Reuters: Senate Dems may drop $50 billion resolution fund - What's wrong with Congress

What's wrong with Congress?  Democrats, Republicans, and the Senate for openers!

This one is a real corker.  So the House passes a bill that provides a $150 billion fund provided by financial institutions that is to be used to allow an orderly closing of financial institutions that are not viable.  You remember bankrupt financial institutions, don't you?  You know, the ones you and I bailed out last year.  So anyway the House passed what is by and large a fairly reasonable start on financial reform.  Not perfect, to be sure, but a reasonable improvement of the mess that the Congress created.

Now here comes the interesting part.  Some Republicans, to wit, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have, lets call it what it is, lied that the provision will lead to more taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions, never mind that the money comes from the financial institutions not the taxpayers as was most recently the case.  Never mind that it is only used when an institution is being liquidated, not funded to continue in business as was most recently the case.  But there you have it the Right Honorable Mr McConnell doesn't mind a distortion to the point of being an outright lie.

But wait, there's more, under the pressure of this lie, the Right Honorable Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, the main sponsor of the bill, disowned the fund in remarks on the Senate floor on Thursday, saying it was proposed by Republicans.  Now there's the real courage and leadership the country needs from our Senate leaders (they are ours you know, we elect them, we pay them, and, notwithstanding their appalling performance, we pay their retirement).

What's wrong with government?  Need you ask.  Common sense suggests Republicans, Democrats, and, at least in this case, the Senate.

News? Politics? The decline of common sense and ethical standards.

In the news today from the Washington Post:


Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.


CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

\The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.

Where to begin?  The news is suppose to be, well, news; presumptively containing significant elements of fact.  That is, unfortunately, no longer true.  This item, while particularly egregious is unfortunately typical.  Consider, CBS purports to report news; ie. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information.  Instead, what happened here is that CBS took something from a blog, apparently made no attempt to fact check, and then published it as though fact.  When initially challenged, CBS declined to withdraw the item! 

I've long taken a rather jaundice view of what passes as news today in a world of 24hr news cycles.  Much of it is little more than hyperbole wrapped around a minimum of fact.  Worse still, much of the hyperbole is cast as war like confrontation.  Why then are we surprised when civil discourse is, well, anything but civil.  Instead, we have a pervasive environment of uncivil, confrontational, discourse that makes it all but impossible to find real solutions to real problems.  

So now, thanks to CBS, there will be some number of people that without regard to any fact truth believe that a potential justice on the Supreme Court is unqualified because she is "gay."  Now, being "gay" is, at least as far as I know, a sexual orientation having nothing to do with someone's judicial qualifications or suitability for appointment to the Supreme Court.  Never mind that there is no fact to support the rather scurrilous allegation.

Common sense suggest that we all be much more suspicious of  what is passed off as news, particularly by CBS.  It further suggest that a reasonable first assumption is that blogs are NOT evenly remotely reasonable sources of fact.  After all, one of the fundamental truths of the Internet is that anything can write anything independent of the truth.

Pedophilia and the Catholic Church

I've generally avoided blogging about this topic, if for no other reason than I firmly believe that any ethical system that encourages us to be better than we are deserves a measure of respect.  But, this business with the catholic church defies understanding.  The church, in my opinion, is acting in the most reprehensible manner imaginable.  Rather than clearly admit being wrong in hiding criminal acts by the clergy, the church continues to obfuscate.

Consider a recent quote from the current pope who said that Jesus “leads us toward the courage not to be intimidated by the gossip of dominant opinion.”  Lovely, just lovely.  Consider the facts.  Catholic priest in a number of countries have engaged in pedophilia.  In case you didn't know, that's a serious crime.  The Catholic church, including the current pope, systematically covered up these crimes.  In case you didn't know, that makes the Catholic church an accessory after the fact.  That is also a crime.  None of this is gossip.  It's well established fact.  It is not the Catholic faithful that need courage, rather it is the Church's hierarchy, most particularly including the Pope, that needs the courage to clearly acknowledge it's role an an accessory to systematic pedophilia.

In his remarks Benedict also prayed for “the young and those charged with protecting them.”  Now, that's certainly laudable and appropriate.  But where is the call to prayer for those charged with providing moral leadership?  Where's the call to prayer for those charged with managing the church?  Where's the call to confession and admission of sin, never mind crimes?  Absent this, the Church's hierarchy continues to set itself above it's own moral code and above the law.  It is clearly NOT above the law.  That the clergy considers itself above its own teachings isn't just wrong, it's immoral, it's a sin.

There is simply no excuse for this conduct.  Moreover, the conduct is immensely destructive of the church.  History teaches us that once before there was a time like this when the clergy set itself above it's own teachings.  The results was the protestant reformation.  One would think it would be a lesson.  Apparently not.

Campaign finance and the Supreme Court - appalling

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.

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.

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.

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.