Archive

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Presidential Failure

March 25th, 2009

What is so difficult that the GOP cannot discern the difference between “I want the president to Fail” and “I believe the president will fail”?

The first is a desire of the president to fail and drag this country into a disaster of a policy just so the GOP look good by comparison and can hold on to power.  This is irresponsible at best.  The 1st amendment guarantees  people the right to say this, but it any responsible media will relegate such a speaker to the fringe.  Kooks with no serious political relevance.

The second can be a proper response to political disagreement.  It says I want the country to succeed, but in my analysis of the given proposal it will lead the country in a direction which isn’t beneficial.  Now  a serious political party would that follow that up with a counter proposal that the speaker believes would solve the problem and be good for the country.  The whole country even, not just the wealthy or some other little segment.

The first is nothing short of a naked whine to regain power due to conceit and arrogance, the second is public service, even if I don’t agree with the counter proposal.

Politics

Bribery

January 27th, 2009

Halliburton to pay $559 million to settle bribery probe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601605.html

Doesn’t that seem a bit like paying a bribe to settle a bribery investigation.  It seems unlikely that they’ll learn the right lessons from this.

Justice, Politics

Gaza

January 13th, 2009

I keep hearing how we can’t negotiate with Hamas until they accept Israel’s right to exist, but my reading of recent history suggests that Gaza has been under existential threat due to siege.  So how come no commentator says Hamas shouldn’t negotiate with Israel until they accept Gaza has a reasonable expectation not to be choked out of existence by Israel.

The cease fire that people keep telling me that Hamas violated seems to have based upon Israel opening up the border crossings.  When Israel failed to keep up to thier end of the agreement, they violated the cease fire by continuing the aggression in the form of a siege.

I keep hearing something to the effect of what country wouldn’t respond to rocket fire.  I ask what country wouldn’t respond to the existential threat of a choking siege.

Both sides have failed to pursue peace in a useful way.  We need to stop pretending there isn’t 50 years of bad blood to work through.

Justice, News, Politics

Boy Scouts - Redux

January 13th, 2009

President Obama’s inauguration is coming up in just a week.  Soon after that inauguration the Boy Scouts of America will attempt to make him their honorary president.

Obama should decline.

The fact that the Boy Scouts of America discriminates is a decided question.  They were sued and changed from being a quasi-public organization to a private religious organization so they could continue discriminating.  They consider it a core function of their organization to expel members for no other reason than their religious or sexual orientation.

The fact that they discriminate against anyone should be sufficient for Obama to decline the “honor” of serving as their honorary president.

Instead he should choose to serve as the actual president of all Americans.  He should begin delivering on his promises of change and inclusion.  This small symbolic action would clearly telegraph that they he will not be party to discrimination against anyone.

It would be a welcome change.

Culture, Philosophy/Religion, Politics

T-Shirts

June 23rd, 2008

I really like these T-Shirts.  Sadly I think many will misread them.

Culture, Philosophy/Religion, Politics

Police and Speed Cameras

March 11th, 2008

police cops by bloohimwhom@flickrThe Montgomery County (Maryland) Police believe the law doesn’t apply to them.

The police of Montgomery County believe that speed limits are for little people, not big important people like them. Or to put it another way, they are above the rule of law at the very least with regards to speed limits, who knows about other crimes.

I think most rational people understand that when a police officer is responding to a call or if they somehow made the mistake of getting into a pursuit situation they are authorized to travel as quickly as they safely can to respond to that call. This is not in dispute or even a consideration. The question is why does the police officers believe the speed limit doesn’t apply to them when they aren’t on a call?

I’m generally in favor of unions and against speed cameras, but in this case I seem to be against the police union and siding with the speed cameras. The union has claimed that the county should be responsible for tickets issued by police officers ignoring the speed limits. Police sergeants have gone so far as refusing to check if an officer was responding to a call when the camera issued the ticket.

The chief directed lieutenants, not covered by the union, to investigate the matter and in the last 8 months 76 of the 224 tickets issued have been dismissed because the officer was responding to a call. Two thirds of the remaining 148 tickets have not been paid. The union advises its member that speed cameras issue citations to the owner of the vehicle not the driver, so they should not pay the tickets or set court dates.

The Fire Department has had no issue holding its firefighters responsible and making them pay their fines. It is the police who believe they should not be held to the same rules as the rest of us. That is a serious problem.

Sadly it is not limited to Montgomery County, there is an entire web site dedicated to police officers grousing about the injustice because they were issued tickets for traffic violations while they were off duty. This belief that they are above the law is dangerous in police officers, it represents a belief that they are an over-class with some right to oppress an under-class, rather than citizens like any other, attempting to keep order. It isn’t clear that these people should be police officers.

It seem more likely that they are nothing but bullies who wanted to continue the feeling of power as they became adults, rather than individuals with a desire to server their community and make it safer. I’m not so naive as to think all of our police are there or should be there because they have a desire to serve. We need to pay them and give them sufficient benefits so it is an attractive option to enough people. The union should be on the forefront of negotiating those things.

However, we can not negotiate about the rule of law.

Justice, News, Politics

1% Incarceration

February 29th, 2008

Robben Island Prison by g-hat@flickrNew High in U.S. Prison Poplulation

Apparently we hit a new record… go us?

More than 1% of the U.S. population is presently in jail. Obviously if you are minority or poor than more than 1% or your community is currently in jail. I don’t understand how we accept that state of affairs as if it is acceptable.

For my conservative readers: We are spending $55 billion dollars a year to lock up 2.3 million people. Since we are operating in a deficit that means we continue to spend millions of dollars each year on interest on borrowing that money. With all that money consumed in the prison system it hinders our ability to build roads, fund the armed forces, have another round of tax cuts or whatever else conservatives think governments should be spending their money.

For me it’s simply inhuman to lock up that many people. Clearly the current system isn’t working and what we are doing now simply isn’t practical. We can’t just keep putting people in jail and hope that makes things better. What happens is people people who went to jail for minor things, come out hardened criminals with socialized contacts into the criminal world.

They get out and look for a job and we don’t hire them because they have the habits, demeanor, tattoos, etc of someone who’s been in jail. That’s before the we even consider the stigma of the criminal record once a background check is done or the interviewer asks about the five year blank space in the resume. Looking for a place to live and way to make ends meet they are more likely than ever to take a shady job that allows them to support themselves. With that sort of cycle it’s only a matter of time before they return to jail.

We have more of our population in jail both as a percentage and an absolute number. The argument could be made that the numbers reported for the distant second place holder, China, aren’t very accurate. Even if you accept that without any evidence to suggest it’s true you still have to contend with the fact that we imprison a greater percentage of our country than any other industrialized nation who’s data you trust.

Prisons are not the answer. They don’t make us safer, they are merely deficit spending of public safety. Eventually people get out of jail, it’s neither moral, nor can we afford to keep them there forever. When they are released they are even more distant from legal society. Their ability to change their lives are diminished and the problem that prison was supposed to solve surges again in 5, 10 or 20 years.

While there may be a temporary benefit to public safety by locking a lot of people up, it is dwarfed by the effect of reducing poverty or unemployment has on the crime rate. We need to concentrate on the longterm meaningful, humane solutions. Work on poverty and person’s ability to meaningfully employed and provide for their own welfare and there will be a much more longterm benefit to public safety.

Related Items:

Culture, Politics

Agents of Privacy

February 20th, 2008

Phone BlocksIt’s been a few days since the questionably named Protect America Act expired and we haven’t been killed yet. No reason we should be the same wire tapping continues unabated, but now they have to go to the FISA court which never learned the word no. But it is at least has the appearance of oversight. The court could, it if felt the need, actually require some indication of wrong doing. It probably already requires something other than a fishing expedition, thus it’s too much of a hardship to the current administration.

One of the reasons the Protect America Act expired was because congress couldn’t decide whether to give phone companies blanket immunity for its past misdeeds in giving slews of data to the government, which the government was not authorized to ask for. It’s unclear whether they broke any laws but it seem clear they had a huge failure of moral judgment. I would argue that phone companies have at least a moral if not legal obligation to act as my agents to protect my data. I suspect in a few years most people will believe this but at present it’s just wacko techies who think about the implications of other entities holding your data.

Running it through from a very basic level if an entity (used here mostly as company and/or organization) asks for and you give them your information or even if they collect this data in their normal role as service provider, it seems rational that they have incurred a basic obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect that data. At the very least you expect them to secure their systems such that the Russian mob isn’t simply using their servers as data feeds.

Most people have the expectations that an entity that they have given data will attempt to protect it. In a sense they have become our agents. In accepting our information part of the expectation is the idea that they will act on our behalf to protect it. It’s a subtle point that I don’t pretend exists in law yet, but it is how the relationship is viewed by most people if they thing about it. Part of the unspoken contract between your favorite online vendor and yourself is this idea that your data won’t escape into the wild.

I’m not so naive as to think that vendor isn’t selling my data to various third parties in one form or another. As much as I wish it weren’t true, I understand that the use of my data in the entities interests is part of the deal. For that matter I encourage the use of my data in aggregate. But we have certain expectation of who the vendor is selling our data to and for what purposes.

For example I had a retailer (rpgnow.com) sell my email address to a spammer, this violates the understanding I had with them about the acceptable use of my data. As a result I no longer do business with them.

We have already begun to see along the fringes, retailers who are competing on issues of privacy. I suspect this will become more central as the years move on. We will have companies competing on their skill at being good agents for protecting our data.

Which leads us back to the Protect America Act. These companies who collect our data for the purpose of saving money, anticipating demand, allocating capital resources and other competitive advantages, have also incurred the responsibility of acting as our agents. The government isn’t coming to me with a warrant, National Security Letter or other ‘instrument’ so I can’t verify that the ‘I’s are dotted and the ‘T’s are crossed. That falls to my agents.

Those companies now want to given immunity for falling to be good agents. The government wants to send the message that companies should ignore the law and just do whatever the people from Washington in suits tell them to. Don’t worry Washington will take care of any fallout. They want these companies to act as agents of Washington rather than agents of their customers.

We can not let this happen, we need these people to have in interest in making sure they give Washington all the data required by law, but not a bit more. They must remain motivated to make sure that everyone is operating within the constraints of the law and with proper oversight. They are acting as my agents in this regard and they have a moral obligation to protect my rights in this regard.

One day the law will reflect that.

Justice, News, Politics, Tech

Civil Unions

February 5th, 2008

About time! Okay, I’m getting ahead of myself but long ago when the idea of civil unions, domestic partnership and/or gay marriage was new I thought the state should get out of the business of deciding who’s morality should trump in deciding who can get married. I figured the state should get out of the marriage business and provide nice equal civil unions for any couple capable of giving informed consent free from duress (just like any other contract).

According to the Washington Post (Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships), a Maryland lawmaker has put forth a bill that would do exactly that. No one believes the bill will pass and it is just a stalking horse for a more “reasonable” civil union bill, but I’m fairly certain the state getting out of the marriage business will be the eventual end state.

If your church doesn’t choose to honor marriage between homosexuals than the church doesn’t have to perform such marriages and your priest can go around saying so and so isn’t married to so and so in the eyes of god. Then all the humane people can leave that church and join one that doesn’t get all misty eyed over the fourteenth century.

The state in the meantime can get on with what it cares about the orderly distribution of property after someone dies, appropriate defaults on who gets to make medical decisions in absence of a medical power of attorney, etc, etc.

The true art of this bill is it lays bare the lie that separate but equal, which worked so well in the civil rights era, is equally faulty in the realm of homosexual rights. It shines a light on the lie told by those desparate to have their relationship deemed special by the state. They claim that there’s no reason for homosexuals to be able to marry civil unions are just as good. If they speak the truth they will have no complaint in the state recognizing their relationship as a civil union and allowing a church to make it a marriage if they (and the church) so desire.

On the other hand if they had “misspoken” and a civil union as defined isn’t as good as a marriage under law. Than it will be only a short time before everyone’s interest is in that problem being corrected. If this law doesn’t pass, the only gain is the lie being laid bare.

In any case I’m glad a lawmaker has the guts to put forth this bill. In all likelihood it will be rejected but it needs to be part of the conversation on this issue and I’m proud my state could contribute.

News, Politics

FW: Immigration

January 17th, 2008

I recently received an offensive and wildly inaccurate email about immigration. I took the time to respond to it rather than ignore it and thought I’d share it with my close person friend the Internet.

The following email was forwarded to me (formatting was scrambled but this is my bet guess of its intended format):

This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus other federal grants to go to school? One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn’t want me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing
department and she was getting PELL grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money left over. She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program for immigrants and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I just mentioned told me she was not going to be a US citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she “loves HER country.” I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it doesn’t bother her, because that is what the money is there for!

I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE a US citizen, you don’t qualify for their program. And all the while, I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.

Something is wrong here. … Right?

I am sorry but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written The news broadcasts even gave the translation — not even close.

Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP — please pass this along.

I am not against immigration — just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes and live by the rules –AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past — and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

PART OF THE PROBLEM

Think about this: If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone — YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It is Time for America to Speak up

If you agree — pass this along, if you don’t agree — delete it!

Yep, I passed it on !

Since writing my response I also researched Pell grants and confirmed they require legal status, congruent with my belief that the immigrant in question has refugee status. Also keep in mind that the PELL grant caps out at about $5k/year so no one is really sitting pretty on a Pell grant. Also a Pell grant only applies to educational costs.

Although it probably needs more polish, this is my response (I feel like I need some phrases in all caps to scream back):

Someone who disagrees should not silently delete this, they should respond and enter into a dialog. Of course most of the facts of this idealogical screed are unverifiable by intent, but we can discover some things.

According to the Internet Caribe stands for Career Recruitment and Instruction in Basic English. So when the author (whoever that is) screams that immigrants should learn the language, this is a program to do exactly that. As it happens it is only available to immigrants who have been given refuge or asylum status. So it isn’t surprising that this person would like to return to their country if they could do so safely.

So to be clear this “horrible” person described in the screed is not an illegal immigrant but actually a legal immigrant here under refugee or asylum status. So when they say they are all for legal immigration they are lying.

The refugee status explains the access to the pell grants and all the other assistance granted a refugee to this country. Many of these programs trigger negative consequences for the recipient if they start
making money or are not sufficiently a full time student. I do not know if that applies in this case because I don’t think I can trust as unbiased most of the information provided.

Are you aware that as part of our foreign policy each year the federal government assists students from all over the world to come to the united states and become educated in American schools. We don’t do this out of the goodness of our heart. We do it so that they return to their country and spread our culture or at the very least a tolerance of American attitudes.

My sister-in-law is one of them and because of the program they can not return to the United States for any length of time for another six months despite the fact that she married my brother and now have a child who is a U.S. citizen.

As for singing the National Anthem in Spanish, I am proud of them. I am glad that someone believes that the anthem isn’t a hollow symbol but is meaningful enough in their lives that they would like to make it part of themselves.

For a symbol to have meaning it needs to periodically be reinvented. Jimi Hendrix reinvented that very same symbol while on acid in the ’60s. Someone is making the effort to make a symbol of America accessible to more people. They are doing America a boon, not a disservice.

By the way it was translated into German in 1861, Yiddish in the 1940’s as well as French, Samoan and Latin. Francis Scott Key wrote it as a poem and he had nothing to do with turning it into a song (the tune is a British drinking song). It wasn’t our national anthem until 1931 and can’t even be construed as a defacto anthem until 1916 at the earliest. Things change, that isn’t always bad.

Immigration is a complicated issue. Recent studies in Virginia indicated that immigrant entrepreneurship ended up generating millions of dollars of revenue in excess of the cost of services to immigrants.

Our immigration system is fundamentally broken, the defacto compromise that has been brokered over the years is that if you make it into the country and keep your head down and work low wage jobs we will turn out heads and provide opportunities to your children.

Recently it has been suggested that we need to normalize immigration. This includes expelling people who arrived in the United States before their first memory, kids who arrived here before their third birthday and are now graduating high school or college. This is their cultural home and they’ve never known anything else.

However even if it was just, expelling 12,000,000 people is logistically impossible in any reasonable time frame. If you did expel that many people we don’t have spare capable workforce to replace them. I don’t mean that business would have to pay more, I’m all for that, I mean the actual physical people with minimal physical and social skills (keep in mind they are replacing people who may not speak English, so I do mean minimal) do not exist.

I do take offense at the email, I don’t think it is anything more than undisguised bigotry. This may be your country but it is mine as well and I’d prefer a rational policy towards immigration that deals with the actual needs and pressures on this country rather than some idealogical kick out every one who isn’t a “real” American for some value of “American.”

Culture, Justice, Politics