bailey Hutchison?) and then walloped the Democratic opponent in the general election.

Here's what a lot of outsiders didn't know about Perry, however, before he entered the race. He has never "wowed" anybody in political campaigns. He's a terrible debater. He's very "Bushian" in his inability to convey his message in a coherent way. That has never really been an issue in Texas politics. He was usually so far ahead in the polls that he would either avoid debates altogether, or limit them to just one or two. On the national scene, however, that is not an option, and Perry has been forced to deal with his inadequacies on the fly and in front of the camera. He has also turned a lot of Texas conservatives off with his decision to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants and his decision to require young girls to get the HPV vaccine.

There is talk in political circles that Perry might be the Fred Thompson of this campaign, a guy who runs--not because he really wants to be president--but because a lot of other people want him to be president. That assessment might be accurate. Perry's lackluster performance so far is indicative of someone who's just not that enthusiastic about undertaking what will be the toughest campaign of his life--a grueling primary season that could very well stretch for nine months or more. His campaign's excuse is that Perry has been tired, a notion that doesn't instill a lot of confidence in voters--that a man is tired after only two months into the campaign.

What Perry does have going for him is a lot of backing from both the Republican establishment and the Tea Party, although the establishment is quickly flocking to the Romney campaign. Perry also has a lot of money and a lot of financial backing--he's already raised $17 million.

Money is vital in politics, but it isn't everything. History shows, in fact, that it goes only as far as a good message. If Perry doesn't turn things around quickly, he might very well be out of the race sooner than anyone envisioned, and I know a lot of Texans--even Republicans---who would be just fine with that.

Revolutions are not a Slam Dunk

2011-02-08T12:54:00.000-06:00

Protesters in Cairo

Last week, David Brooks wrote this editorial in The New York Times. Among other things, he criticized the Obama administration for its somewhat timid response to the situation in Egypt. I responded with this letter to the editor (the second one on the page), and noted that our leaders must be incredibly guarded with their statements whenever there is a revolt. Whatever they say, especially the president, could affect what happens all over the world, and those effects could be negative. The difference between what David Brooks or any other analyst says and what Obama says is that Obama has to live with the consequences.

That's why the response from the White House has been slow. Whether Mubarak is good or bad, he has been a force of stabilization in a volatile area. He has been an ally to the U.S. So immediately coming out against Mubarak would make absolutely no sense from a diplomatic standpoint.

Another important point to remember is that simply because people are marching in the streets arguing for democracy doesn't mean that democracy will be realized. As Americans, we tend to think that's the case. After all, it's what our forefathers did, right? History, however, proves someone wrong who has that point of view. History is replete with revolutions that have not been realized or been hijacked. Iran, Albania, and Yugoslavia are prime examples.

So, when we Americans sit on the sideline and cheer on the Egyptians in the street, it's fine. After all, the more democracies in the world, the better we all are. Our leaders, however, must be cautious. They know Mubarak is bad, but they also know what could be lurking around the corner. It's hard to imagine, but there could be a day when we are wishing Mubarak was still in power.

Reagan's Mythical Legacy

2011-02-06T13:15:00.000-06:00

Reagan and Gorbachev, Reykjavik

Source: Reagan Library

I know it's been awhile since I've blogged. Ok, it's been a really long time. But stuff's been happening. Anyway, I figured this was as good a time as any to start up again. So, here we go.

Today is the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, and there is probably no president in history who, so quickly after his exit from the Oval Office, has been so idolized by those on the right and vilified by those on the left. All this week, we have been hearing either how great a president he was or how his eight years in Washington were disastrous. So, because we've been hearing about it so much, I'm not going to write about it. Instead, I'll focus on something that most people seem to have forgotten about Reagan: he once sought the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Yes, that's right. Reagan, the god of conservatives, tried to do away with the very weapon that many Republicans saw as necessary to winning the Cold War. In 1986, he met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland for negotiations on a new arms treaty. After two days of negotiations, the two sides came incredibly close to signing off on the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

For various reasons, the negotiations became quite tense and eventually broke down, but it is one glaring example of how Republicans today cannot escape the shadow of Reagan. Not the actual Reagan, however--the myth.

The myth that he was a tax cutter (he raised taxes more than once).

The myth that he favored small government (the size of the federal government increased--substantially--under his watch).

The myth that he was a neocon (he failed to respond to the terrorist attacks in Beirut and never once advocated military action for the purpose of spreading democracy).

The myth that he was a staunch supporter of social conservatives (he is famous for paying nothing more than lip service to the new movement swelling within the ranks of the Republican Party).

The myth that he was fiscally conservative (he never sent a balanced budget to Congress, even when the economy was thriving in his second term).

The myth that he was unwavering in his views, in the mold of today's right wing, unwilling to compromise on the big issues of the day (he famously said, "That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor").

The truth is, Regan spoke in ways that would whet the appetite of conservatives, but performed quite differently than his words would suggest.

The second aspect of Reagan's legacy that I find intriguing is how far he, but mostly his myth, has helped push the Republican Party to the right. The Republican Party is undoubtedly more conservative than it was during the Reagan years or even the early 1990s. The perfect example is the very subject of nuclear weapons. Both Reagan and Obama advocated the elimination of nuclear weapons. But it was incredibly difficult to get 2/3 of Senators on board last year to ratify the New START Treaty. Almost all Republicans were originally opposed to it, despite its very modest goal of reducing America's nuclear arsenal to 1,500 weapons.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton called that number "shockingly low." Right-wing pundits and even Republicans in Congress called the treaty a threat to national security.

It's incredibly ironic: we end up with 1,500 nuclear weapons, and that is supposedly a threat to national security. But it's exactly 1,500 more nuclear weapons than we would have had if Reagan had gotten his way.

If Obama is, as the right loves to say, weak when it comes to national security because he favors unconditional talks with foreign leaders or because he favors the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, what does that make Reagan--not the mythical Reagan, the real Reagan?

The Most Important Supreme Court Cases

2010-08-11T06:35:00.003-05:00

There have been over 20,000 Supreme Court cases. That's quite a lot to sift through if you're looking for the most important cases--the ones that changed the landscape of the law. There are so many landmark cases, but never fear, I've done your work for you. Here are the ten most important cases in alphabetical order. I'll leave the rankings up to you.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

This case overruled the doctrine of "separate but equal," which had been the law for almost 60 years. The Court said separate was inherently unequal, and black children were being denied equal protection of the laws when they were forced to attend a different school because of their skin color.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Undoubtedly the worst decision in the Court's history, but it is vital because of what it precipitated. The Court ruled that slaves were property, not citizens. It also ruled that states--not the federal government--get to decide whether slavery will be legal. This further fanned the flames of the dissension between the federal government and the states, and the country was in a civil war less than four years later.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to have a prayer led as part of a school exercise. This forever changed what establishment of religion truly means, as the Court said government must not favor one religion over another, nor favor religion over nonreligion. In essence, government must be totally neutral on the matter.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

It was unclear before this case what Congress' power to regulate commerce actually entailed. The Court said "commerce" is any commercial activity. This is crucial because the commerce clause of Article I has been the basis for thousands of laws passed by Congress since.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The Court ruled that those accused of crimes have the right to an attorney, regardless of whether they can afford one. If they cannot, the state must provide an attorney if jail time is a possibility for the offense.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

The Court ruled that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution even though such a right is not explicitly stated. Specific to the case, the Court said that the right of privacy encompasses a couple's decision on whether or not to have a child. This was the basis for the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade eight years later.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

If you're ranking the cases, put this one at the top. Chief Justice John Marshall said that courts have the power of judicial review--the ability to rule that acts of other governmental institutions are unconstitutional. There is no such right granted in the Constitution, but it seems quite necessary if the judiciary is truly a coequal branch of government.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

This case clarified that Congress has powers beyond those that are explicitly granted in Article I, referred to as "implied powers," which are justified through the "necessary and proper clause" of Article I. The Court also clarified that the federal government is clearly supreme over the states.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The Court ruled that those accused of crimes who are in custody must be advised of their rights before being questioned.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

The Court solidified how far the First Amendment right of freedom of speech extends. It goes beyond "speech," and includes nonverbal action as well. This is the basis for the Court's decisions protecting the right of individuals to carry signs or wear tee shirts that contain offensive messages, as well as the right of individuals to burn a flag.

How to Stop the Manhattan Mosque? Find an Activist Judge

2010-08-09T07:52:00.003-05:00

Hypocrisy in politics is often not hard to find. Ronald Reagan touting himself as a fiscal conservative or Newt Gingrich championing family values quickly come to mind. The left is guilty of it too. President Obama in Cairo last year rightly decried the evils of Western colonialism and stated his intention of bringing all American troops home from Afghanistan, while at the same time was working on a plan to add 30,000 troops to that country.

The latest glaring example of hypocrisy comes from none other than televangelist Pat Robertson. He has always supposedly been an opponent of judicial activism--a philosophy of judicial interpretation fueled by a loose application of the law. The hatred of judicial activism is, in a nutshell, this: judges interpret the law in a way that usurps the will of a democratically elected body, such as a legislature. The Supreme Court overtiring an act of Congress could be an example.

Of judicial activism, Robertson famously said, "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

More dangerous than the worst act of terrorism on American soil? That's a pretty serious charge, so I would think that Robertson would stay away from anything that might result in judicial activism. Alas, I am wrong.

Robertson is the brainchild behind the interest group American Center for Law and Justice. Its latest activity is a lawsuit against the Manhattan Community Board to stop the mosque planned in lower Manhattan near Ground Zero. Last week, the community board approved the building of the mosque by a unanimous vote, 9-0. Yes, a democratically elected body makes a decision, and Robertson goes running to the courts looking for a judge who might usurp that decision. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Immigration Politics

2010-08-04T16:40:00.003-05:00

There are very few sure things in America. One thing you can bet your bottom dollar on, however, is that when politicians make a decision, they have already considered the political implications of that decision. After all, they need public support to get reelected, so it would be political suicide to make a decision that was highly unpopular.

That is currently what's going on in the crazy political world of immigration. It is highly unpopular right now in the Republican ranks to not take a hard-line stance against illegal immigration. The tougher the rhetoric, the happier the tea party types are.

It is no surprise, then, as November elections loom, that heavyweights in the House and Senate this week have been proposing ways to get around the pesky Fourteenth Amendment, which says that anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said the Senate should "hold hearings" on changing citizenship rules. A House Republican introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act, which has 92 fellow-Republican sponsors. The law would require at least one parent of a child to be a U.S. citizen before the child can also be declared a U.S. citizen.

There's only one problem with that: no law passed by Congress trumps the Constitution. So even if Congress passed that law, it would have absolutely no effect. Do the Republican lawmakers know this? Of course they do, but it's all about looking good for your constituents.

This would be equivalent to Congress deciding that the First Amendment didn't apply to messages on tee shirts. Imagine the law: "The First Amendment shall no longer be construed to provide protection to messages contained on tee shirts." That law, of course, wouldn't see the light of day, but the principle is the same: the Supreme Court is the final decision-maker on the meaning of constitutional provisions. It decides what the First Amendment means, it decides what the Fourteenth Amendment means--not Congress.

If the citizenship law is to be changed, one of two things would have to happen: (1) the Constitution would have to be amended--an extremely arduous task; or (2) the Supreme Court would have to declare that the Fourteenth Amendment means something totally different from what it's meant for the past 100-plus years--also unlikely.

So what are we to do? If you enjoy this stuff like I do, sit back and enjoy it and understand that this is just part of the political game. And the closer election day is, the cheaper the political tactics.

Defenders of the Shrinking Middle Class

2010-08-02T13:34:00.003-05:00

Disturbing data were released last week detailing the shrinking middle class in America. The shrinkage--to use a Seinfeldian term--began in the 1980s. But the current data show just how much shrinkage there has been. Consider these alarming stats taken from The Business Insider:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

There are many reasons for this. A big reason, as noted in the facts above, is that American corporations are largely free to operate where they want, so they don't have to comply with America's laws such as minimum wage and workplace safety. They can operate in a country where workers earn a dollar a day in horrid conditions, and stay away from countries that at least care about human beings, like the U.S.

Another big reason is the distribution of income compared to what it was 50 years ago or even 30 years ago, and that is directly related to our tax structure. Our income disparity is the largest among any industrialized nation, and that disparity has been growing since the early 1980s.

When Ronald Reagan took over in January 1981, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was 70% on any income over $215,400. It has been steadily decreasing ever since, and culminated with the Bush tax cuts of 2003. The top marginal rate is now 35% on any income over $373,000.

Considering these alarming stats, it is quite puzzling to hear people defend tax cuts for the richest one percent of Americans. It is also quite puzzling to hear people defend the abolition of the estate tax, which affects only estates worth over $3.5 million ($7 million for couples). It's even more puzzling considering that defenders of the aforementioned are usually the deficit "hawks," who say that we must reduce the deficit at any costs, including cutting vital social programs. Meanwhile, they cry foul if millionaires aren't allowed to line their pockets even more.

The Republicans have always done a masterful job at getting people to vote against their economic interests, and this situation is no different. Why in the world someone making $50,000 is concerned about a $7 million estate getting taxed is beyond me.

America's Two-Party System: For Better or for Worse

2010-07-25T14:41:00.003-05:00

My students often ask me why we have only two parties in America. I quickly correct them; there aren't only two parties in America--there are many parties. Their real question, of course, is why only people from two parties ever win elections--i.e., why does America have a two-party system as opposed to virtually every other country, which have a multi-party systems. There are four big reasons:

(1) History It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's the way we've always done it. From the very moment this country began, the division was between the Federalists, who wanted a strong national government, and the Anti-Federalists, who wanted the states to have more power.

That division has not gone away, and it is one of the main things that divides the two main parties today: the Democrats like a strong national government; Republicans want a federal government that has less power. Between that division, there is hardly a medium ground for any minor party to advocate a different federalism structure.

(2) No Party Based on Class Very few things will divide people more than their status in society. Take a look at your circle of friends; they are likely similar to you in terms of socioeconomic status. Politically speaking, however, that is not true. There are poor Democrats and rich Democrats. There are poor Republicans and rich Republicans. There is no party, like in many countries, that speaks for the "working class" or some disaffected segment of society.

(3) No Proportional Representation In Europe, you register with a political party and you cast a vote for that political party. That party's representation in the legislature depends on what percentage of the vote it obtained. For instance, if the Social Democratic Party in Germany got 45% of the vote, that party would have 45% of the seats in the Germany legislature. The parties determine who will fill those seats.

Here in the U.S., we don't have proportional representation; it's all or nothing. The Democrats, for instance, could get 49% of the total vote in Congress, but unless each individual Democrat wins his/her respective race, the Democratic Party gets no representation.

(4) Both Parties Adapt Well History shows that the major parties are pretty good at courting voters who might feel like the party doesn't speak for them. This is usually the way it works: a minor party will create a stir and even win quite a few votes in a presidential election. The next time around, one of the two major parties has courted those voters, and the minor party fades away. Such was the case with the progressive Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party) and George Wallace's American Independent Party. In both cases, the Republican Party was able to successfully court enough of those minor-party supporters, so many in fact that the minor party was never a threat again.

I am speaking nothing to the notion of whether the two-party system is a good system, I'm only speaking to the reasons for its existence. That said, the two parties are very entrenched in American political life and have done a great job at creating a system that disfavors minor parties. The end result: I can't imagine anytime in the near future where a minor party makes a lot of noise, so much so that they send a handful of people to Congress or send a candidate to the White House.

Politics: What Do You Believe and Why?

2010-07-20T15:35:00.003-05:00

Have you ever thought about what your political beliefs actually are and what has influenced you informing those opinions? If you have, you've thought about your political ideology and political socialization.

What your political beliefs are refers to your political ideology--your belief about the proper role of government in society. The process through which you form those beliefs is called political socialization. And, throughout that process, there are various things along the way that influence us. These are called agents of political socialization. There are many of them, including family, the media, education, age, and race.

So, what do you believe and what has influenced you along the way? I can't help in determining what your influential agents have been; that's for you to think about. I can, however, help you in determining your political ideology. Take this political ideology quiz to determine where you fall along the political spectrum.

I have my students take this quiz, and many are surprised by their results. Are you surprised by yours?

Is Objective Journalism Dying?

2010-07-18T13:54:00.004-05:00

There is a disturbing trend in the media, and it's getting worse. Over the past several months, CNN's ratings have been declining. Why? Two reasons. One, fewer people are getting their news from TV, regardless of the network. The culprit to blame there is the Internet, as that is the fastest growing news medium. Secondly, CNN has continued to try to do what it's done for the past thirty years, which, for most of that time, made it king of the cable news shows: it continues to engage in objective journalism.

This is quite sad, really, because objective journalism as we have known it appears to be dying a slow and painful death. Just take a look at the nightly network news ratings. They are abysmal, as the viewers of those programs are overwhelming older and quite comfortable still getting their news in the objective style of reporting that dominated the latter half of the 20th century.

Now, people have more options. There is the Internet, where there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of "news" blogs where people can get information. Even so, many people do not get their news from the Internet exclusively--at least not yet. The Internet, then, is a contributing factor, but the real medium to blame for this impending death is cable news.

It was Fox News that first seized on the idea, in the mid 1990s, of providing one-sided information that hardly qualifies as news. MSNBC caught on a few years later. Now, both of those networks provide the same style of coverage, Fox from a conservative standpoint and MSNBC from a liberal standpoint.

CNN, apparently, has been left out in the cold. They don't have anyone that resembles O'Reilly or Olbermann, but rather continue to provide real news in an objective way.

This is troubling, as it is definitely one reason to blame for the increasing polarization of our country. Beyond that, the media's job is to inform the public and for years, poll after poll has showed that CNN viewers are among the most knowledgeable on national and world events (by the way, National Public Radio listeners always lead the way in that regard). Now, as CNN's audience continues to shrink, one has to wonder whether Americans' overall knowledge of the world around them will shrink as well. It's not making a big assumption to think that it will. That is scary, especially considering that we live in a democracy, which Thomas Jefferson famously said, requires an "informed electorate."

So why are people continuing to to leave network news and CNN in droves? I think the two biggest reasons are entertainment and, quite frankly, laziness.

People constantly feel the need to be entertained, even when they are acquiring information. The hosts on these cable shows are quite entertaining, although many of them can become very annoying, very fast. It's easy to see why people tune into Beck or Hannity: it's not for their smarts--both are college dropouts--it's for their ability to hold an audience.

Americans are also increasingly becoming lazy when it comes to news gathering. We want fast-paced, headline-driven news. Compare the average length of a newspaper story 50 years ago to today. You will be astounded. Instead of being given objective journalism and using that information to build on an increased knowledge about our surrounding world, people turn to Fox News and MSNBC where they can be spoon fed material that reinforces their political beliefs. Why listen to Wolf Blitzer when you can flip over to Beck and have him stoke your paranoia (which he probably created in the first place).

It will be quite interesting to see what happens to objective journalism in the next ten or 20 years. Will nightly news shows still be around? What about newspapers? Perhaps there will be a backlash against subjective journalism. What is clear is that subjective journalism is very strong today, and it is making us less knowledgeable and more polarized--an incredibly scary combination.

Tea Party Racism

2010-07-14T07:00:00.003-05:00

Much has been made of the NAACP resolution passed yesterday that condemns racism among Tea Party members. Actually, I should say much too much has been made of it.

The final resolution has not been released yet, but several sources say that it condemns "explicitly racist behavior" and calls on people to repudiate "racist elements" in the Tea Party. Earth-shattering statements right?

It's unclear why this caused such a stir in talk radio and the conservative blogosphere. I can certainly understand the fear of being painted with a broad brush, but the resolution apparently mentions only that there are elements of racism within Tea Party ranks (see the genius in the picture above), not that the organization itself is racist. If that were the case, their numbers would not be near the extent that they are. What's the Klan's membership numbers these days?

Having said that, it's understandable why the NAACP might feel threatened by a group that is overwhelmingly white and angry, and one that often speaks of "taking the country back" and restoring states' rights. That same rhetoric was commonplace during opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and even more so during the Jim Crow days.

There have also been various high-profile incidents of alleged racism directed at members of Congress. John Lewis (D-GA) says he was called a nigger as he walked across the street to the Capitol to cast his vote for health care reform. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO) says he was spat on during that same journey.

Conservative activists were quick to repudiate these claims because apparently, if something isn't captured on video these days, it didn't happen.

The Tea Party leaders could have done themselves a world of good after these alleged incidents. Instead of denying that they occurred, they could have publicly repudiated the actions of those rogue members. By insinuating that Lewis and Cleaver are liars, however--which you are doing if you say the incidents didn't happen--, you are only magnifying the NAACP's feelings regarding the Tea Party and paving the way for the resolution that was passed.

Texas Values

2010-07-08T16:49:00.002-05:00

Even if you pay only a little attention to any political race here in Texas, more than a handful of candidates will promise to bring "Texas values" to the job. That is a very vague phrase, but one which is likely to please many voters. They, too, agree that we need someone with Texas values in the governor's mansion or down at city hall. The problem, of course, is that hardly any voter knows what Texas values really are.

So, how do we find out? Look no further than the budget. A budget, regardless of the state, tells us what that state's priorities are. It tells us how much money is coming in, who's providing it, and where it's going.

Texas's biggest three expenditures---as with every other state--are on education, health and welfare, and transportation. A comparative examination, however, shows that Texas spends very little in those areas relative to almost every other state. Consider:

Texas ranks 48th in education spending for K through 12.

Texas ranks 45th in health care spending and 48th in welfare spending.

Texas ranks 45th in transportation spending.

A closer examination reveals that Texas has the most regressive tax system in the country. A regressive tax is one that hurts you more the less you make. The reason for this is that consumer taxes (sales tax, alcohol tax, vehicle tax, etc.) comprise 80% of the tax revenue in the state. That means businesses are footing only 20% of the tax burden.

Are these priorities out of whack? I'll leave that for you to decide. But the next time you hear someone champion Texas values, consider what those values actually are.

The Ideology of the Tanning Tax

2010-07-06T15:50:00.002-05:00

As part of the recent health care law, Congress has imposed a ten percent tax on tanning salons. The tax will reportedly raise $2.7 billion dollars in the next decade.

But what is the point of the tax? This is much like a cigarette tax or a tax on alcohol. Are you imposing it to discourage people from buying those products, or are you imposing it because you know people will continue to buy those products and, therefore, it will generate a lot of revenue. History proves that the latter is the motive--the so-called "sin" tax. Very few people will stop smoking if they have to pay more for the cigarettes, and I'm assuming that people will continue radiate their body with UV rays in the hopes of having a golden (sometimes orange) glow, regardless of a ten percent tax.

So, the point of the tax is to raise revenue, but what, exactly, is the ideology behind the tax? Depending on your ideology, consider where you might fall on the merits of the tanning tax.

Conservatives say that the tanning tax is a good idea, just as they say a cigarette tax is good. Why? Because eventually society will have to pay for the tanner's bad choice or the smoker's bad choice. Neither behavior is good for the body,and chances are that the consumer's health will deteriorate. That means higher insurance premiums and possibly higher taxes, especially if you live in a county with a taxpayer-supported hospital.

Liberals also like the idea of a tanning tax and a cigarette tax. Why? Because liberalism says that government exists to enhance citizens' quality of life. So, a liberal would say that continuing to destroy your body with UV rays or cigarettes is not a good thing, and that we should implement policies that work as a disincentive to engage in that behavior.

Libertarians argue that a tanning tax or cigarette tax is an infringement on personal liberty. If I want to destroy my skin or smoke like a steam engine and send myself to early grave, it should be my choice.

It should be noted that nowhere have I heard a Republican say that the tanning tax is a good idea, which is more evidence that the current Republican Party is drifting further and further to the right and, consequently, away from the mainstream. No longer are they the voice of conservatism, but a party that is afraid to oppose the tea-party-driven libertarianism de jure, which, if you haven't figured out by now, is hell-bent on opposing anything that Obama appears to be in favor of--including a tanning tax.

Gun Rights

2010-06-30T14:36:00.002-05:00

The Supreme Court made a ruling this week that we all knew was coming: no level of government can restrict a person from owning a gun. That seems like a logical extension of the Court's ruling two years ago, where is said the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own a gun. Or is it?

See, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. It was not a limitation on states or cities. Through the years, however, the Supreme Court has said that rights contained in the Bill of Rights that are fundamental also apply to the states. So, for instance, California may not establish a religion or inflict cruel and unusual punishments. Those are just two examples of rights that the Court has said are fundamental. Incidentally, most of the provisions in the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states.

But what, exactly, is a fundamental right? Without diving too much into Supreme Court precedent, the Court has said a fundamental right is one that is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted" in American history. In other words, the Court has said that allowing states and cities to continue to deny people, say, the right to counsel, conflicts with citizens' due process rights.

As of this past Monday, the Court has added another amendment to the list of those amendments that also apply to the states: the Second Amendment grants every American the right to own a gun.

Whatever the merits are of making the Second Amendment apply to the states is certainly debatable. I doubt very seriously that the Framers equated the right to own a gun with the right to speak freely or worship freely. Freedom of speech is necessary to a functioning democracy; a .357 Magnum is not. Be that as it may, what's done is done. The focus now will be on how far the right to own a gun actually goes because, as a cursory examination of Supreme Court precedent will show, no right is unlimited. Hello litigation.

Can states restrict the right of the mentally ill to own a gun? What about convicted felons? Can a state force people who buy a gun to also buy liability insurance? What kinds of guns can be purchased? Is a 50 caliber assault rifle ok? What kind of registration process is acceptable? Can states require that individuals undergo training before they purchase a gun? Where do we draw the line?

These are all questions that courts will have to answer in the coming years, many of which should make it up to the Supreme Court.

Drug Mules?

2010-06-26T17:59:00.003-05:00

I feel like I'm harping on Arizona lately. I think the evidence supports that assumption, but as long as the Arizona Legislature is in session and they keep having gubernatorial debates, I have plenty to write about.

The latest topic concerns Governor Jan Brewer. She has an uncanny knack for making the national news, and that is quite remarkable considering that she runs a state west of the Mississippi that comprises just over two percent of the U.S. population.

First, she signed into law the most controversial immigration measure in recent history, a law that will likely never see the light of day. Then, when responding to claims that the law resembled Nazi measures taken against Jews, she lied about her father's service in World War II, who supposedly died fighting the Nazis. Turns out he died in California.

Now, she has captured the nation's ears again, this time claiming that "most illegal immigrants are drug mules." That is patently false, of course, but that didn't stop her from repeating the statement twice, even after a labor union made up of border patrol agents told her she was wrong.

My guess is that she won't retract the statement. The more fear regarding illegal immigrants that she can put into the hearts of Arizona voters, the better chance she has of getting reelected.

This is just one example of a lie surrounding illegal immigration, but it seems that in no other situation is there more false information floating around. I have corrected people--more than once--on the assumption that illegal immigrants can vote, qualify for food stamps, and get free health care.

Sadly, that kind of misinformation works. As Brewer is doing, it perpetuates a fear that is in no way based on reality. Why do politicians do it? Because it works. And until voters decide to take some responsibility and fact check some of this nonsense, they'll keep doing it.

Apologizing to BP

2010-06-21T06:44:00.002-05:00

Thursday brought us some interesting happenings on Capitol Hill, as the BP CEO was questioned by a congressional committee. We learned one of two things about the CEO: he either really is ignorant of what's going on in his company, or he is very good at denial. I suppose we'll learn more in the coming months about which it is.

The surprising story of the day, however, was Congressman Joe Barton's apology--yes, apology--to BP for what he called a "shakedown." He was referring to BP's meeting with the president in which company officials agreed to set aside $20 billion to pay out claims for the damage it has caused.

Understandably, there was an uproar over this. Barton was forced to retract his statement, but even after that he said his statement was "misconstrued." No, it wasn't. I heard it, along with millions of other Americans. The people on the Gulf Coast heard it, and what must they be thinking?

I thought Barton's statement would be the end of the matter and that he would be raked over the coals for the next few days. In many instances, he was. But I couldn't believe my ears over the weekend: Republicans and conservatives were defending Barton and chastising the president for overstepping the bounds of his authority.

First of all, BP voluntarily agreed to set aside the money. Yes, the president called the meeting to encourage that action, but is that not one of the powers of the president as head of the executive branch--to get things done? "Speak softly and carry a big stick" was the mantra of Teddy Roosevelt. Funny, I don't remember conservatives chastising George W. Bush for overstepping the bounds of his authority. This is just more evidence that Obama will be criticized by the right regardless of what he does.

Now, to defending Barton. Are not conservatives the supposed champions of small business? We constantly hear them clamoring for tax breaks for small businesses and that small businesses are the backbone of this country. Who, then, does Joe Barton think is being affected by the mess that BP caused? Who does he think is losing millions of dollars because of BP's negligence?

Barton, along with many other conservatives, showed his true colors: he cares more about big corporations and the oil companies that line his pockets than he does about small businesses and the people on the coast.

If you have any doubts about this, consider this fact: Barton has received over $1.4 million dollars in campaign contributions from the oil lobby since 1989. That makes him the biggest recipient of such funds in the House of Representatives.

Arizona Anchor Babies

2010-06-15T13:46:00.002-05:00

I had never heard the term "anchor babies" until a few months ago. It sounds like a cartoon, but it is the far right wing's terminology for babies born to a mother who is an illegal immigrant. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, those babies are U.S. citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

That amendment was crafted to give slaves citizenship, either those who were born here or who were brought here. Since the 1870s, the Supreme Court has said the amendment also applies to individuals who are born here, regardless of their parents' status---legal or illegal.

In a previous post, I wrote how the state of Nebraska is openly defying the Constitution with its new abortion law. Now, another state is openly defying the Constitution, this time in the context of immigration. If you guessed the state is Arizona, you get nothing, because that answer is way too easy. Nevertheless, you are correct.

State Republican Senator Russell Pearce has proposed a law that would prohibit babies born to illegal parents from receiving citizenship. There are so many problems with this, not the least of which the effect of the law would clearly conflict with the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: how could a baby be a citizen of the U.S. but not a citizen of Arizona? That is impossible according to the amendment.

This law will get nowhere. Even if it did pass the Arizona Legislature (quite possible), a federal judge would overturn it and the state could appeal that decision. Then, the appellate court would affirm the decision, and Arizona's only hope would be that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. If that Court agreed with Arizona (that a person born here is not automatically a U.S. citizens unless his/her mother is also a U.S. citizen), it would be overturning over 140 years of precedent (can anyone say "activist" court?)

If the Supreme Court struck down the law, the only way to change the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment would be to amend the Constitution, a very arduous task not likely to be achieved.

So, to Senator Pearce, on behalf of Arizona residents (even though I'm a Texas resident, so that's kind of weird), thank you for wasting taxpayer money.

Obama's Lose-Lose

2010-06-13T15:47:00.004-05:00

I have spoken before of my disdain for extreme radio (which happens to be mostly right wing) and the fuel it adds to the fire of partisanship. Having said that, I will occasionally turn over to Limbaugh or Beck or Hannnity to see what hateful words they're spouting. It is, after all, entertaining. If it weren't, those people would be out of a job. They didn't get those jobs by being smart. They got their jobs because they can captivate an audience.

If you spend any time in the underworld of right-wing radio these days, you will quickly learn that Democratic leadership--especially Obama--are supposedly the reason for everything that is wrong with this country. High taxes, moral decay, 10% unemployment, failing schools, dead soldiers, illegal immigration--you name it, Democrats are to blame.

You will also learn that Obama can't win with these people. Regardless of what he does, he will be criticized, which should clue you into the fact that these criticisms don't run very deep; they are largely centered around the fact that Obama is a Democrat and a liberal. After all, nuance doesn't play well with the talk-radio crowd. If you delve into the details of foreign policy regarding Iran, for example, you will lose listeners. So, USA good, Iran bad, Obama's not critical enough of Iran, next topic.

This brings me to the catastrophe in the Gulf. The right wing has been criticizing Obama for the past couple of weeks for not appearing angry enough. Then, when he went on the Today Show and said he talks to experts so he'll "know whose ass to kick," right-wing radioland was all abuzz that Obama was all talk and that leadership is about what you do, not what you say.

Really? Then why were they all up in arms that Obama appeared too calm and collected? Which is it? Is it about what Obama does or what he says? You can't have it both ways, unless of course you live in the sludge of extreme radio.

California Proposition 14

2010-06-09T07:43:00.002-05:00

California, for better or worse, allows voters to vote on a number of issues that change that state's constitution and, very often, drastically alter the state's laws.

Such was the case last night. Proposition 14 was a measure designed to weaken the influence of political parties in the state. It passed. Here's how it works.

Normally, the election cycle begins with a primary election, where Democrats run against Democrats, Republicans run against Republicans, and other third party candidates run against people from their party to see who will represent the party in the general election. No surprise, the general election is usually a Democrat vs. a Republican with the minor-party candidates in tow.

Proposition 14 eliminates party primaries. There will still be a primary, but the top two vote getters will move on to the general election. That means you could have Republican vs. Republican or Democrat vs. Democrat in the general election. It also all but guarantees that third-party candidates will never make it to the general election.

Is this a good system? I guess time will tell. It is quite interesting to see the evolution of political parties in this country. They used to be extremely powerful. Now, they are still powerful, but they continue to weaken, and Prop 14 is more evidence of that.

BP Oil Spill

2010-06-06T15:55:00.002-05:00

Can we even call it a "spill" anymore? When it's the biggest ecological disaster in history, "spill" doesn't do it a lot of justice.

I haven't commented much on this disaster for various reasons. I did mention in this post, however, that our real problem here is our increasing dependence on oil, which not only increases the harm to the environment, but gets increasingly expensive as our inevitable dependence increases.

When I posted that piece, the oil spill was not even two weeks old and no one yet realized how grave the situation was. Since then, we have come to learn a lot about what went wrong (what might have gone wrong) and who might be at fault. So, for what it's worth, here are some observations.

(1) Our dependence on oil is the root cause of this mess, but that will not be alleviated anytime soon, so it really does no good to talk about it when people are losing their businesses, wildlife are dying, and fragile marsh lands are in danger of being irreparably harmed.

(2) The BP president (I think that's his title) needs a crash course in public relations. His comment that he "wants his life back" was, for obvious reasons, about the most callous thing he could have said.

(3) BP should have to pay every dime that it takes to clean up this mess, however long it takes. It is not the government's fault, but it is someone's fault. Contrary to what Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul said--that sometimes accidents just "happen"--disasters of this magnitude are the product of cause and effect. Try arguing in front of a jury that accidents just happen, and see how far it gets you.

(4) Speaking of juries, I'm sure that BP will become quite familiar with them, as Exxon did throughout the 1990s and the 2000s after the Valdez oil spill in 1989. Some BP workers might even be charged with something akin to criminal negligence if it's determined that they might have acted without reasonable caution and put someone at risk of injury or death.

(5) I am curious about the critics of Barack Obama and the cleanup efforts of the federal government. First, this is not Obama's "Katrina": no one has died because of the government's lack of response to the oil spill. Second, it is charged that Obama seems flippant or out of touch with what's going on, that he needs to show more anger by pumping his fists or pounding on the desk.

That is ridiculous. Presidents do not throw temper tantrums--it makes them appear weak. Americans want a leader who is calm in the face of adversity, not someone who loses composure in front of the cameras. George W. Bush wasn't flying off the handle after 9/11 and Bill Clinton wasn't kicking and screaming after the Oklahoma City bombing.

That is not to say that Obama could not project a little more outrage at BP or at the situation in general, but that is simply not his style. Talk to anyone who knows him or has dealt with him and everyone of them will tell you that he is calm. It is his demeanor.

(6) These next two points are related. First, I find it quite perplexing when trying to discern the inconsistencies from conservatives and Republicans regarding the proper role of the federal government in response to a disaster.

Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana, said on March 24, 2009, "There has never been a challenge that the American people, with as little interference as possible by the federal government, cannot handle."

Is that so? Jindal's state is suffering untold billions of dollars in lost tourism and fishing revenue, not to mention the harm to Louisiana's environment. And what is he doing? Asking the federal government for assistance.

Next time you hear someone preaching the value of small government, remind them that it is the federal government that is best equipped to handle a disaster of this magnitude, not the states.

(7) I am not, by any means, blaming capitalism for what BP has wrought, but every monetary system has its flaws, and capitalism's flaws have been front and center since the oil spill occurred.

In a capitalist system, corporations exists for one, singular purpose--to make money. They have an incentive, then, to maximize their profits. That means, among other things, paying workers as little as they can while staying competitive in the market. It also often means cutting corners when it comes to government-imposed regulations.

Conservatives often speak of fewer regulations; liberals often speak of more. One thing is certain, however, regulations aren't worth the paper they're printed on if they're not enforced, and that is part of the reason there are currently 50 million barrels of oil in the Gulf--and counting. There are oil-drilling regulations in place, but the government has done such a poor job of forcing businesses to comply with them that BP was apparently allowed to run its operation as it saw fit.

This is not a recent problem: the love affair with deregulation began with Carter and was in full force during Bush II. Obama has promised to put tighter regulations on certain businesses (Wall Street for instance), but that promise has obviously not reached the oil industry.

Until that happens, we are stuck with the status quo. Oil companies have absolutely no incentive to regulate themselves and will continue to operate on the assumption and hope that a disaster of this magnitude won't happen.

Politically speaking, this is a prime opportunity for the Democrats in Congress to impose tougher regulations on oil companies--public opinion is on their side in a very big way--but as is so often with Democrats, the necessary organization will crumble somewhere along the way.

Nebraska Defying the Constitution?

2010-06-03T15:08:00.002-05:00

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States . . . ."

That is the first line in the oath that all Nebraska legislators must take before they enter office. It is quite odd, then, considering the law they recently passed. First, a little background.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that there is an inherent right of privacy in the Constitution. That right of privacy covers, among many other things, the right to use contraceptives, the right to marry someone of another race, the right to engage in consensual acts with other adults behind closed doors, and it covers a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

The right to terminate a pregnancy, however, is limited: the Court has said that women have an unrestricted right to do so pre-viability. After viability, states can completely ban the abortion procedure. Viability is somewhere around 28 weeks (there is no set number).

Now, back to Nebraska. Its legislature recently passed a law that prohibits abortion past the 20th week of pregnancy, in direct defiance of the Supreme Court.

Are those who voted in favor of this law defying the Constitution? Yes. It would be no different if they passed a law that made it illegal to have condoms in your house or marry someone of a different race. Both laws are blatantly unconstitutional and would never survive under constitutional scrutiny.

The same is true of the new abortion law. It will get challenged in federal court, and it will get overturned in federal court: lower federal courts are bound to follow what the Supreme Court has said--there is no discretion.

This new law, then, is a big waste of time and taxpayer money. The bigger problem, of course, is that you have a state defying the supreme federal government, but I suppose that makes a lot of Nebraskans happy. I'm also guessing that these subversive legislators find it quite acceptable to defy the supreme law of the land when it conflicts with their political goals.

The Right of Privacy

2010-06-02T06:23:00.003-05:00

With the nomination hearings of Elena Kagan rapidly approaching, there is undoubtedly an issue that will arise--the right of privacy and whether that right is protected by the Constitution.

In 1965, the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut. That state had a law that made it illegal to use contraceptives or disseminate information on the use of contraceptives, even for married couples.

The Court ultimately struck down the law as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy. There is, however, no explicit right of privacy in the Constitution; it simply does not exist in the text. Justice Douglas, who authored the opinion, said that there were other amendments in the Constitution that created a "penumbra" or zone of privacy. So what are those amendments that create this "zone of privacy"?

The First guarantees freedom of assembly, which the Court has long interpreted to mean the freedom to associate with those whom you wish without interference from the government.

The Third guarantees that Americans cannot be forced to let a soldier into their homes during times of peace.

The Fourth protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures.

And finally, the Ninth says that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not an exhaustive list; the fact that they are listed does not mean that they are the only individual rights that we have.

Conservatives have long criticized the Griswold decision as "judicial activism" because the phrase "right of privacy" is nonexistent. They also hate it because it was a stepping stone for Roe v. Wade, decided eight years later, which says that a woman, up to a certain point, has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Griswold has also been the basis for conferring other rights, encompassed by the right of privacy, such as the right of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts behind closed doors.

Most Americans, however, even some conservatives, abhor the idea that a government would be able to keep people from owning contraceptives or engaging in certain sexual acts with their significant other. Regarding contraceptive use, the Griswold Court agreed, saying that the right of privacy encompasses a family's decision on whether to have a child; that is no decision the government has any business in.

It's been over 40 years since Griswold was decided, and it is firmly rooted in constitutional jurisprudence. It is, however, in the cross hairs of those who call themselves "strict constructionists" or "originalists" when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

If Kagan says that there is no right of privacy, she stands no chance of having her nomination confirmed, so she would be wise to agree that a privacy right does exist. It will be interesting, though, to see exactly how much she says on the subject. Does she agree with the Roe decision?

For those who do not believe that a right of privacy exists in the Constitution, here is a classic law-school hypothetical: Does a state have the right to sterilize a husband after he and his wife have had two kids? If you answer "no," why not? What in the U.S. Constitution would prevent a state from doing it if there is no right of privacy? After all, if a state can tell you that you must have a child, can it not also tell you that you can't have a child?

Memorial Day 2010

2010-05-31T08:44:00.003-05:00

I started reading a book not too long ago titled, Letters From Vietnam (I think that was the title). I had to put it down, however. It was incredibly sad and made me quite angry.

The book contains letters written from soldiers in Vietnam to mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, grandparents, girlfriends, etc. It was heart-wrenching to read their words--about the hell they were going through, how they had lost one (or more) of their friends recently, and how they were counting down the days until they could come home.

Many writers, however, never returned alive. Like many of their friends before them, they were killed in action in what history has proven to be an unnecessary war.

Many of those who did return alive, however, were treated with disdain for their role in the war. They were discriminated against, spat on, and worse. Many Americans failed to make the distinction between answering the call of duty and the people in charge who forced the soldiers into battle.

Vietnam is one example of that, but there are others. We must never fault the soldiers who are simply doing what they are told, regardless of how noble or misguided the war effort is.

I imagine the verdict is still out on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, although Iraq, like Vietnam, appears to be a totally unnecessary war. There are, however, those who have given their lives because our government told them it was necessary to achieve some greater cause--some greater cause that was supposed to, in some roundabout way, secure average Americans' freedom. For that, they are to be commended.

The following is a song by Billy Joel called Goodnight Saigon. It seems to be an excellent fit for the principle of Memorial Day and the horror of war.

Elena Kagan: Liberal or Conservative?

2010-05-25T16:01:00.007-05:00

So what do we know about Elena Kagan, Obama's pick to be the next Supreme Court Justice? The short answer is not a lot. Not necessarily because we don't have a lot of information about her, but because she's seemed to give conflicting ideological statements regarding exactly what kind of justice she might be.

For instance, in her confirmation hearings last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee after she was nominated to be solicitor general, she indicated that she agreed with the premise that the president had broad authority in detaining those accused of terrorism. That is quite a conservative view (is it really conservative?). She also hired quite a few conservative faculty members as dean of Harvard.

She did, however, also while dean, block military recruiters from coming on campus because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy.

We also don't have any judicial decisions from which to judge Kagan's ideology. She has never been a judge and never practiced law (outside of being solicitor general).

It is, then, quite hard to get a read on where Kagan actually stands. Is she liberal? Is she conservative? Is she a centrist? No one knows, and we won't truly know until she ascends to the bench and starts rendering decisions.

My feeling is, however, that Kagan leans to the left. After all, she has met with Obama, and it is quite difficult to imagine Obama nominating someone to such an important position if he wasn't convinced that the person was ideologically similar to him.

History, though, shows us that what we think about a judicial nominee can be quite the opposite of what that person becomes once they reach the Court. Eisenhower--a moderate Republican--nominated Earl Warren in 1954 to be chief justice. The Court that Warren presided over turned out to be a very activist court, expanding individual rights, especially of those accused of crimes. Eisenhower later spoke of his nomination of Warren as "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." Strong words, but Eisenhower thought Warren was conservative.

Richard Nixon, also a Republican, nominated Harry Blackmun, who turned out to be quite liberal and is most famous for writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, who has turned out to be a right-leaning centrist, hardly the conservative that Reagan thought he was.

A more recent example is the nomination of David Souter by Geroge H.W. Bush. It was thought that Souter was somewhere between a conservative and a libertarian. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Souter almost always sided with the liberal wing of the Court ( he has since been replaced by Sonia Sotomayor).

So, what will Kagan be? Time will tell, but history shows us that we should never jump to conclusions when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

What do Libertarians Believe?

2010-05-24T15:04:00.002-05:00

So much has been made recently about Senatorial candidate Rand Paul's comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how he thought it went too far in telling private businesses that they couldn't discriminate on the basis of race. As wildly unpopular as that idea is--which Paul found out as he was excoriated in the media--it makes sense when you consider the fact that Paul is a Libertarian.

So what, exactly, do Libertarians believe? Most Americans have only a vague idea of the libertarian ideology and don't know exactly what Libertarians stand for. They view Libertarians as they would some strange exotic animal at the zoo that seems oddly out of place. So, because there's been a lot of focus on Paul the Libertarian, here is a crash course in the libertarian ideology.

For starters, whereas conservatives believe that government is a necessary evil, Libertarians basically view government as an evil in and of itself. They believe that government should exist only to do those things that governments traditionally do--maintain law and order, build roads, deliver the mail, etc., etc.

Libertarians also are very strong proponents of individual liberties. The basic philosophy for Libertarians regarding these liberties is that people should be able to engage in any conduct that they want as long as that conduct does not infringe on someone else's liberty. Such is the reason most Libertarians are in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution because those acts are seen as "victimless" crimes. Mandatory seat belt laws and mandatory motorcycle helmet laws are another good example of something Libertarians detest: "if I want to fly through my windshield upon impact, it should be my choice, not the government's."

Libertarians are also against the idea of government intervention in the market at any level (even more so than conservatives). So anything relating to government manipulation of market forces is a big no-no for Libertarians--minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, financial assistance to companies, and general regulation of businesses are good examples.

Many Libertarians are also in favor of reducing government regulation at other levels, food inspection for instance. Instead of the government determining if food is safe for consumption, let the people decide. The proprietor who makes his food unsafe will lose customers and ultimately go out of business. He has an incentive, then, to ensure that his food is safe.

The ultimate end for Libertarians is total autonomy--the ability to make decisions without government involvement. It is appealing in many respects, but the vast majority of Americans are uneasy with that idea. Conservatives abhor the idea of legalizing drugs and prostitution; liberals abhor the idea of the government not intervening in the market.

So, back to Rand Paul. If he's a Libertarian, why is he running as a Republican? Because you can't get to Congress with 1% of the vote, and that's about what Paul would get if he ran on the Libertarian ticket.

Tea Party Strikes Again

2010-05-20T14:19:00.004-05:00

No one can now legitimately deny the force behind the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party. Yes, I know that tea partiers claim to be nonpartisan, but the fact that they have had zero effect on Democratic primaries across the country shows otherwise: an overwhelming majority of tea partiers are Republicans--or at least conservative and voted in the Republican primaries.

There were some big races Tuesday that some hoped would give us an insight into what would happen in November and beyond. The results are inconclusive, but what we do know is that the Republican Party is being swallowed up by the Tea Party, and it seems to be a widespread phenomenon. One would be hard-pressed to find a moderate Republican defeating a more conservative candidate in the primary.

So, what does this mean for November? At the very least, it means that Republicans will vote in huge numbers because of their widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. That means that at least a handful of Tea-Party backed candidates will be victorious. One of those is Rand Paul, senatorial candidate from Kentucky. I know he still has to run in the general election, but Kentucky isn't any more likely to send a Democrat to Washington than Texas is.

Rand Paul is nothing short of a Libertarian, just like his father, Representative Ron Paul. It is also fair to say that Rand's views are quite extreme, and such extremes might play well with Republicans in Kentucky, and probably even with Kentuckians in the general election. But having such extreme viewpoints will hurt Republicans in the long run.

How extreme is Rand Paul? For starters, he said the day after his victory that he had some problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, namely, the provision that makes it illegal for private employers to discriminate on the basis of race. He said it's a freedom of speech issue for the employer. I suppose he's never given a thought to what the elimination of that provision would mean for minorities.

Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education. That's such an extreme view that even most conservative Republicans aren't on board with it.

Getting these types of candidates in Washington might be exciting for the conservative wing of the Republican Party, but history shows that it's not a recipe for long-term party success. The farther a party moves to the right or left, the less likely they are to win a presidential election. 1964, 1972, and 1984 are prime examples of that. The Republicans are well on their way to nominating an extreme candidate in 2012, and paving the way for four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies

2010-05-17T17:16:00.003-05:00

So, I have to ask, what's happening in Arizona? We all know about the controversial immigration law, but now they have another controversial law on the books.

The new law forbids elementary or secondary schools to teach classes that are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" and advocate "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people."

The "overthrow the government" and "resentment toward a certain race" I get. One of the things we try to teach kids in school--or should--is tolerance for other people who aren't like us.

But what, exactly, is wrong with a class that's designed primarily for a certain group? In reality, nothing. But if you live in Superintendent Tom Horne's world, apparently everything in the world. For two years, he's been trying to get Tucson's public schools to drop its Mexican-American Studies program, a program he says promotes "ethnic chauvinism."

The legislature bought this idea, and the governor signed the bill into law last Tuesday. Now, the school district will be prohibited from offering its African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies programs that focus on history and literature and include information about the influence of a particular ethnic group.

Among the "horrors" of this targeted Mexican-American studies program is the role of Mexican-Americans in the Vietnam War. Terrible isn't it? And it would be such a shame to teach students the contribution of African Americans in World War II, wouldn't it?

So, I'll ask again: what is happening in Arizona? Does anyone have an answer?

Terrorism and Miranda Rights

2010-05-05T07:20:00.005-05:00

The debate is raging once again: should terrorism suspects receive their Miranda Warnings? If you listen to prominent Republicans, including Chris Bond (Sen.- MO), John McCain (Sen.- AZ), and Pete King (Rep.- NY), the answer is an unequivocal "no." Yesterday, Marco Rubio, Republican and Florida senatorial candidate, echoed that sentiment.

Whether these individuals actually believe that or whether they're afraid of appearing "soft on terror" is an open question. I have a hunch, and I suspect that they are driven by the perpetual campaign mode that is the reality of Congress.

Nevertheless, it also makes me wonder what has happened to the moderate voice in the Republican Party. Either it is totally gone or has been so drowned out by the tea-party-driven conservative voice that it simply has no place within party ranks. Additionally, there is noting at all that's conservative about wanting to avoid a constitutional protection that's been in place for over 40 years. Isn't maintaining the status quo one of the core tenets of conservatism?

Having said that, it's important to remember why we have Miranda Warnings in the first place. These warnings are in place to ensure that those accused of crimes know their rights that are embedded in the Constitution. It is to ensure that anything thing these individuals utter is on voluntary basis and not compelled. The Supreme Court noted in the Miranda decision that there is no setting as unequal in power than when a person accused of a crime is without a lawyer and facing questions from law enforcement. Before Miranda, police were threatening the accused and sometimes verbally and physically assaulting the accused, all in the hopes of obtaining a confession. Whether the confession was true was beside the point; a signed confession in front of a jury is gold. Would a jury really believe that a defendant was beaten senseless to obtain that confession? Usually not.

So, the Supreme Court said basically that we don't trust the government to police itself in these interrogations. Law enforcement has to play by the rules and if they don't, there are consequences.

As far as terrorist suspects go, the rules are no different. The Supreme Court has, however, said that Miranda Warnings are not needed before questioning a suspect if the public is at risk (the public safety exception). Once it is determined that the public is not at risk, law enforcement must read a suspect his rights.

So, Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect, was questioned before Miranda and after Miranda. Once the FBI got information from him that assured them that there were no other lurking dangers, they Mirandized him and treated him like any other suspect.

What's alarming about Rubio, et. al's comments are that Shahzad is a naturalized American citizen. He is not someone we picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. So, is this how we are to treat our fellow citizens--by denying them certain rights that other citizens have simply because that citizen is accused of terrorism? I thought the days when terrorism was the end-all-be-all of every political discussion ended with the George W. Bush years. Apparently, that is not the case.

In a rare moment of sanity, Glenn Beck noted yesterday that "We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular.” He is right. Yes, I said it: Glenn Beck is right.

Is Oil Drilling Worth the Risk?

2010-05-03T13:07:00.003-05:00

Whether Americans should risk drilling for oil in the ocean is a question many seem to be asking after the catastrophic spill in the Gulf. The consensus seems to be yes; most Americans are apparently willing to deal with the rare occurrence of polluted waters caused by our need for new oil.

It's also not as if Americans really have a choice; a country that consumes 25 million barrels of oil per day is a slave to its current energy policies. That's not to say that drilling cannot be lessened, but that takes a government that is willing to do so, and it takes alternative sources that are cheaper for the consumer.

So far, the Obama administration has expressed an interest in ramping up drilling in the Gulf and the Atlantic. And, while alternative sources are cheaper in the long run, they often cost more up front (hybrid cars, electric cars, solar panels, etc. are quite expensive).

So, we are in many ways stuck dealing with our current problems regarding oil consumption. We could have largely nipped this in the bud way back when (a la Brazil), but that's really a moot point. So, is offshore drilling worth the risk?

Obviously the risk I'm talking about is what we've seen on the news for the past week and what we saw with the Exxon Valdez--billions of gallons of oil wasted, billions of dollars lost, businesses ruined, wildlife killed, and fragile ecosystems damaged, sometimes beyond repair. The Valdez crashed 21 years ago: its mess is still being cleaned up.

Having said that, such spills like the one we saw last week are much less frequent than they used to be. The technology, both in extraction and transportation, is much better, and it allows for safer handling of the oil. In fact, in a study published by the The Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board of the National Academy of Sciences, results show that approximately 15% of the oil pollution in North American waters is caused by extraction and transportation. The biggest two causes are natural "seeps" from the ocean floor and consumption (airplanes, polluted rivers, boats, land-based runoff, etc.) Transportation of oil is four times as dangerous as extraction; thus, you are much more likely to see a tanker spill oil than what we just saw in the Gulf.

Drilling for oil in the ocean and the necessary transportation that goes along with it are inherently dangerous activities. They are, however, much safer than they were 30 years ago, and I assume that they will become even safer as technology continues to improve. The real problem is our consumption rate, which is increasing every year. As long as that trend continues, we have little choice but to endure the catastrophes associated with offshore drilling.

That is, until we run out of oil. Something tells me, however, that we'll start worrying about that problem after it's too late.

Arizona's Immigration Law

2010-04-26T10:25:00.003-05:00

In case you've been living in a cave, I'll tell you the gist of Arizona's new immigration law. The law requires law enforcement personnel to question anyone they suspect might be in the United States illegally. If that person cannot produce documentation to that effect (driver's license, passport, birth certificate, etc.), he or she will be arrested. Keep that in mind because I'll come back to it in a second. For now, let's talk about how the Constitution might impact the law.

First is the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment says, among other things, that we have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A person has been seized by police when the "reasonable person would not feel free to walk away."

A police officer, however, cannot seize someone unless he or she has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. So, if a cop sees me reach into a car and give the driver money in exchange for a package, the cop is well within his right to stop and question me about that transaction. He has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has just been committed. Simply walking down the street past a cop with my eyes to the ground is not in any way suspicious activity. Weird, maybe, but not any evidence that I just committed a crime.

The second possible constitutional problem with the Arizona law impacts discrimination.

There are two types of discrimination--de jure discrimination and de facto discrimination. De jure is simply a fancy Latin term that means "of the law." So de jure discrimination is a discriminatory law where the discrimination is actually written into the law. That type of discrimination is almost nonexistent. Governments are not that unwise to where they would blatantly write a discriminatory law. That might have been the case 50 years ago, but not today.

The second type of discrimination--de facto--is a bit trickier. De facto discrimination occurs when the application of the law is discriminatory. So, a government may have never intended that a law be discriminatory, but the way that it's enforced is discriminatory.

So, let me tie all this together.

Remember, cops have to have at least a reasonable suspicion to stop and question someone. Regarding this new requirement of Arizona police, on what basis would a cop have the right to stop and question someone about his or her legal status? Is a brown-skinned person walking down the street reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed? Not by any stretch of the imagination. What if that person is speaking Spanish? Same answer. The point is, nothing in the Fourth Amendment allows the government to stop someone based on skin color or language or any other characteristic. It has to be based on suspicious behavior.

Now, to the discrimination part of it.

If Arizona lawmakers enforced this law as it's written and stopped whites, browns, and blacks on an equal basis, there would no discrimination because no one would be treated differently.

Reality suggests, however, that that would not be the case. Considering Arizona's proximity to Mexico--where the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from--does anyone really believe that brown-skinned individuals will not be targeted more than whites or blacks? If you do believe that, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.

And, because brown-skinned individuals would be the overwhelming target of this enforcement of the law, it appears to have a discriminatory impact. It is de facto discrimination.

The law will go into effect sometime in late July or early August. I suspect, however that it will not see the light of day. A court will grant an injunction against it, and I don't see how it can pass constitutional muster once a court rules on the merits (there are also federalism problems here, because the federal government has the sole authority to determine who is in the country illegally; the states have no role in thayt process).

Anyway, that's my take. Tell me what you think.

Believing the Experts: Earth Day 2010

2010-04-22T09:48:00.003-05:00

Do you believe what the experts say? If not, why not?

Right after the Icelandic volcano erupted, the name of which no one outside Iceland can pronounce, ABC News reported that the planes in Europe were grounded because "experts say volcanic ash can damage plane engines and ultimately cause them to shut down."

Now, the damage to plane engines caused by volcanic ash had never entered my mind, yet I, and evidently all of the Europeans in charge, believed those experts. I have never had any personal experience with volcanic ash--and hopefully never will--but experts have. They've done tests, and some have flown in volcanic ash. They know what's in volcanic ash, they know the intricacies of plane engines and planes in general. In short, they know infinitely more than the average person about volcanic ash and plane engines. So, I believe them.

This got me thinking: why do some people choose to believe experts only in certain circumstances? Today is Earth Day, so I'm wondering why some people--possibly you the reader--choose not to believe scientists when they say that our climate is changing and that the change is either caused or exacerbated by humans.

Do you believe archaeologists and historians when they tell you something detailed about the Aztec civilization?

Do you believe political scientists when they tell you the affect that interest groups have on national political races?

Do you believe your doctor when he tells you that smoking causes lung cancer?

Do you believe economists when they said injecting money into the market was necessary to avert an economic disaster?

Do you believe engineers when they tell you that a bridge must be built a certain way to avoid collapse?

I could go on, but you get the point. Chances are you have never seen any artifact from the Aztecs or built a bridge yourself only to see it collapse. But you trust the people who have the knowledge because they know a lot more about the subject than you do. Experts have credentials and have undergone the training necessary to form an expert opinion and reach definitive conclusions based on scientific evidence. So, what makes climate change different? Why are so many skeptical and choose not to believe the experts? Help me out.

The Privacy of Text Messages

2010-04-20T10:42:00.002-05:00

Are your text messages private? The Supreme Court will decide.

A few years ago, the Ontario, CA Police Department issued certain members cell phones and pagers. There was a written policy in effect that said any communications were subject to review by the department. There was an informal policy, however, that said no messages would be reviewed if the officers paid for the text charges out of their own pockets.

Three officers complained--and one sued--when the department reviewed several messages of SWAT team members, many of which were sexually explicit--"sexting" in today's lingo. Thank you, Tiger.

The question in the case is whether the department violated the Constitution by reviewing these texts. If it did, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which says we have a right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The answer to the question is whether the officers in the case had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Fourth Amendment law can be extremely complicated, but whether that amendment is violated hinges on one fact: did a person reasonably assume that his or her conversation would be kept private?

So, if I'm carrying on a conversation with someone in my car, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation will remain between me and the other person. If a cop is listening in on that conversation without a warrant, he is violating my Fourth Amendment rights.

If, however, I am having the same conversation while walking down the street, I have no expectation of privacy. We are in an open area, people are around, and such conversations are open to anyone within earshot. If a cop overhears that conversation, no Fourth-Amendment violation has occurred.

So, did the officers in this case have a reasonable expectation that their personal text messages would remain private? It seems that they did not, and that is what most of the justices seemed to think in yesterday's oral argument. The only confusion in the case is the conflict between the written policy and the informal policy of the Ontario Police Department, but it seems reasonable that a police department would want to monitor the communications of its SWAT team members, especially when the communication devices were government-issued.

Look for the Court to issue its ruling in early June.

Bullied to Death?

2010-04-18T14:58:00.002-05:00

On January 14, 15-year old Phoebe Prince of South Hadley, Massachusetts, walked home from school and killed herself. Her 12-year old sister found her hanging from the family's apartment stairwell.

This scenario, while tragic, is sadly not so outlandish. Teenage suicide is an ugly reality for so many families and friends, a horrific end to many young people's lives during what can be some of the most turbulent years in someone's life.

What has grabbed the public's attention about this case, however, is what has happened since Prince killed herself: six students have been indicted on felony charges, ranging from statutory rape, stalking, and violation of civil rights.

I'll come back to that in a second, but what struck me as odd is the violation of civil rights charge. Civil rights are the protections we receive from the government to ensure that the government does not violate basic human rights, equal protection under the law for instance. I have never heard of a state extending those protections so far that it would charge a private citizen with violating civil rights, but evidently Massachusetts has. If a cop bashes your head in (a la Rodney King), that cop can be charged with a civil rights violation because he works for the government. A private citizen doing the same thing, however, is usually charged with assault and battery and that's it. I don't have time to do the research, but I wonder how many other states have the same type of law. Now, on to the fact that these students have been charged with felonies.

This case forces us to face some difficult questions. Should anyone ever be held responsible for another's suicide? Does it make a difference if the suicidal person is a child? If we do hold someone responsible, how do we decide who that someone is? How far back in time do we go in that person's life to decide who's responsible? By the very definition of suicide, no one causes that person's death. If that were the case, these students would be charged with murder.

There are two elements at play here: the students' despicable actions toward Prince and the teachers and administrators who did nothing about the student abuse. For months, Prince, an Irish immigrant, was called names, received threats of physical abuse, and was often brought to tears by the students' actions. On the day she killed herself, one of the abusers passed by Prince in a car, threw a drink can at her, and laughed. This was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back; hours later, Prince was dead.

There are many unresolved questions about whether school officials knew of the abuse. Of course, they are currently denying that they knew the extent of the abuse. If it later comes out that they did, are they also culpable? I'm not offering any answers here to these difficult questions, but I will say that this case has reinforced my belief that kids can be some of the meanest people in the world.

I do think it's appropriate that these students have been charged; there is overwhelming evidence that crimes were committed. What I don't understand is why the students were charged after Prince's death. There was ample evidence of criminal activity before Prince took her own life. Did it take the death of a 15-year old to get serious about bullying in school?

And one final note about the teachers and administrators. Most states--and I'm assuming Massachusetts is included--place an affirmative duty on certain individuals to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. Those "certain" individuals are usually those who have some special relationship with the child (teacher, relative, babysitter, etc.) So, if I a see a kid walking down the street with bruises on his arms, I have no duty to report that. If I'm babysitting that child, however, I do.

Considering what has happened in this case so far and the fact that six students have been charged, it would not surprise me at all if some teachers and/or administrators are charged as well.

My Tea Party Trip

2010-04-16T06:13:00.004-05:00

Well, I went to a tea party event. Not as an activist by any means, but simply as an observer. From a political science point of view, the tea party movement is an interesting study into grassroots politics and grassroots lobbying. I ultimately think the tea party is bad news for the Republican Party, which is in serious trouble; no one--not even John McCain anymore--has raised any sort of moderate opposition to the conservatives of the party.

And, as the Republicans get taken over by the right fringe of the political spectrum, they will increasingly become irrelevant in national elections. I frequently tell my students: you don't win elections by catering to the voters on the edge of the political spectrum; you win by courting voters in the middle. Elections are won and lost by swing voters, not very conservative voters, as tea partiers tend to be.

Having said that, what, exactly did I observe at this rally? First of all, I estimate that there were between 6,000 and 7,000 people at this thing. The minor league ballpark where it was held holds about 5,500. The seats were filled, and the their were quite a few people on the field.

There were several common themes running throughout the two-hour event. First, a lot of flags, most of them American,and many were of revolutionary "Don't Tread On Me" variety. More on flags in a moment.

There were a ton of signs. Many advocated states' rights, even though the apostrophe wasn't always in the right place. Many railed against socialism, higher taxes, voting Obama out of office, etc. You get the idea. More on signs in a moment.

There were a lot of t-shirts. Again, the theme was the same as that of the signs. More on t-shirts in a moment.

Now for some other observations. Some of these I will offer some comment on (the ones that are totally absurd); others, you can come to your own conclusions (funny, ridiculous, sad, stupid, etc.)

There were several speakers, all aimed at energizing the crowd. The first was a guy dressed up in colonial gear who called himself Thomas Paine. Keep in mind that this was right after the singing of "God Bless America." Quite ironic, considering that Paine assaulted Christianity and organized religion in his Age of Reason. Anyway, this guy calling himself Paine went off on, among other things, some textbook from a North Carolina university that devoted "16 pages to multiculturalism."

Next, a Vietnamese man and American resident since 1975 got up and talked about the dangers of communism, and noted that "Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to tax the rich to death and give to the poor."

Next, a Hispanic blogger and commentator offered more of the same. She was also energetic and received huge applause when she noted that she had "never received an entitlement from the government." I wonder how far away from age 65 she is. She also offered her outlandish view that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are the "domestic enemies" that the Constitution speaks of.

For some reason, two students, one 18, the other 14, took the stage next. There were huge applause when it was noted that the 14-year old was home schooled. In the course of his speech, he asked, "What is freedom if you can't talk about God in school?"

Next, an M.D. got up to talk about the dangers of "Obamacare." He had ten things he wanted to share, which were all taken from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. And I honestly thought we were past all the "death panel" stuff, but evidently, it is alive and well. This doctor said the government would ration health care: "They'll have to, with this end of life counseling--the death panels." Amazing.

There was also a lot of talk throughout the night about securing our borders. The speech would go something like this: "We need to secure our borders and put a stop to illegal immigration." Applause. "We love LEGAL immigration. That's what America's about--just do it legally." More applause. Turns out almost half of tea partiers want to decrease the level of legal immigration, as this New York Times poll shows.

Now, some observations of the non-audio variety.

I saw two Confederate battle flags.

I saw eight black people

I saw 9 Hispanics

Sign: "Stop Fedzilla"

Sign: "Boycott ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, HLN"

Sign: "Fire the Media"

Sign: "I'll keep my guns, money, and health care, you keep the change."

Sign: "My life is mine to control, not the government's"

Sign: "Taxation is the new terrorism"

Sign: "The Three Stooges" (it had a picture of Marx, Lenin, and Obama)

Sign: "Reagan lives in me."

Sign: "I own a gun and I'm a right-wing extremist" (no hyphen in the original)

T-Shirt: ACLU in a circle with a line through it

T-Shirt: "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

T-Shirt: Obama in '08, Osama in '09

It was definitely an interesting experience. And you do get the feeling that these people actually believe that we are on the brink of socialism or communism. According to them, the rain was not the only thing falling last night. The sky is falling as well.

Media Insanity

2010-04-09T11:27:00.002-05:00

I just got through discussing the media in my classes. That subject has been grafted into the political science curriculum because of its obviously large role in influencing our political views. There is a mountain of data that show how media can influence policy in this country and how it can shape our political philosophy.

There is a disturbing trend, however, in the media today, and it is a phenomenon that has existed for roughly the past 20 or 25 years: media personalities in this country are becoming more extreme, and it is a major reason that our country is so polarized politically.

If you are interested in this subject I would recommend reading Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America by John Avlon. It provides a very good rundown of the lunacy today in America--in the media and otherwise--and how it is so damaging to our country.

Because I teach this stuff, I'm in tune with various aspects of current media trends, and I have seen and heard much of this lunacy firsthand. Most of it today comes from the far right of the political spectrum. That is for the simple fact that conservatives dominate the radio airwaves and Fox News is the most powerful cable outlet. The far left also has its share of loons, but right now they are fewer in number and many of them are relegated to the Internet and, therefore, not as loud.

If you sink into the underworld of conservative lunacy by flipping on AM radio or tuning into Glenn Beck on Fox, you will understand what I'm talking about. It you choose to stay out of the fray, here are some common themes that you would hear.

(1) These talk show hosts--namely, Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh (there are many others) love to speak in fatalistic, apocalyptic, and revolutionary terms. Beck loves to talk about the "coming demise of America." Levin often speaks of "tyranny" and how things in America right now are "intolerable." These are all terms one would have heard from the American colonists 235 years ago. Listening to them, you would think that America is truly on the brink of death, not because of any outside force, but for the simple fact that there is a Democrat in the White House.

(2) They also love to throw around political philosophy terms such as communism, Marxism, Stalinism, and fascism. Glenn Beck is known for flashing a hammer and sickle and a swastika and showing how we are just a few steps toward descending into communism or fascism. If he had any inkling of what those two terms actually meant, he would realize that fascism and communism are at two opposite ends of the political spectrum and, thus, incompatible. For what it's worth, Mark Levin routinely refers to Obama as a communist or Marxist.

(3) They also love to throw around the theme that Obama hates America or hates the Constitution. Totally untrue of course, but again, the crazies have the loudest voice.

(4) There is also a theme of complete and utter hatred of the federal government. They will rail against that institution in one breath and in the next breath praise the military. I wonder if they've ever thought about the fact that the military is run by the federal government.

(5) Another theme is "us against them." "Us" is anyone who subscribes to the fact that the federal government is evil, Obama is a communist or fascist and hates America, and that we are on the brink of government tyranny. "Them" is anyone who doesn't subscribe to their hard-core conservative ideas, who thinks that the federal government might actually be a force for positive change, and who thinks that Obama is a center-left Democrat who wants to improve this country.

(6) The final theme I see running through these shows is complete disdain for network news. According to them, network news is liberal and in bed with the Obama administration. This is also untrue of course: studies have confirmed that network bias is extremely small or nonexistent in the presentation of the news. But if these talk show hosts can continue to pound this idea into listeners' heads, it helps pump up their own ratings because people will begin to believe (as many do) that network news is filled with nothing but liberal political hacks.

You might notice that I didn't mention Bill O'Reilly. He has certainly had his share of ridiculous comments, but he is being drowned out by the more extreme voices. When John Stewart was a guest on O'Reilly's show, Stewart noted this: "Bill, you have become the sanest person at Fox News. Keep in mind, however, that that's like saying someone is the thinnest kid at fat camp." It's nice to have perspective, isn't it?

I truly believe that these individuals, who have millions of listeners/viewers, are a major reason for the massive divide in politics today. I fully support their right to say what they want, but I would also highly recommend staying away from them. If you are conservative, there are plenty of other sources from which to get your news--sources that don't thrive on spreading untruths and demonizing those with whom they disagree.

Census Paranoia

2010-04-07T15:03:00.002-05:00

I have my ideas about where this comes from, and I will address that in a later post, but there seems to be a lot of paranoia with conservatives regarding the census: that it's a government conspiracy to do who knows what; that it's a plan to get more Democrats in power; and "Why does the government want to know my phone number!?" Nothing I say here will change things much, if at all. If someone subscribes to a conspiracy theory, good luck convincing him/her that a conspiracy doesn't really exist. Have you ever tried to talk to the people who think 9/11 was in inside job?

First of all, the U.S. Constitution requires that we conduct a census every ten years. There are many reasons for collecting this data. The main reason, however, is that the census determines our representation in the House of Representatives. It's how we know how many people have moved to Texas and Arizona and how many have left Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The census form itself asks for the following: your name, date of birth, phone number and how many people live in your house. That's it. The American Community Survey is sent to roughly one out of every ten homes and it is a longer form.

So, back to the paranoia, here are some ridiculous things we're hearing from far right wing:

Rush Limbaugh thinks that census takers purposefully stay out of Republican areas to go give Democrats more seats in Congress:"I wonder how widespread this is, that areas thought to be Republican are either not getting forms or not being visited by the census workers. Nothing would surprise me."

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) said last year on Fox News that the census was used to round up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps during World War II. She also said that her family would put nothing down on the form except how many people lived in the home. When she, a lawmaker, was notified that her decision would be against the law, she relented and said she would fill the form out in its entirety.

Ron Paul (R-TX) warned people of the dangers of revealing census information to the government. He was also the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution encouraging people to fill out census forms.

Far-right wing (and possibly mentally unstable) radio host Erick Erickson said if anyone with an American Community Survey showed up at his door, he would get his wife's shotgun: "I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property."

This is just a sample of the lunacy that we've heard recently. There are others, and I don't want to give the impression that all conservatives have this attitude; the vast majority of Americans--liberal and conservative--realize the importance of filling out the census. As always, however, the crazies have the loudest voice.

How Long Will Social Security Last?

2010-04-05T11:10:00.006-05:00

We seem to hear a lot about the solvency of the Social Security system in the U.S. In fact, there have been reports for the past 50 years about its impending demise, so I thought I would try to set the record straight--or at least clear things up a bit--regarding this often misunderstood social program.

Social Security, in everyday parlance, refers to benefits paid for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death (RSDI). The program covers much more, but the vast bulk of the payments are retirement benefits for those aged 65 and older. Since its inception in 1935, it has been an immense success. Before 1935, the largest poverty group in America was senior citizens; now, that is the smallest poverty group. According to the Economic Affairs Bureau, Social Security keeps roughly 40% of those aged 65 and older out of poverty.

So, it is doing its job: the system was set up to ensure that Americans who were past the "working age" could meet the basic needs of day-to-day life. It is security in retirement.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with the system; there are. Amendments have been added to the Social Security Act in every decade since the 1930s, and I would suspect more in the future. Why? Because eventually, Social Security expenditures will exceed revenue, and that is, of course, unsustainable.

Right now, when you pay into Social Security, that money is put into a trust fund. According to law, if revenue in that trust fund exceeds expenditures--which is the case now--the excess money must be used to pay down the U.S. deficit. Congress has no discretion in the matter under the current law.

The problem arises when expenditures (payouts to retirees, etc.) exceed revenue. That is going to be a massive problem when the Baby Boom Generation starts retiring in huge numbers. Current estimates are that expenditures will start exceeding revenues at the earliest in about 30 years and at the latest in about 50 years. Regardless of that 20-year window, something will eventually have to be done to ensure that retirees in the distant future get their money. Below are some solutions, some of which are much more viable than others.

(1) Increase payroll taxes for certain workers

Social security is a regressive tax. That is, you pay the same percentage of your income into social security regardless of how much you make. That could change if Congress decided to tax more heavily those making over, say, $250,000. That would solve the system's deficit problem for many, many years.

(2) Increase payroll taxes for everybody

This is not particularly a viable solution because the simple fact is that most people would be against it. Raising taxes on those who make over $250,000--a group that represents two percent of the population--is much easier.

(3) Put Social Security in a "Lockbox"

Al Gore made the "lockbox" famous in the 2000 presidential debate. Putting Social Security in a lockbox means that the money would continue to be put into the trust fund, but Congress would not be able to touch the money for anything other than Social Security. The problem with that is that the current deficit is so high, it would be hard to justify cutting off the current funds from the Social Security trust fund that help pay down the deficit.

(4) Raise the Retirement Age

Currently, you have to be 65 to receive retirement benefits. Congress could easily amend that to make the qualifying age higher. The facts suggest that it is quite a strong argument. The life expectancy in America in 1935 was 62, three years younger than the qualifying age for retirement benefits. The life expectancy today is 78. In 1935 terms, the qualifying age today should be 81!

(5) Privatize Social Security

As much as people like to tout this as an option, it simply isn't viable. For one, it is antithetical to the whole idea of providing people security in retirement. The way privatization would work is that people could take their money out of social security and put it into another retirement system, such as a 401k. "Hard core" privatizers say that people should not even have to invest the money at all; if they want to spend it at the casino, it should be their option.

The problem with both arguments is that you are gambling with people's livelihood in retirement. Think about how many people have seen their life savings dwindle down to basically nothing in this Great Recession. The argument against privatization is just that: people's retirement savings should not be left to the whims of the market. And frankly, on a macroeconomic scale, privatization would inevitably lead to more poverty among senior citizens, which would be an even bigger drain on the system.

As a practical matter, politicians know that privatization is a losing argument. Several have suggested it--the most recent George W. Bush--and the idea always goes over like a lead balloon. Americans like the idea of social security; it is one of the most popular social programs because it affects almost everyone.

The Politics of Offshore Drilling

2010-03-31T15:03:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama announced today that he proposes opening up areas in the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling, areas that have previously been off limits.

He has hinted before that tough decisions would have to be made regarding opening up other areas for drilling and apparently, those decisions have been reached.

Many consider this a political decision, given Obama's pre-inaugural promise to work through partisanship. That begs the question, however: what does Obama stand to gain by proposing this legislation? Does he really think that he can gain support of congressional Republicans? That answer should be a resounding "no," as it is quite clear that Republicans have been almost completely unified in opposing anything that resembles an Obama idea.

If we needed proof of that, House Minority Leader John Boehner gave it to us, when he remarked after Obama's announcement that the administration hasn't gone far enough in making efforts to eradicate offshore-drilling bans. I suppose Boehner would be happy only if we opened up every single square inch of coastal waters for drilling. And by the way, Congress will ultimately have to lift the ban, so there is nothing stopping Boehner from introducing legislation to do so.

As for the practical effects of this decision, Republicans are upset that it doesn't go far enough, and environmentalists are upset that it goes too far. Hard-core environmentalists are ideologues, and you will not win them over unless you stop drilling altogether. Republicans, however, are in the political game. From that standpoint, they would be well served to compromise. That's how you win elections and stay in power--by catering to moderates and independents. If Republicans want to continue their ideological tactics, their party will continue to shrink in influence. I would imagine that most of the country will be happy with this decision: it is a compromise between two extremes.

As for what this means in terms of oil consumption, it is a stopgap measure. I did a research paper in grad school on this very topic, and I was surprised by some of the numbers I found. Americans consume about 21 million barrels of oil per day. The area pegged for drilling in the Gulf contains 3.5 billion barrels of oil. That will last us a whopping 170 days.

The portion in the Atlantic pegged for drilling contains as much as a three-year supply of oil, although those are 30-year old estimates. There could be more oil; there could be less.

On top of that, most of the drilling sites would not be opened up for leasing for four years. When that happens, the oil companies won't touch the sites unless they are sure that they can turn a profit. Drilling offshore is immensely expensive, even for multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Opening up these areas for drilling will probably please a lot of people, and from that point of view, it's a political score for Obama. Drilling offshore, however, is in no way a long-term solution to America's energy problem, and the Obama administration seems to realize that. Republicans, who continue to embrace the Sarah-Palin-led slogan of "Drill baby drill," do not.

California and Marijuana Legalization

2010-03-29T16:04:00.003-05:00

Last week, enough Californians signed a petition to get a measure on the November ballot that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana. A poll conducted there last summer showed that 56% favored legalizing the drug.

From what I have seen, the law would allow anyone to transport up to one ounce of marijuana and smoke it in private. Smoking it in public or around children would be illegal. Also, cities (or maybe counties) would be able to opt out of the law, thus keeping marijuana illegal in their jurisdictions.

Many people have long pushed for this law and in many ways, it makes sense. California has some of the most overcrowded prisons in the country, and many see it it a waste of time and taxpayer money to prosecute individuals who are caught with a small amount of pot. Additionally, California is in a budget crisis of massive proportions. Taxing marijuana and regulating its distribution would generate over a billion dollars for the state.

Now, let me tell you why it might not matter at all if voters approve the law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause. That clause says that if a state law and a federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins, and the state law is effectively invalid. As of now, it is against federal law to manufacture, distribute, or consume marijuana. Thus, federal law would conflict with California's law. So, even if voters approved the measure, any federal agency--the DEA for instance--could still arrest someone for violating federal law.

Finally, I want to make clear that this has nothing to do with medicinal marijuana clinics. 14 states have a law that makes it legal for individuals to consume marijuana if they have a doctor's prescription. That is also against federal law, but the attorney general said last year that the feds would not prosecute these clinics and doctors as long as they are in compliance with state law.

So, if voters approve the November measure, will the feds prosecute? Or, will they lay off and respect state law? The question is whether it should make a difference that a person is using marijuana for medicinal purposes as opposed to recreational purposes.

Racial Comments and Free Speech

2010-03-25T16:35:00.005-05:00

Can a person in America be arrested for being stupid? Apparently so. In New Jersey anyway.

Last week, police in Washington Township, NJ arrested a 16-year old Wal-Mart employee for uttering on the store's intercom system, "All blacks need to leave the store." He was arrested for "bias intimidation" and "harassment."

The kid's actions are undoubtedly a fireable offense. It was a stupid act and he shouldn't have done it. I also wonder why a 16-year old has access to the public address system, but I suppose that's another matter. The more serious offense here is that the kid was arrested, which is almost unbelievable.

New Jersey's "bias intimidation" statute says a person commits an offense if he acts:

(1) "with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or

(2) knowing that the conduct constituting the offense would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or

(3) under circumstances that caused any victim of the underlying offense to be intimidated and the victim . . . ."

The harassment statute is similar. It reads: A person commits an act if he:

"Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or . . .

Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."

These statutes, as applied to this kid, are blatantly unconstitutional. He is well within his First-Amendment rights to engage in intimidating speech. The speech is despicable, yes, but an arrestable offense? Hardly. I could go out on the street corner today and say hateful words to anyone who is black, white, brown, gay, or straight. I would never do it, but my actions would in no way violate the law. In fact, my actions wouldn't be against the law unless, as the Supreme Court has said, the speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action. That was hardly the case in New Jersey. There wasn't about to be a riot in Wal-Mart because of something a kid said.

The harassment statute, as applied to this kid, is also problematic. It says no one can engage in offensively course language. Offensive to whom? That standard is incredibly too subjective, and courts have struck down similar statutes repeatedly. Words like "arousing anger," "intimidate," or "offensive" simply will not fly in federal court. States cannot suppress someone's speech simply because it ticks another person off. If that were the case, we'd have a lot of people in jail.

Without question, the kid deserved to be fired. Arresting him, however, makes a mockery of the First Amendment. That amendment, as it's been said before, is the freedom to be an idiot, a freedom of which this kid took full advantage.

Health Care Lawsuit

2010-03-24T15:06:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, seven minutes after Obama signed the health care bill into law, 13 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit. 12 of them are Republicans; one is a Democrat. They have two arguments: (1) that Congress doesn't have the right to mandate that all Americans get health insurance, a provision in the law that takes effect in 2014; and (2) that the law forces states to expand their Medicaid coverage.

This lawsuit has no chance at being successful. I'll take their second argument first.

The gist of that argument is that the law violates the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment says that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. The Supreme Court has said that the Tenth Amendment does nothing but state a truism--it doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. In other words, when the Constitution was ratified, it was assumed that the states would retain the powers that it had under the Articles of Confederation, unless it gave up those powers in the new Constitution.

The result of that is that Congress has immense power to pass legislation. For instance, Congress has the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." What that means in practical terms is that Congress can pass any law that affects interstate commerce. The health insurance industry--a multi-billion dollar enterprise--definitely affects interstate commerce. Thus, Congress can regulate it and require states to comply with the law. The federal government is this country is supreme over the states. Despite what some states' rights advocates might tell you, the two are not equal.

The attorneys' general second argument--that Congress can't mandate that we all get insurance--has a little more merit, but it, too, will fail. Specifically, their argument is that "the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage."

That is quite true, but the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize a lot laws passed by Congress. It doesn't specifically authorize Congress to pass educational standards such as the No Child Left Behind Act. It doesn't specifically authorize Congress to outlaw child labor or pass a minimum wage act or create environmental standards.

Congress is able to pass these types of laws because of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to pass all laws that are necessary and proper in carrying out its specific powers. In Congress' view, it is necessary and proper to require that everyone buy insurance in order to carry out its job of regulating commerce. There is no court in this country that is going to deny Congress that authority.

Beyond that, courts have long said that Congress can pass laws for the general welfare of society. Requiring that 32 million people have access to health insurance undoubtedly falls under the category promoting the "general welfare."

Health Care- Political Implications

2010-03-22T11:23:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, whether you support the health care bill or whether you oppose it, was a monumental day. Health care will be forever changed in this country. As the aftermath unfolds from that very long day, it is important to look at the political implications--both long term and short term--of yesterday's vote.

Short-Term Implications

Republicans seem to think that yesterday's vote sealed the Democrats' fate--that Republicans will gain back majority status in the House and Senate come November. That is possible, but not likely, for two reasons:

(1) The election in November--no different from most other elections--will be about the economy. There are signs now that the economy is starting to rebound. If things continue to improve economically, the Republicans will not fare as well as some might think. When an economy is improving, voters choose the incumbent party, in this case, the Democrats.

(2) Incumbents almost always win congressional elections. In fact, an average of 90% of incumbents get reelected. The Democrats currently have a 77-seat majority in the House. If history is any indicator, roughly 50 Democrats out of those 77 will keep their seats. Why only 50? Because the president's party almost always loses seats in off-year elections. The Republicans would have to unseat 40 Democrats to gain majority status--highly unlikely.

The same goes for the Senate, where the Democrats currently have a 59-41 advantage. 36 seats are up for grabs in November. For the Democrats to maintain a majority there, they would have to win roughly 70% of the elections, a quite easy task when considering the advantages the incumbents already have.

Do not get me wrong, the Republicans will gain quite a few seats in November. It does not look like, however, that majority status is possible. There are simply too many obstacles to overcome.

Long-Term Implications

Before Medicare was enacted in 1965, Republicans cried socialism. Ronald Reagan famously said it would be the end of freedom. Today, Medicare is one of the most highly rated social programs. People like it, especially the elderly, who get free medical care when they turn 65. Republicans were proven wrong on Medicare, and there is quite the possibility that they will be proven wrong on health care reform.

Why? Consider the Republicans' main problem with the bill--its cost. In 20 years (or less), the average American will not care about the costs of the bill. The substance of the bill is what people will pay attention to. There is no reason to think that this bill will not be held in the same high regard that Medicare or Social Security is today.

Republicans paid politically for their stance against Social Security and Medicare. Americans like these programs because they better people's lives. They don't hate the bills because they cost a lot. Can anyone today, without doing research, tell me how much those programs cost? Americans, in the long term, do not care about costs; they care about whether a program improves lives.

Republicans will have an uphill battle in the future, because they will be the party that voted against regulating the insurance industry and giving more people access to health care. History shows that arguing about the costs of a bill simply does not pay off in the long run.

If the Health Care Bill Passes . . .

2010-03-19T16:58:00.003-05:00

Recent developments have made it look like the health care bill has a legitimate shot as passing. The cost and savings have apparently swayed a lot of fence-sitting Democrats. This is a major policy shift, so it's important to know the changes that will come in the next year--if the bill passes.

Insurance companies can longer put dollar caps on coverage. No annual caps or lifetime caps.

Insurance companies can no longer reject someone with a pre-existing condition.

Children can stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Small businesses can get tax credits of up to 50% of premiums as an incentive to provide health benefits to their employers.

All new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care (such as a yearly check-up).

There will be a special appeals process set up for those who have been denied coverage by an insurance company.

Please not that these are immediate effects. Many other items in the bill will not become effective until 2014.

From CNN.com

The Health Care End Game

2010-03-17T16:26:00.004-05:00

Update: The Congressional Budget Office today annnounced that the health care bill would save $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years. That is a massive figure, and is likely to sway a lot of Democrats who were on the fence.

From a political standpoint, it is fascinating to watch what is going on in the House right now. The majority leadership is scrounging for votes at the last minute in the hopes of getting the necessary votes to pass the health care bill.

By the way, I want to correct what is already a common misperception. There has been a report out that the Democrats might use a House procedure called "deem," where they would vote on the changes to the Senate bill and then "deem" the major health care bill passed. This is inconsequential. A majority must still pass the first bill. There is little chance that a House member would switch his or her vote from one bill to the next. Now, on to where the health care bill stands.

Because of a few vacancies in the House right now, the Democrats will need 216 votes to pass the bill. No Republicans will vote for the bill--178 votes that the Democrats cannot count on. There are currently 253 Democrats in the House. Of the 253:

26 are voting no. That leaves 227 votes.

Of those 227, 65 are undecided or have not publicly stated a position.

That means the Democrats currently have only 162 sure-fire-yes votes, and they need 83% of the outstanding votes. That can't instill a lot of confidence in the House leadership only days away from a vote that could swing the political pendulum toward Republicans for the next several months.

I said back in November--in this post--that I thought the health care vote would ultimately fail, and I still think it will. I thought the problem for the Dems would be the Senate, but after the House passed its own previous version by only a few votes, it was clear that the House was the biggest hurdle for Democrats.

The suspense continues . . . .

Obama's Persuasion Problem

2010-03-14T23:40:00.002-05:00

Richard Neustadt wrote a book in 1960 titled Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. This book, guaranteed, has been read by every president since Kennedy. Neustadt's thesis was simple, yet absolutely true: the power of a president is the power to persuade. American government is simply too complex for the president to lead all the various factions that exist in government. Therefore, he has to be able to build a coalition of those who are willing to accept that his point of view is correct--that what he wants to accomplish is the best course of action. Without that ability, a president's leadership is crippled and ineffective.

What we have seen in the first 14 months of Obama's presidency is that he has a persuasion problem. This is ironic considering that he is probably the best orator to hold that office. But the message coming from President Obama is nothing like the message coming from candidate Obama. It is nuanced and sometimes conflicting and confusing. This is trouble if you buy into Neustadt's theory (which everybody does).

Part of the blame rests on the shoulders of Obama himself; some of his staff is to blame as well. All of them, at some time or another, underestimated the right-wing noise machine and its ability to send a clear and concise message to the American people. Republican leaders in Congress, tea parties, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and conservative columnists have, since Obama announced his candidacy, repeatedly uttered words like "socialist, Marxist, and Stalinist to describe the current president.

Those are, of course, wildly inaccurate descriptions, but if you say something enough, the casual observer of politics--which is a massive number of people--will eventually believe it. It permeates their brains and inevitably becomes their reality.

The truth is, Obama has been quite the centrist in his approach over the past year. His health care plan is more conservative than the one Richard Nixon favored in the early 1970s. A third of the stimulus package was for tax cuts. He allotted $30 billion to small businesses from the TARP Act (the stimulus package passed toward the end of the Bush administration). He increased troop levels in Afghanistan. He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts to return them to Reagan-era levels.

So why are words winning out over reality? Because this White House has trouble getting its message across, plain and simple. This should be relatively easy to do; the president always has a forum. But for various reasons, they have failed to do it. This is for at least three reasons that I can see:

(1) Unclear Messages- Repeatedly, the White House has changed its message regarding health care. When Obama was elected, the majority of Americans wanted a public option (government-provided health insurance). Now, the majority does not. Obama originally said that a public option was essential to health care reform. Then he said it wasn't. This is but one example. There are others. But an effective message must be clear. It cannot be murky; if it is, the American people will waver, and that is exactly what has happened in the great health care debate.

(2) Nuanced Messages- Nuance works for probably 20% of the American people, and much fewer depending on which policy you're talking about. The problem is that nothing ever got done in this country with only 20% support. American people like the bottom line. They do not like details. They don't like hearing about the intricacies involved in getting the Sunnis and Shiites to work together. They don't like hearing about the differences between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

This White House, then, must learn to do what Republicans have done so effectively for so long: make the message simple. In quite crass terms: dumb the message down. Good versus evil, black and white. That's what works. Keep the nuance in the Cabinet meetings.

(3) Defensive Tactics- This White House has failed to go on the offensive. If you are the president, you always have cameras; you have the collective ear of the American public. You have the ability, then, to strike the first blow, to suppress your opponent's message before it's released and to reduce its effectiveness once it is. Obama and his team, however, have sat idly by while the smear campaign takes root.

It looks as if the health care reform experiment will fail before it reaches Obama's desk. This is not because it did not have public support; it had majority support just a few months ago. It is because this White House has dropped the ball in its vital job of communicating a clear message to the American people.

Rick Perry: Education Expert

2010-03-12T14:35:00.005-06:00

It is quite amazing that Rick Perry is about to add years onto his title as longest serving governor in Texas history. He will win in November unless he commits a felony between now and then, and if he serves out his four years in office, he will have been this state's governor for 14 years. What happened to the pro-term-limits conservatives?

I say it's amazing that Perry will win again because virtually everyone I talk to who cares about this stuff is fed up with Perry. They mention his executive order to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for all girls in the sixth grade and up. They mention his support of the Trans-Texas Corridor. They mention the fact that Texans' homeowner's insurance rates are the highest in the country. And the list goes on.

Perry's defeat of Kay Bailey Hutchison and his eventual defeat of Bill White is attributable to his status as darling of the Texas business community and special interest groups. Those are two incredibly powerful forces that will not be drowned out by a moderate Republican and much less a Democrat in an ultra-conservative state. That's just the way it is.

But if someone is still looking for a reason to vote against Perry, he gave it to him the other day.

The National Governors Association met this week in Seattle. As part of its resolutions, it proposed national standards for English and math in schools for kids in kindergarten through the 12th grade. 48 governors signed on to the resolution. The two that did not? Alaska and Texas. Rick Perry's reasoning defied all logic and evidence. He said, "Texas knows best how to educate our students."

At best, this is laughable. At worst, it is scary. If any state doesn't know how to educate its students, it's Texas. Texas has some of the worst performing schools in the nation, and we have the highest dropout rate as well. We rank 35th in per-pupil spending. What about those facts suggest that the leaders in this state know how to educate our kids?

It is comments like these that make me wonder how Perry could possibly have any credibility left.

Liz Cheney: Slandering Justice

2010-03-10T15:07:00.003-06:00

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, seems to have followed in her father's footsteps: her unhealthy focus on terrorism has apparently trumped adherence to bedrock constitutional principles.

She recently started a website along with fellow neoconservative and columnist William Kristol, called keepamericasafe.com. In that website, she has called out seven attorneys now working for the Justice Department who once provided legal advice to those accused of terrorism against the United States.

To Liz Cheney, giving legal advice to those accused of crimes is apparently an unAmerican activity. She might want to check the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees everyone accused of a crime the right to an attorney.

The website also chided the Justice Department for not releasing the names of the seven attorneys, which the site called "The Al Qaeda Seven." FOX News later released the names.

This is political pandering at its worst. Not only is Cheney slandering the Constitution, but she is preying on the fears of the extreme right. This will indeed play well to the ultra-conservatives, but is is not sitting well with many Republicans, including many from the Bush administration. It is also not sitting well with the Federalist Society, the policy group devoted to conservative principles.

America is a country that prides itself on equal justice under the law. Part of ensuring that we have equal justice is providing everyone with a defense--even unpopular clients. Simply because attorneys have certain clients does not mean that they sympathize with those clients or the acts they are accused of. John Adams, one of our great founding fathers, defended the British soldiers accused of murdering citizens in the Boston Massacre. I wonder what he would think of Liz Cheney's comments.

Westboro Baptist Church: Free Speech?

2010-03-08T15:05:00.004-06:00

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a fascinating free speech case. The case involves a Kansas Baptist Church and their noted reputation for protesting at the funerals of American soldiers.

For years, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church have protested--quite loudly-- at various funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their reason? The church pastor, Fred Phelps, and the rest of the congregation, believe that God is punishing the United States for the "sin of homosexuality." In addition to their vocal objections, they carry signs, the messages of which you can see in the above picture.

Last year, the father of a marine killed in Iraq won a $5 million judgment against the church. That verdict, however, was overturned on appeal. And now, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue.

As despicable as the messages on the signs are, the Court will largely not pay attention to them. If we decided whether someone had a free-speech right simply based on the message of a sign or the words they were uttering, we could suppress any speech that the majority of people disagreed with. That is not what the First Amendment is about. The First Amendment is about protecting all types of speech, regardless of whether the majority agrees with it.

So, the issue here is whether protests should be allowed at the funeral of soldiers, regardless of what the protesters' message is. That will require the Court to balance the free speech rights of the protesters against the privacy rights of the soldiers' family.

Suppressing free speech is incredibly hard to do in this country. In fact, it is extremely rare that someone can have their speech suppressed legally. The Supreme Court has, through the years, carved out some exceptions to that rule. One of those exceptions, is that the government can restrict speech based on reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions. The starting point, however, is that free speech rights are virtually unlimited.

As far as the privacy rights for the family, the Court has never dealt with the level of privacy required at a funeral. My guess is that the Court will recognize that the utmost privacy is required at such an event. There is arguably no more solemn time in a mother's or father's life than having to bury a son or daughter. It is an immensely private, emotional moment. It seems, then, that restricting the protests for the 30 or 45 minutes of the funeral is a "reasonable" restriction. Thus, it seems logical here that the privacy rights outweigh the free speech rights.

It is a great testament to the First Amendment that these church members can say what they want and have any sign they want without fear of what the government will do. As hateful as their message is, they have a right to do it. I am guessing, however, that they do not have a right to disrupt a funeral. There are plenty of other times, places, and manners in which to get their despicable message across. Let the families and friends conduct the funeral in peace.

Senate Rules

2010-03-05T08:17:00.002-06:00

The Senate's own rules are bad for the country. Why? Because they give one individual member extremely too much power.

The Constitution gives each chamber in Congress the right to establish its own rules. For many years, that has effectively meant that 60 votes (out of 100) are needed to pass legislation in the Senate. That is because of the filibuster--the ability of one senator to halt, and eventually kill, legislation. The only way to stop the filibuster is a through cloture--60 votes. The filibuster is generally called a "hold."

What this has translated to in practical terms is that cloture is rarely used because even the threat of a filibuster stops most legislation. If the side trying to stop the filibuster knows that it doesn't have 60 votes, it has to cave in to the minority.

Two recent examples have illustrated the problem with senators having way too much power.

The first involves Richard Shelby from Alabama. Last month, Shelby put a hold on 70 Barack Obama nominations to federal courts and certain executive positions. Why? Because Shelby was upset that his state wasn't getting enough money from the White House to pay defense contractors in his state. Shelby finally relented when his tactic was exposed in the media.

The second example is more recent. Up until two days ago, Jim Bunning from Kentucky put a hold on extending unemployment benefits to roughly 100,000 workers. He was upset that there was not currently a way to pay for extending those benefits. That is quite ironic considering that Kentucky's unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

The framers of the Constitution wanted each chamber in Congress to have some autonomy to make their own decisions. I doubt very seriously, though, that they would have been in favor of each Senator having so much power. What, exactly, is wrong with having a system where the majority of votes wins? That's the way the House of Representatives does it, and that seems to work just fine.

The Second Amendment's Practical Effects

2010-03-03T16:09:00.002-06:00

In my previous post, I discussed the issues in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the case about whether the Second Amendment should apply to states and localities. Yesterday, that case was argued. Two observations:

(1) It is quite clear that at least five of the justices will vote in favor of extending the restriction in the Second Amendment to states and cities. That is no surprise, since five justices said in 2008 that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own a gun.

(2) The justices focused quite heavily on the practical implications of extending the Second Amendment. The Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That is a horribly written sentence. However, because we now know that it means that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, what does infringing on the right to keep and bear arms really mean?

Does it mean I have the right to openly carry my gun down the street?

Can I carry my gun inside government offices?

Can I buy a bazooka?

If you answer "no" to these questions, then aren't you saying that the government has a right to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, something that the Amendment strictly prohibits?

The point is that the result of the Court's ruling (presuming I have guessed correctly) is that there will be years--decades--of legal challenges to gun restrictions. Those restrictions, to be constitutional, must be what Justice Scalia called "reasonable." Answering "no" to the above questions seems reasonable, but that will be for the courts to decide--because you know the legal challenges are coming.

Chicago, Handguns, and the Supreme Court

2010-03-01T16:43:00.002-06:00

The Supreme Court tomorrow will hear its second big case regarding the Second Amendment. The first was Washington D.C. v. Heller(2008). That case involved Washington D.C's ban on owning handguns.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to own a firearm. Thus, D.C.'s ban was unconstitutional.

That case, however, applied only to Congress (because Congress has jurisdiction over the District). It did not apply to the states or to cities. That is because, as originally written, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on what Congress could do. They did not affect what the states could do. Since the early 1900s, however, the Supreme Court has said that certain rights in the Bill of Rights also apply to other levels of government (states and cities).

So, for instance, Los Angeles nor California may restrict someone from exercising his or her right to freedom of speech, even though the first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." The Court has never, however, said that the Second Amendment applies to the states. That is the central question in the case tomorrow: Does the Second Amendment's grant of an individual right to own a firearm apply to the states just as it does the federal government?

Right now, the city of Chicago prohibits anyone living within the city limits from owning a handgun.

My guess is that the Court's answer to the question will be "yes," the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. In other words, cities nor states may prohibit individuals from owning a firearm.

I base this on two facts: (1) There seems to be no logical reason for not extending the Second Amendment's protection. The Court said in Heller that an individual has the right to own a gun, and that is a pretty bold statement. To put the brakes on it and say that the right does not extend beyond the district limits of Washington would not make much sense; (2) Very few individual rights have not been made applicable to the states.

It should be noted that the Court in Heller said that "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership would be constitutionally acceptable. My guess is also that a total ban on gun ownership, in the majority's eyes, is not reasonable.

The case is McDonald v. Chicago.

Political Participation

2010-02-25T16:38:00.002-06:00

I'm not breaking any news here, but political participation in America is abysmal compared to other Western democracies. And that covers most forms of participation, from voting to protests. There are many things that can explain this; a big reason is America's individualistic culture--participating in democracy takes working with others and compromise. It takes relying on the community around you, and that's something many Americans simply don't do anymore. If anything, we are becoming even more individualistic.

In the textbook that I'm teaching out of currently, there is an interesting quote from Robert Kaplan from The Atlantic Monthly. He said, "The last thing we need is more voters--particularly alienated and uneducated ones--with a passion for politics."

Kalan's quote is quite disturbing, but his sentiment is not all that uncommon. There a re a lot of Americans who say they don't want uneducated voters having a say in our democracy. His quote is disturbing, however, because this is indeed a democracy, which relies on citizen participation: the fewer voters we have, the less representative our country actually is. Therefore, our democracy is not functioning at the capacity that it could if we had greater participation.

When only a few people vote, only those select few are deciding the direction of the country. And who typically participates? The highest voting rate among Americans is from those who are white, have more than a high school education, and have higher incomes. This is indeed a problem since the group I just described comes nowhere close to comprising the majority of Americans.

And there is a certain irony here: those who usually don't participate in our democracy are actually the ones who stand to benefit the most by doing so.

So, dear reader, do you agree with Kaplan's quote?

Broken Government

2010-02-23T10:06:00.002-06:00

In a recent CNN poll, 86 percent of respondents said that government was broken. Only five percent, however, said that things were beyond repair. The biggest increase from four years ago in those who think government is broken was among those with high incomes and those who live in rural areas. It's no coincidence that that particular group is the heart of the Tea Party movement.

Beyond that, however, 86 percent is an astounding number, and a group that large cuts across all demographics of American society. It should bee noted, however, that most people blame Congress. The president, the Supreme Court, executive agencies, and cabinet departments all have much higher approval ratings than Congress. A recent poll said that the disapproval rating of Congress is a whopping 75 percent.

So, what is the problem? What, exactly, is wrong with our elected leaders in Congress? Why does the public perceive that this institution is broken? To me, there appears to three main reasons why this is so. I could expound on these quite a bit. In the interest of brevity, however, I will give just a brief synopsis of each problem. Here they are, starting with the most significant.

(1) Reapportionment

The Constitution requires that we conduct a census every ten years. When the results are in, we must redraw our congressional districts to ensure that they contain roughly the same amount of people to ensure that representation remains fair. The state legislatures are in charge of redrawing the congressional districts within their respective states.

The problem is that this process has become so partisan. And, because the party in power wants to remain in power, they draw "safe" districts, where they have very little chance of losing to a candidate from another party. This means that the biggest challenge to an incumbent in Congress often comes in the primary election, not the general election. Look at John McCain right now. He is in the fight of his life from another Republican challenger.

What this results in is that candidates must cater to the extreme of their party, as opposed to courting moderate voters in a general election. And, because campaigns last so much longer today, candidates now spend a lot longer at the far end of the political spectrum. This results in gridlock in Congress. If you appear too moderate on certain issues, your primary challenger will eat your lunch. You don't dare vote against your party if you are up for reelection.

(2)Health Care

When Barack Obama won by almost 9 million votes, part of it was because the majority of Americans said that our health care system was broken and a majority supported Obama's position of a national health care system.

The public, however--and Obama for that matter--were not aware and prepared for the grueling fight that was to come. Republicans for the most part have fought this tooth and nail. Interest groups have poured millions of dollars into fighting the health care bill.

This has resulted in disillusionment among the majority of Americans. The majority wants health care to be fixed, yet they are upset that little progress has been made in over a year. They see this as broken government, a government that can't get anything done.

(3) The Media

I generally do not complain about the media's effect on policy, but I think it is quite appropriate here.

There is a mountain of sociological evidence that shows that the more we are exposed to one particular viewpoint, the more we become entrenched in that viewpoint. Related to media, the more you watch FOX News, the more conservative you will become. The more you watch MSNBC, the more liberal you will become.

With outlets like FOX News, MSNBC, and talk radio, people are becoming more entrenched in ideological extremes. This feeds displeasure with Congress because the ideological extreme viewpoint rarely makes its way into a law. Democracy is about compromise and if you are living on the outer edge of the political spectrum, you are not living in the real world of how a government functions.

Jail for Baptism?

2010-02-19T11:19:00.002-06:00

Joseph Reyes could be sentenced up to six months in jail for baptizing his daughter in the Catholic Church. This sounds like a story from Iran, but it's actually from Chicago.

Reyes is in a bitter divorce battle with his wife, who is Jewish. As part of the proceedings, the judge in the case ordered Reyes not to expose "his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion." Because Reyes took his daughter to church and had her baptized, he is facing a criminal contempt charge.

This case is not about Catholicism or Judaism. It's about a court interfering with religion, which should scare every American.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject of religion and government many times. When confronted with whether government is attempting to establish religion--something that the First Amendment strictly forbids--the Court applies what is known as the Lemon Test (named after the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman).

The test requires a court to answer three questions:

(1) Does the law have a secular (non religious) purpose?

(2) Does the law either advance or inhibit religion?

(3) Is there an excessive government entanglement with religion?

The test undoubtedly applies here; the judge in the case, through a court order, forbade Reyes from taking his daughter to church. That is a law, violation for which there is punishment.

So, to answer the first question from Lemon, no, the law does not have a secular purpose. If it had a secular purpose, the court order would have left anything referring to religion out of it. Instead, it prohibited Reyes from exercising his religion with his daughter present. It could be argued that the judge was simply trying to minimize the conflict between Reyes and his wife. Nevertheless, there are ways to do this other than involving religion.

The second question's answer is yes. It is quite obvious that the judge was both advancing and inhibiting religion through his court order. He was advancing Judaism and inhibiting every other religion.

The third answer also seems to be a "yes." When a judge--a government official--tells someone that he can't take his own child to church, that is very much an entanglement of government and religion.

Reyes' court date is on March 3. He successfully motioned the court to have another judge hear the criminal contempt case. Hopefully, that judge will dismiss the charge. As for the judge who issued this order, he should go home and read the First Amendment.

The "I'm Gay" License Plate

2010-02-16T15:37:00.002-06:00

Is a personalized license plate free speech? If so, what kinds of messages can be banned and what kinds of messages must be allowed?

Those are the questions that an Oklahoma judge will eventually have to answer. Keith Kimmel, an Oklahoma City resident, applied for a personalized license plate that would have read, "I'm Gay." The Oklahoma Tax Commission rejected his application because of an internal policy that allows such rejections for plates that "may be offensive to the general public."

Courts have not dealt very much with the license plate issue. The most famous case is from 1977, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Jehovah's Witness member was not required to have New Hampshire's slogan, "Live Free or Die," on his license plate because the message conflicted with his religion. The freedom to speak," the Court reasoned,"is the freedom not to speak." By requiring that message on all license plates, New Hampshire was forcing drivers to convey a certain message.

So, it seems clear that license plates are a form of free speech. From there, the issue gets quite complicated. It does seem apparent, however, that Kimmel is engaged in free speech here: professing the claim that he is gay is an exercise in freedom of expression.

And judging from what I've heard so far, it appears that Oklahoma might have a problem. The Tax Commission's policy of rejecting "offensive" messages is incredibly vague language that would have little chance of holding up in court. Beyond that, Oklahoma has already allowed someone to have the plate STR8FAN and another to have the plate STR8SXI. Is "I'm Gay" any different? If so, what, exactly, is the difference?

If the "offensive" standard holds up in court, does "I'm Gay" fall into that category? From my perspective, it doesn't seem to. One might not like the the fact that Kimmel is gay, but his profession of that fact can hardly be deemed offensive.

I will say that states do have some leeway is disallowing applications for plates that would have profane or obscene messages. For instance, the letters "FU" together alway throw up a red flag for the words that they could stand for. In fact, Colorado last year rejected a woman's application for a plate that would have read ILVTOFU.

Depsite what the state thought--that the woman was professing her love for amorous activity--it turns out she's just a really big fan of tofu.

I think Kimmel will eventually get his wish. In fact, Oklahoma might just give in instead of spendnig the money defending the suit. Only time will tell.

Debra Medina

2010-02-15T15:09:00.003-06:00

This is not photoshopped. It really is Debra Medina, Republican candidate for governor, holding a pistol. She has said that she would like to see the eradication of federal gun laws and was angered over the fact that she couldn't take her gun into the grocery store.

No one gave Medina much thought last year when she announced her candidacy for governor. Now, however, her candidacy is getting national play as she creeps up in the polls on the two heavyweights, Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison (KBH). Medina has performed fairly well in two debates, while Perry and KBH have descended into squabbles with one another.

It appears Medina is rising in the polls for two reasons: (1) Texas Republicans have figured out that KBH is a moderate Republican, and moderate Republicans are about as popular among conservatives as food poisoning; and (2) many Republicans are tired of Rick Perry, the longest serving Texas governor in history.

Medina has no chance of winning the primary, despite what she or her supporters will tell you. What's fascinating politically about this race, however, is how extreme Medina appears to be and how much support she apparently has.

Take, for instance, her stance on nullification--the idea that a state can nullify a federal law and make the federal law unenforceable within that state. She is all for it. In the first debate, she said she would eradicate the Environmental Protection Agency within Texas, and would tell the agency, "You have no authority here."

This type of rhetoric hearkens back to the era of dual federalism before the Civil War. The idea of dual federalism is that the states and the federal government are separate and have clearly defined powers. There are also some subscribers of that theory--apparently Medina is one of them--who say that states and the federal government should be coequal in power.

The U.S Constitution dispels that notion, but the idea has caught on with many of Medina's supporters. Whether Medina truly believes that Texas has the authority to nullify a federal law or whether such a statement is political posturing meant to garner conservative votes is unclear. What is clear, however, is that it's working. She is currently hovering around 20% in the latest polls.

Rick Perry will win the Republican Primary. He might have a runoff election with KBH, but he will eventually be chosen to represent the Republican Party in the gubernatorial election. Then, he will beat Bill White, the Democratic candidate, by at least 15 points, maybe even 20. Medina, however, has made her mark.

So, what does this say about the current Republican Party in Texas? It says two things: (1) conservatism in Texas is farther to the right on the political spectrum than it has ever been (that is evidenced by Medina's success in this race); and (2) moderate Republicans have been ousted from the Texas Republican Party for almost two decades (that is evidenced by KBH's poor showing in this race). Just as it has since the 1990s, ultraconservatism in Texas means success in the Republican Party. For proof, look at the polls.

The Whistle-Blowing Nurse

2010-02-12T13:58:00.002-06:00

Most criminal cases deserve to be prosecuted. There are others, however, where you can't help but wonder what law enforcement was thinking and what prosecutors were thinking.

Such was the case with Anne Mitchell, a nurse at a hospital in tiny Kermit, Texas. Her offense? Filing an anonymous complaint with the Texas Medical Board accusing a doctor, Rolando Arafiles, of unethical conduct.

The complaint surrounded several incidents where Dr. Arafiles performed unorthodox treatment, some for which the Texas Medical Board had already warned him about. The complaint did not mention patients' names, but instead listed their file numbers.

The reason there was even an investigation of her actions was because of the friendship between Arafiles and the sheriff of the county, Robert Roberts. Roberts has credited Arafiles with saving his life after a heart attack last year. After Arafiles notified the sheriff of the complaint filed by Mitchell, the sheriff began an investigation.

Soon after, Mitchell was arrested under the incredibly vague offense of "misuse of official information." That is a third-degree felony, which could have put Mitchell in prison for ten years.

For the prosecution to be successful, they would have to prove that Mitchell did not file the complaint in "good faith." In other words, they would have to prove that Mitchell had some ulterior motive in filing the complaint other than the danger she thought Arafiles posed to patients. Thankfully, the prosecution couldn't reach that burden.

I say "thankfully" because imagine if Mitchell had been found guilty. How many other nurses would now keep their mouths shut even when they felt that doctors were practicing dangerous medicine? That is a scary prospect for both patients and the public's confidence in the medical profession. If a nurse sees a doctor doing something that she believes endangers the well-being of patients, she should be able to complain to the Medical Board without fear of retribution.

Involuntary Manslaughter

2010-02-09T10:21:00.003-06:00

Because Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter, I thought I would give a quick overview of what that means exactly, and why that is an appropriate charge in this case.

Involuntary manslaughter is killing another human being without intent. In every other type of homicide, the killer intends to kill the victim. With involuntary manslaughter, however, the killer never means to end the victim's life--he is simply negligent enough in his actions that the person ends up dead. In fact, some states have replaced the term involuntary manslaughter with "criminally negligent homicide"(CNH).

Normally, being negligent is not a criminal offense, but society has said that when you are negligent and someone dies, that is serious enough to warrant jail time.

For example, leaving a baby in a hot car and forgetting about him/her has been successfully prosecuted as involuntary manslaughter or CNH.

Just last week, an Oregon couple's child got sick. They relied on faith healing to make the child better. What they should have done was have the child admitted to the hospital. The couple was convicted of CNH.

So, what about Dr. Conrad Murray? What the prosecution will have to prove in this case (as in all other involuntary manslaughter cases) is that Murray knew or should have known that administering the drug Propofol could result in Jackson's death.

Doctors have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter before; the case usually involves a doctor prescribing excessive painkillers. It seems as though this is a pretty clear-cut case--Murray, a doctor was knowledgeable in the uses and effects of Propofol. Obviously, however, we will have to hear all the facts.

The Deficit Truth

2010-02-08T15:49:00.002-06:00

As I watched the Tea Partiers descend upon Nashville for their first convention and pay $550 to hear Sarah Palin spout her down-home-Wasilla wisdom, I was struck by their focus on the current U.S. deficit and utter disdain for Barack Obama. It's not as if this is anything new--we heard this stuff last year--but to listen to these folks, you would think that (1) Obama hates America, and (2) he is solely responsible for the deficit we currently face.

As for the hating America stuff, that's ludicrous. Why would he want to run the country if he hated it? As for the deficit, the Tea Partiers' anger is so misguided that it would be laughable were it not so damaging to the political system. So, I think it's necessary that we correct the misconceptions about the deficit that exist in Tea Party Land.

For starters, some raw numbers. The deficit is projected to be $1.3 trillion in 2011. That is a staggering number. However, why is it that Republicans refuse to acknowledge the fact that we would not be in this position were it not for the failed fiscal policies of George W. Bush?

For years under Bush's leadership, a Republican-controlled Congress continued to cut taxes--mainly for the wealthy--while continuing to spend money as if there were no consequences. George H.W. Bush, a moderate Republican never fully embraced by the Reagan administration nor his own party, famously called this "voo doo" economics. If you continue to cut taxes and spend money, you will eventually be so deep in the red that you can't see a way out.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, there was a federal budget surplus--the only federal surplus in history. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a surplus for at least a decade. However, next came trillion-dollar tax cuts and two wars, and more spending. Where were the tea-party types then, complaining about fiscal irresponsibility? We can certainly argue about whether cutting taxes for millionaires is a good idea, but doing it while you increase spending is idiocy.

Thirteen days before Obama took office, the CBO projected a 2009 deficit of over over a trillion dollars. That means that the governmeent went from a surplus of $127billion to a deficit of over $1 trillion in eight years. That is almost unbelievable. What's more unbelievable is that George W. Bush has not received the ire from the Tea Partiers as Obama has. If the deficit is truly what bothers the Tea Partiers, then they should have spoken up circa 2001 and now, they should redirect their anger to the the Republican leadership of the last decade.

Why do We Have the Electoral College?

2010-02-04T10:48:00.004-06:00

Most Americans have not even a vague understanding of the Electoral College. Of those who do, most do not understand why we have it. So, I'll do my part to first explain what the Electoral College is, and secondly, to explain why it exists.

The Electoral College is the system by which we elect the president. The two major political parties in each state have electors. The number of electors is the sum of the representatives and senators from each state. Texas, for instance, has 32 representatives and two senators; that means Texas has 34 electors. There are 34 electors in the Texas Republican Party and 34 electors in the Texas Democratic Party. The system is the same in all 50 states.

Whichever presidential candidate gets more votes in a particular state determines which electors will get to cast their vote for president. Going back to Texas again, John McCain (the Republican) got more votes in that state than Barack Obama (the Democrat). That means that McCain got 34 electoral votes from Texas, and Obama received none. Whichever candidate gets a majority of electoral votes--at least 270--wins the presidency.

So why do we have this system? Why doesn't the popular vote decide who will become president? Now, for some constitutional history.

The framers of the Constitution (the "Framers") confronted three basic problems when deciding how a president should be selected:

(1) They were concerned about a figure who would take on too much power and resemble a king;

(2) They were concerned about the "common" man having the power to select the leader of the executive branch; and

(3) The large states at the Constitutional Convention wanted members of Congress to select the president. The small states did not want this: they would not have as much of a say in who became president (because they had fewer members in Congress than did the large states).

So, here is what the Framers decided.

(1) The president will be limited to four years in office, and then he will face reelection. This makes him accountable to the people, and alleviated the Framers' concerns about a leader with too much power. The president will be careful not to amass too much power because he must answer to the people in four-years' time.

(2) The people will get a say in who becomes president. After all, this is a democracy, right?

(3) But, the people who actually elect the president will be the electors from the states. This allows the "common" person to have an input in who becomes president, but it also allows input from the states and, ultimately, benefits the small states (the smaller your state is, the greater say you have in who your electors choose to vote for).

So, dear reader, when you vote for president, what you are actually voting for is the electors from your state. It is they who decide who becomes president, not you directly.

Like so many things in our Constitution, the Electoral College was a compromise. Do we still need it? Most Americans say no. Is it going away? The chances are slim and none. First, there are those who want to keep it around. Second, to do away with the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, and achieving that is a horrendously difficult process.

Gays in the Military

2010-02-03T14:24:00.004-06:00

Gays and lesbians have served this country valiantly for decades, despite the policies slanted against them. There is simply no logical reason why we should continue to dismiss homosexuals if they are willing to pay the ultimate price for America.

Just as my previous post on gay marriage and DOMA, gays in the military is another contentious issue. While not as controversial as whether states should have to recognize a same-sex union, the issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military does tend to get people riled up. The coverage the story has gotten in the past two days is proof.

Since the military's inception, allowing homosexuals to serve in the military was not even a question. If someone found out you were gay, or you admitted that you were gay, you were kicked out. In fact, the gay claim--true or false--was a quick ticket out for many from nasty places like the Japanese Islands or Vietnam.

Then came 1993. Recently inaugurated, Bill Clinton sought to lift the ban on gays in the military. Congress, the military, and the American Public, however, did not want to move so quickly. So, a compromise was reached--do not ask the sexual orientation of new recruits, and new recruits should not reveal their orientation. If it is revealed however, the result is the same as under the old policy, and homosexuals are kicked out. Hence, the famed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy." Since the policy's inception, over 13,000 military personnel have been discharged because they were homosexual.

That policy now, however, also appears to be nearing its end. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advocate allowing gay members to serve openly. The same goes for the American public, where polls generally show that about two-thirds of Americans are in favor of lifting the ban.

The other two thirds, along with most Republicans in Congress, object to the idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals in the military should be treated the same. In fact, Republicans yesterday coughed up the same tired claims that we usually hear for not allowing gays in the military: it would hurt morale; how do we keep them from engaging in homosexual acts?; it's a step toward relaxing other military policies; logistics issues; etc.

What they were afraid to say was they have a moral objection to homosexuals, but they did not, out of fear that they would seem backwoods or out of touch with a majority of America. Thankfully, most of the country realizes that one's view on homosexuality has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to defend our country.

So, none of the reasons given hold any water, and the top military brass doesn't accept them either; homosexual acts will be banned in the military just as heterosexuals acts are. Adultery will still be banned in the military ranks, whether you commit it with someone of the same or opposite sex. As for the morale issue, it seems that if someone is willing to die for his or her country--whether they be gay, straight, black, white, or brown--that would be a boost to morale. And isn't this the time that we need as many people as possible, when we're fighting two wars and military recruiters are consistently in danger of falling short of their quotas?

I was in high school when Clinton proposed lifting the homosexual ban. At my school back then, I heard shameful language regarding lifting the ban: Sure, let the gays serve in the military, just put them on the front lines; and "Sure, let them in the military, that means more of them will die." And I went to a Christian school.

I can't speak for the people who uttered those comments, but it's good to know that, perhaps, our country is a little more enlightened that it was even 16 years ago.

The reality is, gays and lesbians have served this country valiantly for decades, despite the policies slanted against them. There is simply no logical reason why we should continue to dismiss homosexuals if they are willing to pay the ultimate price for America.

DOMA and Gay Marriage

2010-02-01T14:33:00.003-06:00

The issue of gay marriage is obviously a contentious issue. Some liberals and libertarians believe that individual liberties should encompass one's right to choose whom to marry, without interference from government. Others-mostly conservatives and social conservatives--believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Regardless of one's belief on the topic , what might ultimately decide the issue for everyone involved is the U.S. Constitution.

Article 4 of the Constitution contains the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That clause says that all states must abide by the laws and judicial proceedings of all the other states. So, suppose I want to drive to California. Even though I have a Texas driver's license, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires New Mexico, Arizona, and California to honor my Texas driver's license. Why? Because it is the law in Texas that, as long as I have a valid driver's license, it is legal for me to operate a vehicle.

The same thing works in the case of a marriage. If you were married in New York, and then come down to Texas, Texas is required to honor that marriage (a judicial proceeding) even though it was the state of New York that signed off on it.

You can see where the problem is coming. Some states allow same-sex marriage and some have specifically forbidden it. For instance, Massachusetts has allowed it; Texas has a provision in its constitution that specifically prohibits it. So what happens if a gay, married couple from Massachusetts moves down to Texas? Is Texas required to honor that marriage? The U.S. Constitution's answer would seem to be "yes." But hold onto that thought.

In 1996, Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. So, according to DOMA, that Massachusetts couple is not married in Texas because Texas is not required to recognize that union.

What that means is that we have a federal law (DOMA) in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. So which one wins? The Constitution; it always trumps a federal law (and state law for that matter). So, is DOMA unconstitutional? It would seem so.

Another problem has popped up in a law that Congress passed last year. That law is similar to DOMA in principle, but the topic is concealed handgun licenses. The law says that no state has to honor a concealed handgun license from another state. So, if I have a concealed handgun license from Texas, I could be arrested in another state for carrying a concealed weapon, even though Texas said it was all right.

These two issues, as of yet, have not seen much litigation; the handgun-license law is too new and a lack of circumstances has not allowed the DOMA challenges to go very far in court. But the day is coming when federal courts will be forced to deal with these issues. On both counts, it seems logical that the Constitution should decide the issue.

The Abortion-Provider Murder

2010-01-29T07:15:00.003-06:00

Scott Roeder, the man accused of Killing Dr. George Tiller last May, a doctor who performed abortions, took the stand yesterday. By doing so, he sealed his fate.

For starters, it's almost never a good idea for a defendant to take the stand. It's a bear trap, a meat grinder, or any other metaphor where nothing looks as good coming out as it did going in.

But what makes Roeder's situation worse is that he admitted to the killing. He admitted buying a gun, going to target practice, and learning Tiller's habits, such as when he left for work and church.

This might sound like an insanity defense in the making, but it's hardly that at all. Roeder's position is that he felt compelled to murder because of his opposition to abortion and the feeling that he was saving lives by doing so.

When asked if he felt remorse for the killing, he flatly and coldly replied, "No."

So why did Roeder take the stand? It is ultimately the defendant's decision on whether he wants to do so. In this case, however, Roeder's lawyers were hoping that the judge would allow the jury to be given instructions on voluntary manslaughter, which Kansas law defines as “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”

While I'm certainly not an expert on Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter is a defense that is usually used in a "heat of the passion" killing; the classic example is coming home to find your wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage, you kill the guy. That is voluntary manslaughter. Roeder's absurd claim is that he premeditated a voluntary manslaughter, which is impossible. This was, quite clearly, a premeditated murder.

This tragic event also has to be put in context. Roeder considers himself a Christian, who testified that he realized his religion and abortion views went hand in hand after watching Pat Robertson's The 700 Club. No one is blaming Pat Robertson for Roeder's decision to kill, but I'm still looking for the passage in the Bible where Jesus said it was all right to take another human life.

Kansas Coach and the Law

2010-01-27T06:22:00.003-06:00

You've probably seen this video by now: A Kansas high school basketball coach is told that if he can make a half-court shot blindfolded, he will get tickets to the Final Four. Obviously that could never happen, right? Wrong! He made it.

So what happens now, except that the coach gets his 15 minutes of fame? Let us consider the law and what the ramifications could be.

The law of contracts applies. For there to be a contract, there has to be an offer, an acceptance, and something bargained for.

Was there an offer? Absolutely. The students might have meant it as a joke, but the law is well settled that we are not judged by the subjective thoughts in our head, but by our outward manifestations. "If you make this half court shot, we will give you tickets" is undoubtedly an offer.

Was there an acceptance? This is easy. The coach agreed to be blindfolded and shoot the ball. That is the acceptance. He performed the necessary act.

Was there something bargained for? Of course--the tickets.

So, because there was a contract, the coach could successfully sue the students. There are a thousand reasons why he won't and why he shouldn't. The lesson, though? Be careful what you say and what you offer to do, because you could be making a contract and not even know it.

Government

2010-01-26T15:35:00.002-06:00

There has been a disturbing trend in the past thirty years or so that that should be troubling to those who have faith that America is indeed the greatest country on Earth: an utter disdain for government and all that it stands for.

Hatred of government is nothing new; people argued against Aristotle when he said that government was necessary for community's sake. They argued against Thomas Hobbes when he said government is necessary to maintain order. They argued against Jean Jacque Rousseau when he said government should exist to preserve man's happiness.

What is troubling, however, is how the anti-government rhetoric has been ramped up in the past three decades. For instance, if you listen to the Tea Partiers today, you would think that government was not the ingenious invention of man, but the spawn of Satan.

This can be traced most directly back to Ronald Reagan and his familiar "government is the problem" speech, which convinced conservatives that government could offer no viable solution for any difficulty that existed in their lives. After Reagan got into office, however, he expanded the government bureaucracy and spent more on another government program--the military--than any president had before.

Why is this troubling? Two reasons. The first is that in a democracy, the people are running the show. So, if people continue to perpetuate the myth that at its core, government is evil, what incentive will the people have to make it better? If I'm convinced that split pea soup is just downright gross, am I going to spend tireless hours trying to improve it?

Secondly, it is troubling in such a great country as America that so many have lost sight as to what exactly makes us a great country. Without good government in the past, we would be nowhere close to the country we are today. When we think of government, we tend to think of bureaucracy in simple tasks such as getting a driver's license or registering to vote. But consider, for a moment, all that our American government has accomplished just in the past 100 years:

Our government has set up a Social Security system that provides retirees a means of assistance

Our government has enacted laws that make child labor illegal.

Our government has enacted laws that protect us from physical harm in the workplace.

Our government has enacted laws that protect us from discrimination regardless of our sex or race.

Our government has provided us health care for those who are likely least able to afford it (Medicare and Medicaid, for the elderly and poor, respectively)

Our government has set up a public education system that has produced some of the best and brightest our country has ever seen.

Our government has fought two world wars and protected us in many other situations when our security was threatened.

Our government has set up a court system to ensure that justices is done.

Our government enables those to go to college who might not be able to in the form of loans, grants, and scholarships.

Our government has one of the most efficient postal systems in the world.

Our government gives us police and fire protection.

Our government picks up our trash and provides us water.

These are but a few examples. There are thousands more. So, will government always work well and efficiently? Certainly not. But let's not forget the good that government has done. And more importantly, let's not treat it as evil, but as an institution that looks out for the benefit of all citizens. If we have that attitude, we can work together to make government work better.

General Welfare

2010-01-25T15:23:00.004-06:00

I hear a lot of talk these days about the founding fathers and how they wouldn't have envisioned the country we have today. While that may or may not be true, we often lose sight of exactly what our forefathers--the framers of the Constitution--were trying to accomplish.

To see this, we have to look no farther than the preamble to the Constitution, where the Framers set out their five "goals" for their new nation.

One of those goals is for American government to promote the general welfare. We often think of welfare in terms of monetary payments to the poor or food stamps. What this clause is referring to, however, is general welfare--those things that improve citizens' well being or quality of life.

The big three items in this country that we have said improve individuals' lives are education, health care, and income security.

We know that an educated society is a better society, and it is even more crucial in a democracy because the people are running the government (we dont' want a bunch of ignorant leaders running the show). Hence, this country has usually placed a very high importance on public education.

Health care is also something that has fallen under the category of general welfare. So, the government has set up systems like Medicaid and Medicare, although it took it until the 1960s to do so. Again, we know that the healthier people are, the better off they will be, so it's no surprise that our government has set up these systems. And it's no surprise that the government is now attempting to further promote the general welfare by providing health care access to all Americans.

Finally, income security improves people's lives. Hence, the Social Security Act was enacted to provide a safety net for those in retirement.

Few people would argue that our government should get out of the business of promoting the general welfare. Yes, there are some in this country who loathe public education and the Social Security Act. But, for the most part, people think those are two areas that government in America should be involved in. Medicare and Medicaid are two very popular programs,and the vast majority wants to keep them around.

Why, then, has there been resistance to providing universal health care? Is that not promoting the general welfare of society? Of course it is. But the answer lies in your political ideology, and how much general welfare you think should be provided.

If you are conservative, your answer is probably less and if you're liberal, your answer is probably more.

As is so often the case, our view of government (our political ideology) determines what we think about various laws and policy. And it is--undoubtedly--what makes politics so great.

Equality

2010-01-22T04:05:00.008-06:00

We are currently discussing in my classes American political culture--those common beliefs and values that Americans traditionally embrace. One of those is the concept of equality. We usually think of equality from the standpoint that all Americans--regardless of race or gender--will be treated the same by the government. Related to that notion is that we, as Americans, are entitled to equal justice under the law.

I tell my students, however, to think of equality in terms of volume; it changes depending on what facet of American life we are talking about. Yes, we all have equal justice under the law, but if I make a million dollars a year, I can hire a top notch attorney, whereas some people cannot afford an attorney at all. Statistics show that the more money you spend, the better lawyer you get, and the better chance you have of a favorable outcome at trial. So in that sense, is there really equal justice under the law?

What about wealth? Certainly there is not equality there. Some people work for minimum wage, and then there are people such as Bill Gates, who have virtually untold amounts of wealth.

What about schools? Some schools in America are great; some are atrocious.

Some Americans have health insurance; some don't.

Do we truly have racial equality in America? Gender equality?

The question then, is how much equality are we willing to give to society as a whole? Why are some things "more equal" than others? Why do we strive for racial equality but not equality in schools or equality in wealth?

The answers are numerous, of course. But in America, we have traditionally carved out laws to ensure equality for things that are immutable, such as race and gender. Other things, however, are largely left to the individual (as individualism is another tenet of American political culture). So, we have said, a man or woman, black or white, should have the same chances to succeed in life. Education, wealth, access to medical care, and virtually everything else in life, we have said--rightly or wrongly-- is the individual's responsibility.

So, just remember, equality is indeed something we embrace in America. But depending on the subject, it fluctuates. And how much equality you think we should truly have depends in large part on your political ideology.

Campaigns and Corporate Money

2010-01-21T10:16:00.003-06:00

The Supreme Court today drastically changed the way campaigns will be conducted. In a 5-4 ruling, it said that the law cannot prohibit corporations, unions, and, nonprofit entities from contributing to campaigns.

This is a dramatic left turn from what the law has been for over a century: corporations are forbidden from contributing to campaigns. Why? Because of the concern about the undue influence that money undoubtedly plays in American elections.

Now, that's out the window. Corporations will be free to spend untold amounts of money and unquestionably influence elections.

In writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy--wrapping his words in constitutional piety--equated the free speech of corporations with that of individuals.

Really? Microsoft should have the same free speech rights as you and me? Is that what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they designed the First Amendment.

Justice Stevens, in his dissent, called equating human speech and corporate speech a "grave error."

This decision will have untold consequences. What we do know, however, is that money will play an even larger role in campaigns and getting people elected. It is a fact that those with the most money have the loudest voices in campaigns. Those voices, now, will be from corporations and not from individuals.

F3PHQN9WFSD4

Obama- Year One

2010-01-20T13:47:00.003-06:00

Much has been made of Barack Obama's first year in office and what that might mean in terms of future success for him and for the Democratic Party. First, let's look at some facts, and then we'll look at whether we can glean any information from those facts and predict what might happen in the upcoming year politically.

First, Obama entered the Oval Office with an economy in shambles. It has been the worst economic downturn--by far--since the Great Depression. This has meant millions of lost jobs, millions of foreclosed homes, and millions of Americans with little or no hope.

This economic downturn, of course, was not Obama's doing. The heavy banking deregulation of the Reagan-Clinton years--and the further deregulation under George W. Bush--helped create a perfect storm that sent the economy spiraling downward.

However, presidents can stay in office only so long before the previous administration's problems become their problems, and we are starting to see that with the economic frustrations and frustration at the high unemployment rate.

Second, Obama inherited two--yes,two--wars. One is hard enough to deal with, but Obama inherited an Afghanistan situation that continues to deteriorate, and it is looking more like there might not be anything closely related to a good solution for ending the fight there. But, just like the economy, the wars are now Obama's problems, and the country is looking to him to solve them.

Third, Obama ran on a platform of health care for all Americans. He took up the issue, as did Congress, soon after he got into office. It seemed a relatively simple task to get the bill passed, with such large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Obama, however, has gotten a crash course in American individualistic culture and the power of interest groups. In many ways, the health care battle has consumed him and, quite possibly, driven his attention away from other potential accomplishments.

So, with that in mind, what can we learn about what 2010 will hold?

For starters, the way we measure the public's support for a president is through the presidential approval rating. As it stands right now, Obama's is at 50%. That is comparable to many recent presidents. Reagan's approval rating after his first year was 49%; Clinton's was 54%.

As to whether one can predict reelection success by looking at those numbers, the answer is no. Reagan and Clinton both got reelected; George W Bush (76% approval rating) and Carter (51%) did not.

Something else we need to look at is a president's ability to hold a majority in Congress. After all, the president can't get a lot done if Congress is controlled by the other party.

We know that a president's party loses seats in the first off-year election--there have been two exceptions to that rule in the past 60 years (Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002). So, how many seats is the Democratic Party likely to lose come November 2010?

Unfortunately, we can't predict that number by looking at a president's first year. In 1982, the Republican Party lost 25 seats in Congress, and Reagan won reelection in a landslide in 1984. In 1994, the Democratic Party lost 61 seats in Congress, and Clinton won in a landslide two years later. So, the bottom line is that there is no correlation between a president's first year in office and how many seats his party will lose in the midterm election or whether he's likely to get reelected.

What we can look at is the economy. If the economy is on the rebound by November 2010, the Democrats' seat-loss will be minimized. If unemployment, however, is still hovering around the 9-10% range, the Republicans should fair quite well.

The same goes for 2012. All things being equal, if the economy is back where it should be by then, Obama stands a pretty good chance at winning reelection. Many people forget that Reagan's approval numbers were extremely low in 1982 and many were predicting that he would be a one-termer. It wasn't until 1983, however, that the economy started to turn around, and Reagan's approval rating went up.

The lesson? A lot can change in just two years. How dissatisfied will the public be with the economy in 2010 and 2012? Will the Democratic Party be on a short leash, or will it--and Obama--get considerable slack for the mess they inherited?

Citizenship IQ

2010-01-18T19:56:00.003-06:00

The following is a for-fun quiz that I give my students on the first day. For my non students reading this, how many can you answer? Hopefully, your answer is all of them.

1. How many stars are there on the flag?

2. How many stripes are there on the flag?

3. What do the stripes on the flag represent?

4. When is our Independence Day?

5. What country did we fight in the Revolutionary War?

6. Who was the first president of the U.S.?

7. Who is the president today?

8. Who is the vice president?

9. What do we call a change to the Constitution?

10. How many changes to the Constitution are there?

11. What are the three branches of our government?

12. What is the legislative branch called?

13. Who makes the laws in the United States?

14. How many Senators are there in Congress?

15. Who are the two senators from Texas?

16. How many representatives are there in Congress?

17. How long is a Senator’s term in office?

18. How long is a representative’s term in office?

19. What is the highest court in the United States?

20. What is the supreme law of the United States?

21. What are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution called?

22. What is the capital of Texas?

23. Who is the governor of Texas?

24. Who is the chief justice of the Supreme Court?

25. Which countries were our principal allies during World War II?

26. How many terms can a president serve?

27. Who nominates the Supreme Court justices?

28. How many Supreme Court justices are there?

29. Who was the main writer of the Declaration of Independence?

30. Who wrote the Star Spangled Banner?

31. Which amendment to the Constitution gives us freedom of speech?

32. Who was president during the Civil War?

33. Who has the power to declare war?

34. Who is the commander in chief of the military?

35. In what month do we vote for president?

Massachusetts Special Election

2010-01-18T15:19:00.003-06:00

I am standing by what I said several months ago: health care reform will not get passed. I have my reasons for thinking so, which you can read about in this post. I did not, however, think the non passage would have anything to do with Massachusetts. It turns out Massachusetts might mean everything.

There is a special election tomorrow in that state to fill the seat left vacant by the late Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, is running against the Republican Scott Brown. As short as a week ago, Coakley was ahead in all the polls, if only by a slim margin. All the latest polls, however, have Brown with a slight lead. Factoring in margin of error and those who are undecided, though, means the race is a dead heat.

Brown's narrowing of the gap is explained by several things. The two principal factors are that (1) Coakley has run a fairly ineffective campaign; and (2) Republicans are painting this as a do-or-die election, which has motivated the base all across the country. This has resulted in a lot more publicity for Brown and, not surprisingly, more money.

So why does it matter so much? The Democrats currently hold a 59-40 advantage in the Senate (not counting the appointed Democrat who replaced Kennedy and who will vacate that seat after the election). If they get that 60th member, health care passage is much more likely, even with a Republican filibuster. It takes 60 votes to kill a filibuster, exactly what the Democrats would have. Brown has said he will vote against health care reform, which would likely mean the death of legislation pursued by Obama and congressional Democrats for almost a year.

It's hard to believe that a Republican could win in Massachusetts. Democrats there outnumber Republicans three to one, and the state has voted for a Republican president only twice since 1960. Being a special election (which means a relatively low turnout), however, favors Brown. If Brown wins, it will be--by far--the biggest blow to Obama's first year in office, and health care legislation will likely come to a screeching halt.

Perry-Hutchison--Round One

2010-01-15T16:08:00.002-06:00

Gubernatorial debate number one in the Republican primary is in the books. Contrary to the lovely picture you see above, it was nasty. Part of the reason I was so looking forward to this primary election is because I knew it would get nasty. The campaign ads are nasty, and last night's debate was simply an affirmation that Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison DO NOT like each other.

Here are a few observations from last night's showdown:

Neither Perry nor Hutchison has very good debating skills. They both had trouble at times getting their message across. Because Debra Medina (did you forget about her?) was left out of a lot of the bickering between the two front runners, her message many times was the clearest.

Perry must have gone to the George W. Bush Debating School. He speaks in very short, blunt sentences that are aimed at reaching those who know the least about him or about Texas politics in general. Hutchison, on the other hand, tried some nuance. Nuance might work in Washington, but it doesn't work in the Republican Primary, especially in Texas.

Remember before when I said that hard-core social conservatives are skeptical of Hutchison's position on the right to choose? Well, last night she alienated a lot of those individuals because of that very issue. She did not say that she was for overturning Roe v. Wade. Not a good move in your first debate.

Debra Medina is not going to win this race. She probably won't even garner enough votes to force a runoff. You do, however, have to admire her courage. The ones who will vote for her are likely to be those who identify with the individualist political culture ("government get off my back and leave me alone"). Her biggest support is likely to come from rural west Texas, where individualism is the strongest.

Speaking of Medina and judging from last night's debate, she seems to be more of a Libertarian than a Republican. Get this: she's for eliminating gun registration and property taxes. Property taxes pay for our public schools in this state; none of the moderators asked her exactly how she planned to fund public schools without a property tax. Her answer, I'm afraid, is that she doesn't plan to fund public schools--again, a very Libertarian position.

Score one for Perry. He wasn't very polished (except for his hair and fake tan), but he was better than Hutchison. I'm assuming there will be at least another one of these before the primary (March 2). That will be Hutchison's chance to strike back. If she doesn't land a big blow, Rick Perry (Governor Goodhair as Molly Ivins used to say) will be here another four years.

Civil Commitment

2010-01-12T20:17:00.004-06:00

The Supreme Court took up a fascinating topic on Tuesday--whether civil commitment--keeping someone locked up after he has served his sentence--is constitutional.

On the face of it, it seems to run afoul of the Constitution; a criminal who serves his full sentence has paid his debt to society for the wrong he committed. When you're done serving your time, you get to go home. That, however, is not the case in some states. Currently, 20 states have civil commitment laws, which enable the states to keep sex offenders locked up even after they've served their sentences.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the issue before--only two years ago--and upheld the practice as constitutional if the "primary purpose is rehabilitation." The undeniable truth, though, is that civil commitment laws are aimed at incapacitation--keeping a "dangerous" person away from society. If the purpose were really rehabilitation, they would let the person go home and require them to report to a psychologist three times a week.

Several of the justices seemed skeptical of the practice. The specific law in question was the federal civil commitment law.

If they are to overturn the previous sanction of these laws, they will have to reconcile it with their previous finding that these laws are neither double jeopardy (punishment for the same crime) or ex post facto laws (punishment for an act that was not illegal when it was committed). Both seem like very strong arguments, and the justices were obviously troubled.

On the ex post facto front, say a sex offender gets 20 years for his crime and serves all 20 years behind bars. He is then determined by a state bureaucratic board to be too dangerous to become a part of society--he is civilly committed. Why is he being committed? It can't be for the act that he committed to get to prison in the first place. He has already served that time.

On the double jeopardy front, can we really say that we are not punishing someone when we say they can't go home after they've served their time? To properly answer the question, would you honestly say that you weren't being punished if it happened to you?

Our forefathers put certain protections in the Constitution to keep an all-too powerful government from infringing on our individual liberties. It seems that civil commitment laws try to skirt those protections that we take for granted (and shouldn't).

Of course, we are dealing with sex offenders here, and usually people throw all logic out the window when that group is the subject. I'm not disparaging that type of reaction; it's very easy to become emotional when discussing the fate of sex offenders, especially child molesters. Laws, however, are not meant to be based on emotion. Aristotle said "law is reason free from passion." The minute we start basing our laws on emotion, we have ventured into very dangerous territory.

In practical terms, no one is saying that the government can't still monitor these individuals after they get out of prison. Ankle bracelets work quite well. The point is, there are many other options available besides the harshness of confining someone after they've served their time.

Game Change--the 2008 Campaign

2010-01-11T16:04:00.004-06:00

There's a new book out, and I might have to get it. It's called Game Change. It's the behind-the-scenes details of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The topic getting the most attention is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments about Barack Obama--that the country was ready for a black president, one who has good oratorical skills, is "light-skinned" and doesn't have a "Negro dialect."

Aside from the debate about whether those comments are racist--I'll leave that for the reader to decide--is this 1950? Negro? When's the last time that's been an acceptable term for blacks? Reid is in hot water, and rightly so. I'm not sure those comments are resignation-worthy, but of course, Republicans are calling for him to quit.

Other news in the book revolves around Sarah Palin's utter lack of knowledge, especially on national security issues. Among the the most appalling:

-She couldn't understand why there was a North Korea and South Korea

-She didn't know who we were fighting in Iraq

-She thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11

On top of that, the authors report that McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but campaign advisers were convinced that it would be disastrous and that Lieberman might get rejected at the Republican convention. So, Palin was vetted for five days, which consisted of scouring the Internet for information. No one from the campaign went to Alaska.

I'm now hearing news that Palin has just been hired as a FOX News contributor. National affairs correspondent maybe?

There's also news that Hillary was so confident that she would win in the general election, that she was forming her transition team to the White House way back in November of 2007. She also originally rejected Obama's offer to become Secretary of State.

There's a lot more in the book that just goes to show that what you see in front of the camera does not always tell the whole story. There is bickering in every campaign, and things can get quite heated, even among those on the same team.

Finally

2010-01-10T08:24:00.002-06:00

Finally. Finally. Finally. The Cowboys have won a playoff game. I thought they would win, but I was fully expecting them to lose, as I'm sure most realistic Cowboys fans were. But they came through. Now, they can get off that ridiculous list of longest playoff-win droughts; the Cowboys should not be in the company of the Bengals and Lions.

It was another dominating performance. The Eagles simply had no answer for the Cowboys, on offense or defense. There were several plays where McNabb had plenty of time to get rid of the ball, yet could find nobody open. Credit the Cowboys secondary.

The offense looked good again, although the penalties were disturbing.

I think the only thing that marred the game was the fact that Ted Nugent sung the national anthem.

Now, it's on to Minnesota. The only reason Minnesota will be favored is becausse they are at home. This game should be close--very close. And again, if the Cowboys defense continues to play like this, this team is headed to the NFC Championship.

The Underwear Bomber

2010-01-06T09:46:00.004-06:00

In the aftermath of the so-called "underwear bomber" scare, I have seen two particularly troubling aspects related to America's latest terrorist threat.

The first is the government's ability to keep us safe. Isn't that, after all, one of government's main jobs--to keep us safe? So it was quite worrisome when Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said after the bombing scare that "the system worked." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the same thing.

Can someone explain to me exactly how the system worked? I'm assuming that by "the system," those two individuals meant the system that is supposed to weed out those who are likely to harm Americans. So, did the system truly work when someone was allowed to board a plane with explosives in his pants? The obvious answer is "no." If the system had worked, the underwear bomber would have been arrested at the airport. Or better yet, he would have been on a no-fly list.

Obama, in an astute political move, rebuked Napolitano's statement and said that, in fact, the system had not worked. Simply because the underwear bomber happens to be an amateur at detonating explosive devices does not mean that the government was on top of things.

So why, exactly, did the system fail? For starters, the government, just as it was during the Bush years, is having a hard time staying ahead of the game. Instead of being proactive toward threats that it knows could occur, it is reacting to those threats only when they become a reality.

Three cases illustrate the point. First has been the government's slow response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a commission that the Bush administration was initially against. Even the Obama administration, however, has been slow to implement its recommendations. For instance, the high-tech screening devices that the Commission said were necessary have been installed at only nine U.S. airports.

Second, it seems that security measures at airports are enhanced only when a threat occurs. Remember Richard Reed--the shoe bomber? Before him, did we have to take off our shoes at the airport? No. Only after the Reed incident did the government decide it might be a good idea for people to take their shoes off when going through security. Did the government not know that someone could conceivably hide a bomb in his shoe?

Then there were the liquid explosives that were nabbed overseas. After that, we had to discard any liquids over a certain size before going through security. Why was the government not checking our liquids before? Did it not know that liquid explosives could be smuggled onto a plane?

And now we have the underwear bomber. The high-tech machines that the 9/11 Commission recommended would have prevented him from boarding the plane. Again, government security at airports was reactive instead of proactive. I wonder what else airplane passengers are not being checked for and what will have to happen before they are checked for it.

It has been over nine years since 9/11, and it is quite troubling that the government does not appear much more apt at keeping us safe than it was in the last decade.

The second troubling aspect that has stemmed from this underwear fiasco is many people's solution for dealing with the underwear bomber--try him in a military court. Why? Two reasons typically pop up. One, he is a terrorist; and two, military justice is more effective at dealing with terrorists.

To the first point, yes, the underwear bomber is a terrorist. As vague as that term has become, I think we can all agree that the underwear bomber fits the definition. But why, exactly should we try a terrorist in a military court? As I noted in this post, the U.S. reserves military courts for those who are accused of some militant act--a war crime, for instance--during a war with the United States. The underwear bomber, a member of a Yemenise Al-Qaeda offshoot, is not at war with the U.S. It would be no different if his method of terrorism--as opposed to stuffing powder in his pants--was unleashing bullets in a town square from an AK-47. It is a crime that is to be dealt with by a civilian justice system.

To the second point--that military justice is more effective--glosses over a lot of details. Many point to the fact that the underwear bomber was read his Miranda rights (the horror!). So what? So was Timothy McVeigh. Additionally, I have my doubts that military justice is in every instance more effective than civilian justice. What kind of justice system allows individuals to languish for years on end without a lawyer or a trial? Do we want the underwear bomber to do the same--to never have to answer for his crime? That might indeed be the case if he is turned over to military authorities, where he will be the latest in a long line of those accused of various terroristic threats against the U.S.

Finally, if military justice is really more effective, why not turn the entire justice system over to the military? Why not waterboard those accused of murder? Why not sleep-deprive those accused of child abuse? Because we have principles and the rule of law--something that, sadly, many Americans seem to have forgotten.

Domination

2010-01-05T08:42:00.003-06:00

The Eagles had a lot at stake on Sunday, but the Cowboys made sure Philly would be playing on Wild Card weekend. The Cowboys looked really good, and the Eagles looked horrible. Some quick observations before we look ahead to Saturday.

This defense is one of the best in franchise history. They allowed 250 points (I don't know why the NFL ranks defenses and offenses by yards). That's the fewest allowed since 1994. They've had two shutouts in a row--something the Cowboys have never done. They were all over McNabb on Sunday; rarely did he have more than three or four seconds to throw the ball. And when he did, the secondary came up with some good plays. I'm amazed at how good this defense is, especially compared to what many thought they were at the beginning of the year (remember when Tampa Bay ran for over 200 yards in week one?).

Mike Jenkins just might be one of the best corners in the league. He is definitely the best one on the the team.

Ken Hamlin finally made a play, and it was good one against Desean Jackson.

Anthony Spencer is playing great.

You would be hard pressed to find to better inside linebackers in a 3-4 than Brady James and Keith Brooking.

Now to the offense. Tony Romo passed for almost 4,500 yards, by far the most of any Cowboys quarterback. He has been superb this year, and is unquestionably one of the top five or six quarterbacks in the league.

Roy Williams--no catches

Miles Austin continues to amaze me.

I know that the Cowboys have to split time between Barber and Jones, but I can count a handful of times this season when Barber was tackled for a minimal gain when I'm pretty sure Jones would have gained double-digit yardage. The most recent came on Sunday, when Barber had nothing around him on the left side except Jeremiah Trotter on the ground. Trotter stopped Barber after a three yard gain. Trotter made a nice play, but there's no way he would have been able to get Jones.

20-plus years ago, the Eagles became the premier blitzing team in the league. Since then, I have never seen a Cowboys quarterback have so much time to throw the ball against the Eagles as Romo did in the first half on Sunday. Credit the offensive line, and the Eagles' bizarre decision to blitz only five times in the first half.

I heard some talk after the game that maybe the Eagles were leaving some things off the table, thinking that they would be playing the Cowboys again the following week. That is absurd. The Eagles had a chance to get a bye in the first round. Why would they not give their best effort? This was not a preseason game. I think maybe the ones who think this were shocked that the Eagles were so thoroughly dominated.

I honestly think that is the first time I've seen David Akers miss a field goal against the Cowboys. He is usually money.

So, here we go again--Cowboys Eagles--version 3. Since 1970, when a team has won both regular season games against a divisional opponent and then faced that same team in the playoffs, the team that swept the regular season is 12-7. That's a pretty good record. That is, however, little comfort to Cowboys fans. In 1998, the Cowboys beat the Cardinals twice and then lost to them in the playoffs. The same thing happened against the Giants in 2007.

So, what will happen Saturday? If the defense continues to play as well as it has the past few weeks, the Cowboys are heading to Minnesota.

Happy New Year!

2009-12-31T23:43:00.002-06:00

Justice

2009-12-28T21:26:00.006-06:00

This might be somewhat heavy, but bear with me. I just finished reading a book by Michael Sandel titled Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? It's a fascinating book, and if you want a concise philosophical book that connects philosophy with contemporary political issues, you should get it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, it got me thinking about the general concept of justice. I will not delve in to how various philosophers have defined what justice really means, as that would take much too long. I will, however, write on one particular aspect of justice, and that is--is justice always fair? Is justice always right?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me give you two examples. I was watching USC and Boston College the other night in the Emerald Bowl. Yes, the Emerald Bowl. A USC player caught a pass on a third down, but he was clearly out of bounds. Upon review, however, the officials determined that he was in. It was, by any stretch of the imagination, a horrible call. Even the announcers didn't get it. Two plays later, USC scored a touchdown and eventually won the game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suppose later on that Boston College later had a similar pass play, but that the ball hit the ground. The pass should be ruled incomplete. Suppose, however, that the officials made a mistake, and they ruled it as a catch. Considering the erroneous call for USC that I mentioned earlier, is the botched call in Boston College's favor right? By no means; it's clearly the wrong call.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it fair? No. It's not fair that a player gets credited with a catch when he didn't, in reality, catch the ball.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this play an example of justice? Most people, I think, would say yes. Considering that USC benefited from an erroneous call, Boston College also deserves to benefit in the same way. When the officials botched the second call, justice has been served.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me take another example, this one from the world of criminal justice. For argument's sake, let's say that O.J. Simpson did in fact commit double murder in 1994--as most of the American people think he did. He, of course, was found not guilty of that offense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast forward to 2008, when Simpson was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to at least 15 years in prison. Suppose, however, that he did not commit that crime, yet the jury believed that he did. Has justice been served? Again, the likely answer is yes (outside the context of the criminal justice system). No one should walk away a free man when he is actually guilty of double murder. So most people would say that Simpson simply got what he deserved, even though in the hypothetical he is completely innocent of armed robbery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this fair to Simpson? Absolutely not. Would you think it was fair if you were sent away for 15 years for a crime you didn't commit?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it right if Simpson is sentenced for a crime he didn't commit? Not at all. In a democratic society, that shocks our conscience and destroys our faith in our ability to even find justice when an innocent man is behind bars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is justice served, however, in this hypothetical? Many would say yes because Simpson walked the earth a free man even though most are convinced that he is a murderer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many other examples where our sense of justice clearly conflicts with what we believe to be right or fair. I will probably write more on this. It exercises my brain and, hopefully, forces the hordes who read this blog to answer some difficult questions and exercise their collective brains as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, food for thought.

Cowboys in Playoffs

2009-12-27T22:56:00.002-06:00

Bill Parcells used to say, "Just get to the tournament." Well, the Cowboys are there. It has not always been pretty this season, and sometimes it was pretty ugly, but they made it. Not only that, but they have a chance to win the division, something most people didn't think was possible back in September. Some quick observations from the domination in Maryland before looking ahead to next week.

This defense has continually gotten better. Yes, that was a poor Redskins' offensive unit, but it's difficult to get a shutout in the NFL. The pass rush is great, which makes the secondary look good as well.

I don't think Wade Phillips has gotten enough credit with what he's done with this defense. This is how a 3-4 defense should look. When Parcells was here, it was a plain-vanilla defense for the most part. Even though it was a 3-4, there were not near as many blitzes and not near as many combinations of blitzes. Under Wade, quarterbacks can get paranoid fast because the blitzes are so unpredictable. You know it's coming, you just don't know where it's coming from.

Jason Campbell is destined to be a backup in this league.

Why can't the Cowboys convert in short yardage situations? They couldn't do it against San Diego, and it was a problem again against Washington. That could mean trouble.

Roy Williams--two drops and one smile.

Now, on to week 17. There is great cause for concern. For starters, the Cowboys play the Eagles, who are hot--really hot--right now. It will be extremely hard to slow them down.

As for the playoff scenarios, the Cowboys are concerned with (besides the game against the Eagles) the game between Arizona and Green Bay. Assuming that the Vikings take care of business against the Bears, here's what can happen after next week.

If the Eagles win- The Cowboys get the sixth seed and play at Philadelphia in round one. Ugh.

If the Cowboys win and the Cardinals beat the Packers- The Cowboys win the division and get the fourth seed. That means they will host the Eagles in round one. Ugh.

If the Cowboys win and the Packers beat the Cardinals- The Cowboys win the division and get the third seed. That means they will host the Packers in the first round.

Give me scenario three, although it is the most unlikely. Chances are, we will be playing Philadelphia in round one. Not good. But, things can change quickly. If the Vikings really are falling apart, the Eagles--and even the Cowboys--could end up taking the second seed. That, however, is highly unlikely. So, get ready for Philly.

A lot will be made of this game. But the truth is, does it really matter where we play Philly in the playoffs? If we host the Eagles in round one, that means that we will be trying to beat them for the third time this season. We all saw how that worked out against the Giants in 2007--it's extremely hard to beat a good team three straight times.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T08:54:00.001-06:00

It's Festivus!

2009-12-22T15:58:00.006-06:00

Happy Festivus, everyone. If you need an explanation of this fantastic holiday, read this.

Texas Governor's Race

2009-12-18T07:06:00.003-06:00

The race to see who will govern this state is heating up. The race that matters, of course, is the Republican Primary. That is, in effect, the general election, because no Democrat stands a realistic shot at winning next November. And this battle between two very big wigs in the Republican Party--Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison--is fascinating. The money is already pouring in and the TV ads are in full swing. The first debate is on January 14. The primary election is in March. Here is a brief run down of the candidates from both parties.

Kay Bailey Hutchison--She is currently bending over backward to show how conservative she is. After all, she has always been considered a fairly moderate Republican. Moderation, however, doesn't work in today's Texas Republican Party. Her historic moderation has given her many skeptics in the party--the Texas Republicans tried to oust her from the 1996 Republican National Convention because of her abortion stance. Because of her years spent in Washington, she is having to draw in support from outside the state, which could hurt her in Perry's "out-of-touch- with-Texas" strategy.

Rick Perry- Perry leads in the polls right now, but that could change in a hurry. He does, however, have the inside track. He has more money and more endorsements, and the vast majority of the business interest groups in this state are continuing to funnel money to his campaign. Kay Bailey is trying to show how conservative she is, and Perry is no different: I saw on the news last night that Perry removed from his website a reference to the Trans Texas Corridor--which he supports--and a reference to helping the poor. Because nothing says liberalism like helping the needy, and that's just a one-way ticket out of the governor's mansion.

Debra Medina- Also a Republican, she is the Republican Party Chair for Wharton County and the CEO of a media consulting firm. She has some money, but not near enough, and obviously doesn't have the the name recognition of her two opponents.

Now to the Democrats

I was disappointed to see that Kinky Friedman dropped out of the race. Not that he had any chance of winning the primary (much less the general election), but he was good or a few laughs along the way, and there would undoubtedly be aspects of his campaign that resembled a train wreck (see the 2006 debates). Kinky is now running for Agricultural Commissioner.

Bill White- This former mayor of Houston will win the Democratic Primary, most likely very easily. He had been running for the Texas Senate--a race in which he stood a much better chance of winning.

Farouk Shami- He is the CEO of Farouk Systems, Inc., which makes hair care products. I'm not making this up. He might get ten percent of the vote in the primary.

Party Politics

2009-12-16T07:27:00.003-06:00

This is a great time to study the politics of the two major political parties in this country. There are struggles within both parties that will undoubtedly affect each party's future, and it's fascinating to watch. Two recent examples have surfaced that illustrate the point.

The first is from the Republican Party. As I noted in this post, the Republicans seem to have forgotten the goal of political parties--to win elections. And you don't do that by pandering to the extremes of the political spectrum; you do it with a centrist-oriented message that caters to moderates and independents. One particular conflict in the Republican Party right now centers around climate change. Two big wigs in the party--Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin--have contrasting views on the subject.

Arnold, who has spearheaded emissions controls in his own state and who believes climate change is a serious problem, attended the Copenhagen conference on climate change last week. He echoed the sentiments of the Obama administration that action must be taken to reverse the ill effects of such change. Palin, on the other hand, believes global warming is a hoax and has likened climate change to gravity--a natural phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of time. Arnold called that comment political, speculating that Palin is simply trying to get her party's nomination in 2012.

So which is the extreme position and which is more moderate? Not surprisingly, Arnold has the more moderate view: most Americans are for reducing pollution in the hopes of reversing the warming trend of the earth, although most do not believe that global warming is entirely caused by humans. This infighting will continue of course, but Palin is not doing herself any favors politically--if in fact she intends on running in 2012 (does anyone really think that she won't?).

Now to the Democrats. The Senate is in the midst of considering its version of health care reform. Since 60 votes are needed, it looks like even one vote--probably from Independent Joe Lieberman, could derail the whole thing. What that means is that Lieberman wields a ton of power, and the Democrats will not put something to a vote that he is not guaranteed to accept.

That has angered a lot of Democrats, especially the liberals in the party, who have favored a public option--the option to choose government-run health insurance that would be considerably cheaper than private insurance. That option is off the table largely because Lieberman opposes it.

Enter Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former presidential candidate and screamer, and current doctor. He said yesterday that the Senate should just kill its version of the bill since it has no public option in it and is, in his words, "watered down." That is an extreme position.

The Senate has been considering health care reform for the better part of this year. If it throws that work out the window and starts over, health care reform will not see the light of day. Dean still carries a lot of weight in the party, and the liberals are likely to listen to him. So, the Democrats need to remember what the Republicans have forgotten--the goal is--in the Democrat's case--to stay in power. If health care reform fails in the Senate, it will be a colossal failure and have massive implications in 2010: most Americans want health care reform. So, the question the Democrats need to be asking, is which is better for them politically--a watered down version of health care reform, or nothing at all?

Continued Collapse

2009-12-13T19:01:00.004-06:00

Week number two in December, loss number two in December. For all the playoff hopes this team had when it was 8-3, so much has gone wrong in the past two weeks and now, just making the playoffs will be extremely tough. This team is good but today, the Cowboys simply got beat by a better team--hands down. In fact, that team is the best team on the Cowboys' schedule, with the possible exception of New Orleans. Observations from a tough loss at home:

For the second week in a row, Tony Romo was not the reason the Cowboys lost. He was good. Not great, but good enough to win.

Many people will blame the defense for this loss, although that's a stretch. They held one of the best offenses in the league to 20 points. That should be enough to get it done. I will say, however, that you would like to see them stop the Chargers in the fourth quarter when the game is on the line. Great defenses make plays in those situations, and the Cowboys' defense came up short.

Perhaps it's skepticism on my part, but after the Chargers' touchdown to make it 7-3, I simply did not expect the Cowboys to win. The Chargers were never not in control of that game.

Does any team throw the deep ball more than the Chargers?

Frustration doesn't begin to describe my feeling all game long at the lack of a Cowboys' defender in Phillip Rivers' face. Play after play, Rivers was able to step up in the pocket and make a throw. That is suicide against a good quarterback.

Speaking of a pass rush, if Demarcus Ware is out for an extended period, the defense is in serious trouble.

Our supposed number one wide receiver has 36 catches.

Going for it on fourth and goal was the right call. Additionally, I can't say that I fault the play selection either. We had just run it down their throats on that drive, so there was no reason to think that we couldn't get it in on four tries from inside the three yard line. Most people will blame Jason Garrett for those calls, but how much would he have been blamed for a failed pass play when we had been running it so well on that drive? Bottom line--you have to get the ball in the end zone there--and that is the players' fault--not Garrett's. If I had to say one thing about the call, it's that we had a lineman pulling on that fourth down play. I think Phil Simms brought this up, but it is ludicrous to have a pulling lineman so close to the goal line. When your offensive line is that big and physical, there's no need to get cute with your blocking assignments.

Speaking of Phil Simms, does his accent get under anyone else' skin?

I am not a fan of Felix Jones Returning kickoffs. He looks like he's afraid of contact (and maybe he is), but you can't tiptoe on a return and then look for a seam. It worked once on the opening kickoff, and failed every other time. If we're going to routinely return kicks to the 15 yard line, we might as well have Marion Barber returning kicks.

So Nick, it's the holder's fault, huh? Something tells me Mat McBriar was smiling on the inside after that missed field goal.

Speaking of Nick Folk, he should be cut today. There has to be a kicker available somewhere who can do better than that. In close games, kickers are vital, and we can't afford to have Folk missing kick after kick during a playoff run.

My, how things can change in a week. Last week, the Cowboys were in first place. Today, they are looking up at the Eagles with three games to go. What's scary is that the Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, and Packers will battle it out for three playoff spots, and two of those teams--the Giants and the Packers--have the tie breaker advantage against the Cowboys.

Looking ahead, the Cowboys obviously have another big test at New Orleans this Saturday. Even if they lose that game and win their last two, they should make the playoffs. They still have a chance to win the division, but they need the Eagles to lose two out of their last three (SF, DEN, at DAL)--possible, but not likely. So, now it looks like a wild card at best, unless the Cowboys win out--also not likely.

The Afghanistan Decision

2009-12-08T20:02:00.003-06:00

I saw a fascinating Bill Moyer's Journal a couple of weeks ago on PBS. The topic concerned LBJ's secretly taped phone conversations from late 1963 to very early 1964. The conversations revealed a very stressed president, torn over what to do about Vietnam. Send more troops? If so, how many? Withdraw troops? If so, what are the consequences? How long will we be there? How do we sell our decision to the American people? How do we define victory in Vietnam?

Fast forward 45 years later, replace Vietnam with Afghanistan, and you have the same problems. As much as Obama tried to dispel the Vietnam-Afghanistan analogy in his speech at West Point, the similarities are inescapable--a corrupt and inept foreign government, foreign soldiers unwilling to fight, lack of support for the war at home, a near unnavigable terrain. And the list goes on.

We typically don't like to think of our commander in chief making political decisions during wartime, but history proves that they do. Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan was no different in that regard. It was--at least--a decision meant to satisfy a broad range of constituents across the political spectrum. Send 30,000 more troops and you satisfy the war hawks on the right; promise to bring them home in 18 months and you satisfy the liberals. Overall, send more troops to back up your campaign rhetoric that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror (even though most of Al Qaeda is now in Pakistan). This decision also goes along with Obama's promised mantra of "working with everyone--Democrats and Republicans."

Whatever happens in the next 18 months is likely to have massive ramifications on Obama's future as president. Whether all U.S. troops will be gone is highly unlikely; the U.S. military has never been keen on leaving a country where it has left a significant footprint. Even if they are gone, does anyone really have confidence in the Afghan government to keep the Taliban at bay? And if the Taliban takes over the government again--then what?

I hope Obama's downplay of the Afghanistan-Vietnam analogy was for the American public's sake--especially for those who lived the horror of that era--because truly denying that the two wars are not alike is misguided at best and deceitful at worst. Obama would be wise to listen to those LBJ conversations from the mid 1960s and realize what a crucial moment that was in American history. After LBJ's decision in 1965 to really ramp up the war, over a million Vietnamese would be killed in the next decade, over 50,000 U.S. soldiers would die, untold billions of dollars would be spent, and LBJ's political career would be ruined--his domestic achievements obscured by a war that was lost from its inception.

Vietnam took down LBJ. Obama--in his attempt to satisfy everyone--could very well suffer the same fate.

Meltdown

2009-12-06T18:34:00.004-06:00

It's December, and I'm again asking myself why I bought into this team. For whatever reason, they play like a totally different team in last month of the year and lose a game that they desperately needed. No, they didn't have to get a win, but they could have all but ended the Giant's playoff hopes and stayed a game up on the Eagles. Now, the Giants are one game back of the Cowboys--with the tie breaker--and the Eagles and Cowboys are tied. Again, the Cowboys fall flat on their face in December, and the next four games are a nightmare. Observations from the Meltdown in New Jersey.

It's one thing to play well and lose. It's another thing to, as my dad says, "lose stupid." And Sunday, the Cowboys lost stupid. They were in total control for the first 25 minutes of that game, and then the meltdown began.

The defense--where to begin? There's a saying around here that "As Romo goes, so go the Cowboys." There was a significant hole shot in that theory Sunday. Romo was great. He was better than he had to be. The defense, as good as it's been pretty much all season, looked like a college team against what many people consider to be a very average offense. What is it about the Giants that allows them to score over 30 points against the Cowboys two games in a row?

The Cowboys have single-handedly made a star out of Steve Smith. For whatever reason, he is wide open over the middle after running one of the most uncomplicated routes in Football--a deep in.

Alan Ball has a rating of 58 on Madden 10. Now I know why. Suddenly, I miss Ken Hamlin.

Brandon Jacobs is at the top of my list of Most Despised Giants--which is a very long list. No one talks more trash than he does.

Speaking of Jacobs, exactly how does he go 70 yards for a touchdown when he is barely touched? He is slow, despite what you hear from the announcers. After all, he was run down by Anthony Spencer--a linebacker. Too little, too late though.

Is it possible that the Cowboys had negative yardage on screen passes? That play should have been scrapped in the second quarter.

The offensive line was horrific. Romo was under pressure all day and the running game was atrocious. The Giants obviously loaded up against the run after giving up 251 yards against the Cowboys in the first meeting. Bottom line, 24 points should have been enough to beat the Giants when your quarterback plays that well.

I'm a TIRED of the wildcat formation or whatever the Cowboys call it. Can we see Tashard Choice take a handoff from Romo? Or were we just too successful running the ball with Barber and Felix?

That was probably the worst time to give up a punt return for a touchdown. Just more of the meltdown.

Is Nick Folk's contract up after this season? If not, how much will it take to buy him out? His miss in the fourth quarter looked like a kick from someone who was plucked from the stands. I have zero confidence in him, and I'm having flashbacks of Mike Vanderjagt.

Looking ahead, I think the Giants will finish 9-7, 10-6 at best. They play the Eagles next week, although it's at home. They finish up at Minnesota, with two games in the middle against Washington and Carolina.

The Eagles very well might be 11-4 going into the final game against the Cowboys. If the Cowboys have any realistic hope of winning the East, they need to go 3-1 down the stretch. If they go 2-2, the Eagles will win the division, and the Cowboys will likely lose a tie breaker to the Giants for a wild card spot. If that happens--or worse--Wade will be out on his can faster than you can say December meltdown.

All hope is not lost. But after a performance like we saw in New Jersey, it makes you wonder if this team has anything left. And I've seen too many things go wrong in December to think that they do.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-24T08:20:00.000-06:00

Cowboys Win Ugly

2009-11-22T15:48:00.004-06:00

The longer that game went on, the less chance I thought the Cowboys had of winning it. I held out no hope that they would be able to drive down and score a touchdown when they needed to. But somehow, they did it. And a win is a win. I had my panic button out with about eight minutes to go in the game. It's packed away for now, but it could definitely make an appearance on Thanksgiving Day. Observations from an incredibly ugly win.

The defense outshines the offense again. If it weren't for that unit's performance, this team would be 6-4.

The pass rush was really good, and Jason Campbell had probably the best game I've seen from him.

Finally, as good as the defense has been, it was able to stop a team when it really counted. That's what great defenses do.

Our secondary is beat up, and that is trouble considering Manning (Eli), Brees, and Rivers are right around the corner.

Dare I say, Bobby Carpenter was a positive factor today?

One of the reasons I like a 3-4 defense is because of all the blitz combinations. The downside is, however, when you're running those blitzes, it can leave you very vulnerable, and we saw that some in this game.

I believe Anthony Spencer's contract is up after this year. If the season ended today, would he be re-signed?

Did anyone else see Antwan Randle-El spot the ball himself and the refs give him a first down? That was clearly a horrible spot, but when you allow the offense to place the ball where it wants, you tend to get favorable spots.

That's the first time I've seen an illegal-wedge penalty called.

Now I know why we got rid of Sean Suisham. His misses were the difference in the game.

If the Redskins don't trick up their uniforms, they have one of the best looks in the league. Did they leave their white pants at home? All burgundy is awful.

As down as the Redkins have been in the past 15 years, I still hate them. But the Eagles have taken over as the most hated.

Roy Williams is scared of being hit. He had at least two drops today. Both of those were in traffic where a big hit was likely. I don't care if the passes were high. He is 6'4. If you're a number one receiver, go up and make a play. And when you screw up, don't go to the sideline smiling.

So this is what everyone wanted--the Cowboys to run the ball? You can't survive in the NFL running it that much. You have to be able to throw the ball down field. It's nice to be able to run the ball, but you saw what happened to the running game in the second half. The Redskins figured it out, and our offense was pretty much nonexistent in the second half, except for the touchdown drive.

If the Redskins had any offense at all, they would be a playoff team. That defense is good, and they did all that today without Albert Haynesworth.

The rumors of Martellus Bennett's death have been greatly exaggerated.

I no longer have confidence in Nick Folk. Games will be close down the stretch and in the playoffs (if we even get there), and you need a reliable kicker. Right now, Folk is about as unreliable as it gets.

Winning in the NFL is not easy, and you take every win that you can get. And you will lose some that you should win, and win some that you should lose. Put this game today in the should-have-lost category. But the fact is, this team is on pace to win 11 games, and that should be enough to make the playoffs. Don't screw up against Oakland, and get healthy after that. Then, we will really see what this team is all about.

A Changing Texas

2009-11-20T11:40:00.003-06:00

My classes just moved into the Texas material, which will round out this semester. One topic that is a must in this area is the rapid changes Texas is currently undergoing. These changes will have an immense impact on the politics of the state, and will likely determine the direction of Texas for decades. The main impetus of these changes is the rapid population growth and demographic change.

For instance, since 2005, Texas has been a majority-minority state, which means that all of the minorities in the state--principally Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans--outnumber the majority race (Anglos).

Hispanics currently represent just over 35 percent of the population. Sometime in the 2020s, however, Hispanics will become the majority race in Texas. That's where the big change comes in. Roughly 95% of Hispanics in Texas identify themselves as Democrats. That is an astounding number, especially considering that the comparable figure nationally is somewhere in the 70s.

Most of my students are shocked to learn that, historically, the Democratic Party has dominated Texas. The Republicans did not begin their ascent until the early 1990s. In the previous 150 years (minus Reconstruction), Republicans in public office were almost nonexistent.

But even then, the Democratic Party here was conservative. Texas has always been conservative--one of the most conservative states in the Union. So, our political culture never really changed when the Republicans took over. It was simply the same philosophy, just run by a different party. Big changes, however, might be on the horizon.

As the Hispanic population grows, so too will Democratic votes, and that is likely to swing the political pendulum back toward Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Texas Legislature. Historically, party affiliation has not meant that much in Texas. The current Democratic Party in Texas, however, is more progressive than the Party of old. So, what will that mean in terms of a changing political climate?

One answer is that our tax structure is likely to change in order to fund more programs or better fund the ones that exist. More money for education is likely, and the same goes for health care. Texas currently has the most regressive tax system in the country (the more you make the less of a percentage of your income that you pay in taxes). That will change as well.

Beyond that, there are some serious concerns that our leaders in this state will have to address as our population grows. Here are just a few:

Texas had the worst high school graduation rate last year.

Texas has the seventh highest poverty rate in the nation.

Texas has more people without health insurance than any other state--which is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Many of Texas' roads, highways, and bridges have fallen into disrepair. That is particularly concerning when the population relying on those roadways is constantly growing.

Traffic congestion--a major factor in over-pollution--is horrendous in our metro areas. The Trans Texas Corridor was supposed to alleviate that problem to some extent, but now that project has been scrapped.

This is only the tip of the iceberg for what our leaders must address in the coming decades. And what they decide to do will determine how relevant Texas becomes in the 21st century. A high school drop-out rate in the 90th percentile cannot sustain an economy that is currently one of the best in the nation.

So, will Texas change politically? Yes. The Democratic Party will once again achieve a majority status in the not-so-distant future. Our political culture, however, will change at glacial speed, if it changes at all. You don't undo almost 200 years of conservatism with a few votes. Additionally, a majority of Texans might not want change, regardless of which party is running the show.

These changes are fascinating, exciting, and scary, but they are an opportunity for those in power. It will be interesting to look back in twenty years and see how they responded. Will our state be improved, or will we be addressing the same problems? I think I have my answer.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--a Civilian Trial

2009-11-18T22:25:00.005-06:00

I am hearing a lot of misconceptions out there about the merits of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in a civilian court as opposed to a military court. So many people are overreacting to this decision from the Justice Department, so I figured I would do my part to clear up some of those misconceptions.

I was flipping through the radio dial the other day and heard Sean Hannity say "We just don't try terrorists in civilian courts." Really? The facts dictate otherwise.

The six defendants responsible for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 were all found guilty in a civilian court and are in prison for life.

Timothy McVeigh was tried in civilian court and executed a few years later.

Terry Nichols was also tried in civilian court and he is in prison for life.

Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) was tried in civilian court and is in prison for life.

Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in civilian court and he, too, is in prison for life.

These are but a few examples. There are others, but the point is that we have always relied on civilian courts to punish those responsible for acts of terrorism. Why should KSM be any different?

It seems that a lot of people are fearful of prosecutors not getting a conviction. I'm not sure why that is. First of all, KSM was read his Miranda rights after he landed in Cuba and before he confessed to the 9/11 attacks. There is no chance that his confession won't be admitted; no judge is going to throw that out. From what I know about it, there is simply no constitutional basis for doing so.

Secondly, KSM has confessed to many other terrorist acts--29 no less--in addition to the 9/11 attacks. That means that the Justice Department could--if it wanted--seek separate trials on as many terrorism acts that KSM was involved in (provided there is some tie to the U.S.).

Third, many people are evidently concerned about national security and that an open court will reveal top secrets that shouldn't be made available to the public. This is entirely untrue. It has long been accepted that any case with national security implications will be closely guarded, and the prosecution can request--and the judge will grant--that some portions of the trial be excluded from the public. In fact, Attorney General Holder today hinted that there is evidence against KSM that the public does not even know about. It is entirely possible that we will never know all of the evidence against him because it simply will not be disclosed in the interest of national security.

Fourth, the evidence against KSM that we do know about is overwhelming; that is essentially the reason that the Justice Department chose to put him on trial in civilian court. Other suspected terrorists--currently in Cuba,against whom the evidence is not as strong--will be tried in military courts. This case is about as slam dunk as you can get. This is not the O.J. Simpson trial on CNN, and the prosecutors will be of a top-notch caliber.

Fifth, even if KSM was found not guilty--which won't happen--he won't get released in the U.S. First, he could be held for any other myriad acts of terrorism that he has confessed to. Secondly, there are federal laws against releasing non U.S. citizens linked to terrorism back onto American soil.

Finally, I want to clear up some general matters related to this topic. Appeals from military courts take longer than appeals from civilian courts. If we want to see KSM brought to justice, why not do it the quickest way possible?

And lastly, I have to call out two people-- Senator Lindsey Graham and Rudolph Giuliani--for comments they made this week regarding this matter.

Giuliani said in an interview that trying a terrorist in civilian court should be a "last resort." Is that what justice has become to him--a last resort? I guess he would have preferred leaving KSM down in Cuba without a trial at all. After all, these terrorists, during the Bush administration, were no more closer to being tried in military court than I am. Why not seek justice? Giuliani was once a federal prosecutor himself in Manhattan, and I guarantee you he would have been champing at the bit to try someone like KSM. Just a few years ago, he was praising the jusice system after Moussaoui was foudn guilty.

Lindsey Graham also had a shocking comment today, arguing that trying KSM in a civilian court is a "perversion of justice." I have yet to see how trying someone for such a heinous crime like terrorism in open court is a perversion of justice. That's because it simply isn't so. The criminal justice system was created to separate truth from fiction, to give everyone his or her day in court, and to punish those who are guilty. There is no perversion in that, and I'm glad the justice system exists and works as well as it does. I should think that Graham--a U.S. Senator--would be too.

Packers 17, Cowboys 7

2009-11-15T18:32:00.003-06:00

How can a team be flying so high after one week only to crash and burn the following week? Welcome to the NFL. This is a league where nothing--absolutely nothing--can be taken for granted. All week we heard how bad the Packers were and that the Cowboys were destined to be 9-2 going into December. I remember thinking that prognosticators needed to tap the brake on that notion. Now, they should slam on the brakes. Here are my observations after that hairball the Cowboys coughed up at Lambeau.

What a horrible, horrible offensive performance. It looked like this was the first we had ever seen a 3-4 defense. The offensive line looked downright silly.

I've been saying this for weeks and now maybe it will get some attention: What is wrong with our running game?

I used to relax when Nick Folk came on the field to kick a field goal. Now, he makes me nervous. Another missed field goal that would have given the Cowboys an early lead. Who knows if that would have changed the game, but all things being equal, they would have been tied going into halftime.

Injuries will inevitably work their way into an NFL locker room, and we saw that with the Cowboys on Sunday. Mark Columbo--I'm assuming--is gone for the year. Mike Jenkins was hurt. Flozell went out of the game late. Our second string offensive linemen were a concern going into the season, and I'm afraid we might now find out why.

I need an explanation on why exactly the refs could not review the fumble that Felix Jones clearly recovered. If that is not a reviewable play, then the rule needs to be changed. He was clearly in possession of the ball and down by contact. That was a seven point swing. It might not have made the difference in the game, but 10-0 is vastly different than 17-0.

I can't blame the defense. When your offense holds the ball for 24 minutes and you give up 17 points, your defense has had a pretty good day. If you would have told me that Aaron Rodgers would have under 200 yards passing, would be sacked four times, and that Ryan Grant would have under 100 yards rushing, I would have said the Cowboys win easily.

Thanks to the Chargers, the Eagles and Giants are a game back of the Cowboys for the division lead with seven games to go. Whoever wins the division is a toss-up right now, with the obvious exception of the Redskins. I think the division winner will need at least 11 wins. That means the Cowboys still have the inside track (five wins in the last seven as opposed to six in the last seven). But that is a tall order, considering the typical December swoon around here and the fact that the Cowboys' last five games are extremely tough.

It's certainly not time to hit the panic button. I would have been happy at the beginning of the year if I was told that we would split two consecutive road games against Philly and Green Bay. But if Washington comes in here next week and comes out with a victory, people will be calling for Wade's head. Then, feel free to hit the panic button.