VOTE!

Feingold's Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Victory for the American People

It hasn't been often in the last 7 plus years of the Bush Administration when one could truly say that the power of people defeated the people of power. When special interests took a back seat to those who really run the country, Mr. and Ms. Average. Since the bailout was originally announced, there have been numerous campaigns to stop it, academic disputes, and even the rarest of the rare, a public battle among the normally tightly disciplined Republican party. But, in the end, those who have to face up to the voters on November 4th realized that voting yes was potentially one of the biggest threats to their political careers, regardless of party. If you look at the list of how people voted in this historic vote, those on the 'yes' side will probably have a rough time of it, if not lose their seats to those who chose not to approve the still horrible re-negotiated version of the bailout proposal. In particular, I'm sure Dennis Kucinich (OH-10th) is feeling a little smug, knowing that he predicted the outcome of the vote.

On a slightly different note, I'm not sure why everyone in the world of pundits is characterizing this rejection of the bailout proposal a failure of governance. In common parlance, bills are said to have failed, but that is almost a bureaucratic term. In real terms, this bailout was an ideological battle between those who are in favor of and those who are against nationalization and similar bailouts in the United States. Moreover, this is not a vacuum of leadership in which the U.S. government is flying down a country road like a  '62 Corsair without a driver., as that has been happening for the last 7 years. 

Of course, in a vacuum, comes the punditry. Perhaps the most offensive piece I've read thus far about the political process that brought about this conclusion comes from Rupert Cornwell from the U.K.'s Independent. My favorite metaphor in the article compares the mechanisms of American democracy to Alice Through the Looking Glass. Putting that aside, though, the author clearly doesn't understand the huge popular backlash against the bailout. Sure, in the U.K. and other parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister isn't approved by the people at large, but in the U.S. the leaders need to be especially accountable. And to say that the bill died in partisan sniveling is obviously disregarding what was essentially a bipartisan effort to keep the American people from having to shovel out $700 Billion or more on a plan that was only designed to correct the dangerous excesses of the richest segments of society. Perhaps, too, the American people have become wary of those who warn about apocalyptic disaster and offer a solution that meets a certain biased politican agenda. 

Kevin Connolly from the BBC, in looking at the reasons behind the bailouts defeat in the House of Representatives, expresses a strange sentiment, that after this bill's defeat and the sense of crisis that it engenders will offer a way out for the bailout proposal, that Main Street hasn't suffered yet. Unfortunately, the people of the United States have been suffering, which is the underlying cause for this economic crisis. With the inflationary impact of cheap money, combined with tepid job growth, primarily in the services sector since the recession of 2001, people were forced to choose between living and surviving, which meant that the mortgage had to go unpaid. Thus, in a trickle up fashion, the banks and other financial institutions, who were holders of arcane financial securities into which these poorly written mortgages were conglomerated, began to suffer the counsequences of their poor lending practices. I think Mr. Connolly underestimates the intelligence of Mr. and Ms. Average and their understanding of this situation, as Mr. or Ms. Average are probably already unemployed, underemployed, or facing the prospect of losing their job in the failing economy. 

From the campaign trail in Iowa, Sen. John McCain who, infamously, suspended his campaign to not show up in Washington for negotiations, has called upon Congress to return to the drawing board and to get back to work right away. Sen. Barack Obama, from a rally outside of Denver, called for calm, saying that things in Congress are never smooth, and instead of imploring or demanding that his colleagues work on the proposal to shore up the wealth of the financial sector, he used a baseball metaphor.  

So panic thus gripped the financial markets, and the Dow Jones suffered its worst lost ever in terms of points. But, have no fear for liquidity, because Helicopter Ben Bernanke has come to the rescue, increasing the amount of dollars in the global financial system by a whopping $630 Billion dollars. To show you a frightening graph that indicates inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is just around the corner, here is the Adjusted Monetary Base, courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The highlight of a series of moves in the banking industry, Citigroup has purchased Wachovia, after the stock lost more than 80% in trading on Monday. 

Cleveland Ohio; Terrible American City, Or The Worst American CIty?

The Cuyahoga county Board of Elections is debating what to do about people who voted in the primary. They think that many Republicans "crossed over" and voted for a Democratic candidate in the primary election without swearing a "loyalty oath" to the party. You see, the Democrats believe that these Republicans may have done so with the intention of throwing the election by voting for the candidate they believed could not win against McCain. That claim has a lot to do with what people knew and when they knew it. Hillary may have won in Ohio but it only became apparent recently that she has no legitimate chance of winning the Democratic nomination. They have decided not to issue subpoenas.

To me, this seems like sour grapes. The Democrats in power locally are upset that the candidate they favor was not selected by the voters. I don't see what they hope to accomplish by this. Even if they do take some of these people to trial, it wont change the election.

The real issue here is freedom, specifically Freedom of Speech. Fortunately the Secretary of State understands this. The questions I don't hear anyone asking assume there are only two party's. Fuck that noise.

Section 3513.19 of the Ohio Revised Code demands that each voter be affiliated with one political party and vote only in that party's primary election. One's affiliation is determined by examining what party the voter voted for in the prior two years. Silly me, I thought these were supposed to be secret elections to prevent persecution by zealous political party members from hunting down and disenfranchising opponents. Section 3513.05 has been interpreted by Bouse v. Cickelli 97 Ohio App. 43 (1954) as meaning that a voter is automatically affiliated with a political party by voting in that party's primary election until that voter takes some affirmative act to change that status. The real kicker is that if you are subpoenaed by the election gestapo, under section 3513.19 (B), you must swear an oath to the effect that you wish to be affiliated with and support the principles of the political party whose primary ballot you wish to vote on.

What if you are independent and don't ever want to be affiliated with any party? What if the previous statement is true and you genuinely want to vote for the candidate in the primary that you feel would be the best president? In Ohio, apparently they are like McCain in that they value party loyalty over principle and freedom.

Here is the bottom line, failing to make this required oath or making it and then if it is somehow found to be false by the freedom haters that enforce this law, is a felony and carries with it a huge fine. In most states, felons cannot vote or own weapons, making this a really good way to disenfranchise voters. You just look at the records, pick out some cross over voters from the other party and stamp them as felons, thereby ensuring the purity of your party and the inability of any other party from getting votes in the future. This also discourages people from switching party's. However, not showing up to your hearing to make this insane oath is a misdemeanor. See sections 3599.36-.37

You can take the following as my affirmative act and public deceleration. I hereby refuse any affiliation with any political party that I do not expressly request. I further reject the principles of any political party that would accept my forced or assumed allegance.

Guns and Profanity

There are two issues going before the Supreme Court in the news today. The hearing challenging the Washington D.C. gun ban and a challenge to broadcast indecency regulation by Fox. Both of these cases have to do with the relationship of individual to one's government. And, in both of these cases freedom is being defended by right wing maniacs. The same maniacs who have been decidedly anti-freedom under the Bush administration.

It's difficult to defend freedom of speech when its offensive, and it's difficult to defend the right to have and use a lethal weapon without resorting to a slippery slope argument that evokes an opressive totalatarian 1984 regime.

Many of the Founding Fathers were philosophically libertarian. This philosophy describes the American way the individual relates to one's government. Power is vested in the government by the citizens and the purpose of the government is to preserve the rights of its citizens. This is the only way sovereignty can be legitimate. Under this philosophy, the rights delineated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not granted by the document but ensured by it. Every human has these rights, it is the purpose of government to ensure the freedom to use these rights.

Freedom can be a scary thing. Its hard to trust strangers not to abuse their freedoms and infringe upon ours, but that is the freedom that each of us gives up to live within civilization. As long as no one infringes on your rights, you do not have the right to be offended.

The national debate over guns is often depicted as having one side that declares, possessing guns is an individual human right, and another side that declares that guns kill people. I do not see these as counterpoints to one another. Saying that a gun kills is like saying water is wet. A gun is a tool for killing and a pistol is a tool for killing other humans. The point is so obvious that it overlooks a fundamental difference in ideology that stems from the Western fear of death. We believe that death is bad and killing is wrong as if they are intrinsic universal truths. In an urban life, separated from the terrifying freedom of nature, and surrounded by a comforting layer of concrete and glass it is easy to believe, "my life does not cause death," but that is not true. It seems to me that this is the same kind of foolishness that leads to veganism. Though, as much as I believe it to be foolish, it is each person's right to choose when it is acceptable to kill. And in a society where our killing is done for us by others, it is difficult to stop. I can only accept that by being alive that my life necessarily causes death, one day I will die, and something will eat my body.



All this wheel of life shit is too philosophical for the debate at hand. The point is that sometimes, killing is necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to kill another human being. For instance, in self defense when that human is trying to rape you, kill you, or severely injure you it is acceptable to use lethal force to protect yourself. Libertarian philosophy supports this conclusion and our laws regulate its effect by apportioning guilt. If you accept these two points, that there are acceptable times to kill and one of those times is to protect your person, the only remaining debate is one of tool choice and the question of banning guns becomes one of reasonable regulation. Should weapon choice be limited, and in what way?



Meaningful hard data is difficult to come by since through studies have been done by either side of the issue and anecdotal evidence can be pointed to by either side. In my recent posts on this blog I have referenced some stories from the past year that tend to support the conclusion that gun regulation either does not work or is counterproductive. One story noted a significant decline in violent crime in Detroit, every year for the last ten years since the passing of Michigan's concealed carry law. In the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech, the killer had been declared to be a danger to himself or others. Existing gun control laws prohibited him from purchasing a gun but he was able to anyhow, either because of bureaucratic bungling by law enforcement or through the negligence of the shop owner. Even more recently a gun toting maniac shot up a convent and was stopped from killing more people by an armed member of the congregation that had the lawful right to carry and had been a police officer.

One last point about the Second Amendment. The founding fathers were radical revolutionaries who had just overthrown their government through a violent war. They knew this was only possible by having armed citizens who could be loosely organized into militia when there was a need for extra military force. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Such an audacious quote brings me to the topic of freedom of speech. You are not really using your freedom of speech unless someone is trying to take it away from you. The gurantee of this freedom exists not to protect mundane and polite speech, but offensive, shocking, profane, and challenging speech. This is why freedom of speech means you do not have the right to be offended.

Speech is impossible to regulate. Profane language is derived from emotion and is meant to convey that emotional content. The power is only marginally in the words but it really stems from the emotional content they are meant to convey and the power we invest in them. You might as well attempt to regulate anger and criminalize rage.

Even if one could make a list of say, seven words, that must never be spoken and if that regulation can actually have an effect on stamping out those words. Other words will be granted offensive power by being filled with the same emotional content and social stigma making the old words meaningless and silly. Language is fluid and meaning changes in relatively quick time even in regular words. "Humbug" used to be a profoundly profane word and is hardly used today.







Further, such regulation is inherently self-defeating. Labeling certain words as taboo only encourages their use for the purpose of shocking others. Thusly, restricting a words use as profane, only enshrines its profanity, and further empowers it to do harm.

I am certain that this was the goal of the performers who used these offensive words and caused Fox to be fined by the FCC. It seems ironic to me that Fox, the network that curtailed political speech and freedom of the press through social pressure and jingoism in the frantic run-up to the Iraq war where the MSM failed its duty to the entire world, is the one who is fighting for a small victory for free speech. Then again, if anyone is going to go to court over profanity, its going to be the network that brought you "Who wants to marry a millionaire?"

The Warm Glow of Freedom

Basking like with a last cigarette in the results of the Super Tuesday elections, one cant help but wonder if America really does have the best form of democracy in the world. First, of course, a definition of democracy.

The New York Times Editorial Board today posited on the reasons it would seem that American democracy is failing, or seems to be at any rate. According to the esteemed editors, democracy works best when it unites people by the party, and the problem is further complicated by the piles of money thrown at the candidates by interested parties. The Washington Post editorial today read like a recap of an insider's view, and pardon me for saying this if you find it offensive, but isn't it somewhat racist to cast entire demographies of American society in wide brush strokes? Casting the results as though all Hispanic voters favored Hillary Clinton, along with women, is rather disingenuous, overlooking the effects of class and the factors surrounding electoral participation. And, even though white voters might have a problem voting for a black man, Obama showed strongly in the South. Perhaps those who have been broadly cast as racists are looking for a change not offered by someone who is also seen as being from south of the Mason-Dixon. Or, perhaps, because of the unexpectedly high voter turnout in the primary, the traditional mainstream news media is unable to fully appreciate the results, or how they may have been distorted due to the procedural complications of our voting process.

Problems caused by overparticipation in the caucuses, which are themselves already undemocratic in structure, has reported caused problems across most of the country, as voter turnout was almost uniformly higher than projected by election officials. In states such as Kansas, Idaho, New Mexico, Colorado, and California all suffered from the problems related to the swell of voter participation, the ugly underside of democracy, voter disenfranchisement. Of course, it's easy for some pundits to say that the modern American election is more about individual, disparate districts begging for the attention of the candidates than any informative and substantive debate. However, considering the amount of popular participation in the primary elections, the U.S. is going to have some serious problems come November. In England, one observer asks if our system is the best, or the best that we can pay for. As one would expect, the comments are the best part of this article. To which, I can most simply respond that American's two party system doesn't properly reflect the policy aims of the American public, and probably wouldn't fit most definitions of democracy. That being said, here is the latest delegate count, according to CNN, not the distorting effect of the undemocratic Superdelegates in the Democratic race. Also, what good would this discussion be without being able to make fun of some polling data?

In Africa, always a target for those who criticize national governments on their lack of transparency and democratic institutions, the targets have somewhat changed. Tunji Ajibade, publishing from Abuja, frames the recent electoral violence in Kenya in the larger failing of democracy on the African continent and has some sharp words for hesitant British diplomats and their notions of development. Another darling of the West, South Africa, is faced with its own crisis in democracy, with the power of the state having come to reside in the hands of a single party, the African National Congress. One author criticizes the current system, and asks, "What next?" Other new darlings of the West, the Gambia, the DRC, and Ethiopia are also targets for abuse as what were essentially undemocratic elections yielded despots who, with the blessing of their aid donors, are ruthlessly enforcing their will over civil society and journalists.

In Afghanistan, whatever advances that have been made in democracy since the U.S. invasion seem to be quickly fading, as the Taliban continues to fight in the southern areas of the country. Meanwhile, the NATO countries are becoming increasingly frustrated in the varying levels of participation in the force responsible for bringing freedom and stability.

Here is a grim reminder of the dangers of flawed democracy, in which a small minority of a country was able to determine the fortunes and fates of the rest.

Now, for the election coverage!

A Few Poor Analogies

Congratulations to the New York Giants on what was at times, the second most boring Super Bowl Game ever and an awesome display of athletic ability! Would you take the result of this titanic struggle and equate the upset Giants win as a "good omen" for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Super Tuesday elections? Considering her years as a Washington insider whose praises cannot be sung enough by the mainstream media, I find that analogy to be thin to the point of microscopic. Hillary, apparently, isn't a fan herself, as no true fan would take a work-related conference call in the middle of the game. Another bad metaphor could potentially be Hillary supports LGBT rights like marching activists.

Another mistaken metaphor would equate everyone's favorite pariah relative-type Presidential candidate, Mike Gravel, with others who have epitomized the Democratic process and fell out of the race due to a lack of money. Sen. Gravel is still alive and well and contemplating an independent run to the White House, but is still at work in the Bay Area in the run up to California's primary, one of 24 on Super Tuesday. Which, of course, brings us to another mistaken metaphor, that the author is liberal like the Clintons. It seems strange to agree with a conservative pundit.

Another potentially mistake metaphor is McCain is as left as Hillary Clinton, as Mitt Romney would have conservative voters believe.