By a 5 4 majority the Supreme Court has undone the key provisions of the Mccain Feingold election and finance laws. I hardly know where to start on this most appalling decision.
First, I would note that in a rare move the Supreme Court created this case by requiring the issue of money as speech and corporations as people to be argued. While the court can take this kind of action it is rare and, I believe, but generally extremely ill advised as it allows the court to create law when the American public does not see a cause of action.
I believe that this travesty of the decision dramatically subverts the will of Congress and all of the American people. Further, the decision is an affront to all common sense.
I would note, as representative Frank noted, that corporations are not people. They are creations of state and Federal law. As such they do not have the rights of people.
I would also note, that money is not speech. While it is certainly true that money can be used to promote a particular political perspective it is not, in and of itself, speech.
The issue, I believe, is should an entity that cannot vote in an election be allowed to influence that election. It is in the nature of democratic elections in a representative system that elected representatives should to the degree that it is practicable represent the views of the majority of the electorate as expressed in the election. By allowing entities that cannot vote in the election to pour money into influencing that election the basic principle of representative democracy is abridged.
I believe, that the Supreme Court is a stunningly wrong in this decision. They have said to large wealthy non voting entities that in our country political office, particularly the national political office, can be bought! Given that the vast majority of Americans regard Congress as corrupt and ineffective this decision does not bode well for us as a society.
For my part I would suggest the following common sense rules for campaign funding. First, only those who can vote in an election can contribute to candidates standing in the collection. Second, media outlets, both print, radio, and television, be required to provide access to candidates on an equal footing. In a case of radio and television, it should be noted, that the airways are public and licensed by government so the requirement does not in and of itself violate a property right. While print media is a more difficult proposition, I believe that a reasonable fairness doctrine can be applied.
Common sense would argue that these provisions would dramatically reduce the cost of elections, insure that those standing for election are much less compromised by campaign fund raising, and extremist and special interest groups cannot inappropriately influence elections with money.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Monday, January 25, 2010
On the election of Mr. Brown
There has been much said about the recent election of Mr. Brown. Most often 'nattering class' views brown selection as either or both an unexpected upset or a refutation of president Obama.
It was neither.
First, it should be noted, that Ms. Coakley was and is not well regarded in Massachusetts. Even for a democrat Ms. Coakley was not an attractive candidate. Additionally, she treated her candidacy as something of a coronation on the belief that this was, after all, a democratic senate seat. As Mr. Brown noted in his campaign this senate seat was not Ed Kennedys seat, nor was it a democratic seat, it was and is one of two Massachusetts senate seats. Candidates for public office treat elections as coronations at their own peril as Ms. Clinton and now Ms. Coakley have learned. Finally, Ms. Coakley is campaign, if you could call it that, was at best lackluster and much more probably offensive. Most of her late campaign advertisements amounted to little more than "I've done lots of good stuff and the other guy is evil." This, I believe, was wrongheaded to the point of stupidity when seen through the eyes of an electorate that regards politics as usual as both offensive and evil. Rather than campaign on issues Miss Coakley, not well regarded in Massachusetts, chose to campaign on personalities and lost.
Second, I believe, that assertions that Mr. Brown's election is a republican victory and some sort of referendum on president Obama's presidency are entirely wrong headed. While it is true that Mr. Brown is a republican he was elected in large part because Ms. Coakley, a democrat, ran a monumentally inept campaign. It should be noted that roughly 50,000 votes would have changed the election results.
In the matter of republican v. democrat it is worth noting that a slight majority of Massachusetts voters are independents. The state is generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It is neither a red or a blue state. I believe much of the country is centrist. One need only consider the remarkable frequency with which political power passes between democrats and republicans to realize this. At a time when voters are disgusted by the masinations of Congress independent voters when offered a choice between a candidate of the politics of the usual and one who offered at least the hope of change chose the latter. This is not a republican victory. It is rather a message to both political parties that centrist politics is what the country wants.
Finally, I believe, that this election result is not a referendum on health care notwithstanding Mr. Brown's opposition to the current bills in Congress. As I have noted elsewhere while the current proposals address some important issues in health insurance they do not, in my view, address health care. While I do not agree with Mr. Brown's position in this matter it has realistic and rational.
While the nattering class will doubtless continue to natter on, common sense suggests that a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign in an environment dominated by disaffected independent voters lost.
It was neither.
First, it should be noted, that Ms. Coakley was and is not well regarded in Massachusetts. Even for a democrat Ms. Coakley was not an attractive candidate. Additionally, she treated her candidacy as something of a coronation on the belief that this was, after all, a democratic senate seat. As Mr. Brown noted in his campaign this senate seat was not Ed Kennedys seat, nor was it a democratic seat, it was and is one of two Massachusetts senate seats. Candidates for public office treat elections as coronations at their own peril as Ms. Clinton and now Ms. Coakley have learned. Finally, Ms. Coakley is campaign, if you could call it that, was at best lackluster and much more probably offensive. Most of her late campaign advertisements amounted to little more than "I've done lots of good stuff and the other guy is evil." This, I believe, was wrongheaded to the point of stupidity when seen through the eyes of an electorate that regards politics as usual as both offensive and evil. Rather than campaign on issues Miss Coakley, not well regarded in Massachusetts, chose to campaign on personalities and lost.
Second, I believe, that assertions that Mr. Brown's election is a republican victory and some sort of referendum on president Obama's presidency are entirely wrong headed. While it is true that Mr. Brown is a republican he was elected in large part because Ms. Coakley, a democrat, ran a monumentally inept campaign. It should be noted that roughly 50,000 votes would have changed the election results.
In the matter of republican v. democrat it is worth noting that a slight majority of Massachusetts voters are independents. The state is generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative. It is neither a red or a blue state. I believe much of the country is centrist. One need only consider the remarkable frequency with which political power passes between democrats and republicans to realize this. At a time when voters are disgusted by the masinations of Congress independent voters when offered a choice between a candidate of the politics of the usual and one who offered at least the hope of change chose the latter. This is not a republican victory. It is rather a message to both political parties that centrist politics is what the country wants.
Finally, I believe, that this election result is not a referendum on health care notwithstanding Mr. Brown's opposition to the current bills in Congress. As I have noted elsewhere while the current proposals address some important issues in health insurance they do not, in my view, address health care. While I do not agree with Mr. Brown's position in this matter it has realistic and rational.
While the nattering class will doubtless continue to natter on, common sense suggests that a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign in an environment dominated by disaffected independent voters lost.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
War and technolgoy
There was a second NPR discussion today concerning the use of high technolgoy weapons, particularly remote weapons, in the conduct of war. The basic notion was that it was somehow different than the way war was previously waged and in some way a substantial change in warefare.
This conversation struck me as sophomoric to the point of being silly. War is a teriable business that involves breaking things and killing people. It is a profound breakdown of civility and a blight on civilization. But, with the possible exception of nuclear war, technology does little to change the nature of warefare at a fundamental level.
Consider the history of war. At one time war involved hand to hand conflict between individuals and groups. It might be said to be somehow honorable or brave to personally engage in conflict. Then someone invented the spear, then the throwing stick, and then the long bow, and cross bow. Now war could be waged at a distance. It need no longer involve the personal risk of hand to hand combat. Still such weapons had limited range and their users were directly exposed to retribution. But time and technology moved on with the invention of gunpowder, rapid fire weapons, aircraft with bombs, and other increasingly remote weapons whose users were progressively less exposed to combat. Still later we had cannons and long range missiles whoes users have little if any exposure to the consequence of using their weapons. In this latter regard the nuclear missle submarine is the current ultimate evolution of killing remotely.
This history raises the obvious question of how, if at all, robotic weapons wether operated by humans remotely or fully autonomous are in any way different. Common sense suggests that they are just the most recent evolutionary step in a long history of remote distruction. In short history and common sense teaches that concerns of the sort expressed day are both sophomoric and silly.
This conversation struck me as sophomoric to the point of being silly. War is a teriable business that involves breaking things and killing people. It is a profound breakdown of civility and a blight on civilization. But, with the possible exception of nuclear war, technology does little to change the nature of warefare at a fundamental level.
Consider the history of war. At one time war involved hand to hand conflict between individuals and groups. It might be said to be somehow honorable or brave to personally engage in conflict. Then someone invented the spear, then the throwing stick, and then the long bow, and cross bow. Now war could be waged at a distance. It need no longer involve the personal risk of hand to hand combat. Still such weapons had limited range and their users were directly exposed to retribution. But time and technology moved on with the invention of gunpowder, rapid fire weapons, aircraft with bombs, and other increasingly remote weapons whose users were progressively less exposed to combat. Still later we had cannons and long range missiles whoes users have little if any exposure to the consequence of using their weapons. In this latter regard the nuclear missle submarine is the current ultimate evolution of killing remotely.
This history raises the obvious question of how, if at all, robotic weapons wether operated by humans remotely or fully autonomous are in any way different. Common sense suggests that they are just the most recent evolutionary step in a long history of remote distruction. In short history and common sense teaches that concerns of the sort expressed day are both sophomoric and silly.
Security Technology
There has been understandably much todo about airport security following an attempt to destroy a landing aircraft. Of particular note is the conversation about whole body scans. Today there was a spot on NPR radio discussing the matter. That discussion set me to thinking, in which matter I offer the following observations.
First, the concerns for privacy seem to me rather odd on several grounds. Does one have a right to privacy while traveling on a public conveyance? Arguably no. Indeed, we accept a variety of privacy related constraints when traveling including, rather anoyingly, taking our shoes and belts off and emptying our pockets. So privacy while traveling is not an absolute right. What then is the issue with whole body scans. To me the conversation seems to be mostly about modesty, not privacy. Here I would note that our sense of modesty is cultural and situiational. For example a woman in langerie may be seen as immodest while the same woman in a two piece bathing suite at the beach that exposes her equally may not be seen as immodest. So part of the issue here is our cultural/situational sensibility while flying. To me that doesn't seem much like a matter of privacy in law or practice so much as a matter of adjusting situational expectations. Common sense suggest that if one abandons body shame the mater vanishes.
Second, I would note that whole body scans which can detect many threats, can not detect all threats. On a purely technical level they can not guarantee absolute security. Much of the conversation today seemed to center on the efficacy of this or that technology. This seems to me enormously wrong headed as it presumes that there is a magical technology bullet that can be used to insure that air travel is safe from attack. Here I note that air travel, like any travel, is not perfectly safe from attack. One need only posit a terrorist with a missle on the approach or departure path of an airport. What security technology and, much more importantly procedures, can do is to impeed threats of this sort. Common sense suggest that a rational approach to travel security is to employ such technology and procedures as are most effective. In this regard enhanced screening for people traveling from certain countries, on certain passports, on certain lists, or of some religious bent seems entirely appropriate. There would doubtless be a good deal of distress over this, particularly the religious issue. However, common sense notes that much of the threat is in fact religious in nature. Would that it were otherwise, but it's simply not.
The common sense bottom line then is this - technolgoy is not a fix, better procedures are, and much as it offends given that the threat is in major part religious based profiling is an entirely reasonable response.
First, the concerns for privacy seem to me rather odd on several grounds. Does one have a right to privacy while traveling on a public conveyance? Arguably no. Indeed, we accept a variety of privacy related constraints when traveling including, rather anoyingly, taking our shoes and belts off and emptying our pockets. So privacy while traveling is not an absolute right. What then is the issue with whole body scans. To me the conversation seems to be mostly about modesty, not privacy. Here I would note that our sense of modesty is cultural and situiational. For example a woman in langerie may be seen as immodest while the same woman in a two piece bathing suite at the beach that exposes her equally may not be seen as immodest. So part of the issue here is our cultural/situational sensibility while flying. To me that doesn't seem much like a matter of privacy in law or practice so much as a matter of adjusting situational expectations. Common sense suggest that if one abandons body shame the mater vanishes.
Second, I would note that whole body scans which can detect many threats, can not detect all threats. On a purely technical level they can not guarantee absolute security. Much of the conversation today seemed to center on the efficacy of this or that technology. This seems to me enormously wrong headed as it presumes that there is a magical technology bullet that can be used to insure that air travel is safe from attack. Here I note that air travel, like any travel, is not perfectly safe from attack. One need only posit a terrorist with a missle on the approach or departure path of an airport. What security technology and, much more importantly procedures, can do is to impeed threats of this sort. Common sense suggest that a rational approach to travel security is to employ such technology and procedures as are most effective. In this regard enhanced screening for people traveling from certain countries, on certain passports, on certain lists, or of some religious bent seems entirely appropriate. There would doubtless be a good deal of distress over this, particularly the religious issue. However, common sense notes that much of the threat is in fact religious in nature. Would that it were otherwise, but it's simply not.
The common sense bottom line then is this - technolgoy is not a fix, better procedures are, and much as it offends given that the threat is in major part religious based profiling is an entirely reasonable response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)