Supreme Reactions: Hypocrisy at its Finest

The Supreme Court's monumental  ruling on gay marriage last week naturally evoked reactions far and wide. While some went to the streets and cheered, others embraced more ominous reactions. The most interesting aspect of the fallout from the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage is, that the detractors, be they the GOP 2016 presidential candidates or the Republican rank-and-file, fail again to grasp the bigger picture: the judiciary just solved one of their biggest problems.

As has been widely discussed and observed these past eight years, for better or worse, social issues have received a great amount of attention on the GOP platform with disastrous results: two lost presidential elections. Instead of seeing this ruling as an opportunity to focus on other issues, many continue to beat this dead horse. To quote Ted Cruz (via TPM):

"Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history"

Yes you read that right. Ted Cruz just lumped the rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare in with some of the darkest moments in American history. Be it Washington having to grapple whether this great republic he fought so hard for might be torn asunder amidst the Shays and Whiskey rebellions, or Madison having to yield the White House to the destruction wrought by advancing British troops during the War of 1812, or the country reacting to the casualties of America's bloodiest day at Antietam, or you know, that whole "date which will live in infamy" thing that Roosevelt talked about. Indeed, gay marriage being announced as legal across the United States is truly the harbinger of doom that was Antietam, Pearl Harbor, September 11th and whatever other dark or troubled day in American history you can recall from your 10th grade history class.

The main issue with Cruz's comments are that they are hyperbole to an absurd degree and for a serious presidential candidate with a strong following, this is cause for concern. If the Republican Party cannot grasp what an opportunity this is, it will be another loss in 2016. Sadly, Cruz did not stop there in his criticism with the ruling and even went so far into posing constitutional changes to ensure something like this does not occur again (via The National Review):

"I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years."

Having such an extreme reaction to a ruling comes off as petty and childish. The main problem with Cruz's remarks is that he, like his Republican cohorts, often invoke the mantra of upholding the constitution in their rhetoric to the masses. From Cruz's own website:

"As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Cruz is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and preserving the Constitution."

I find it ironic that someone who is so dedicated to "preserving the constitution" is more than willing to change it after a ruling from the Supreme Court. It is hypocrisy at its finest as, you can't harp on preserving something and then later wanting to change it on a whim.

In his very long diatribe, Cruz labels the justices as "individual lawless judges." This choice of language is amusing as one of these "lawless judges" who appears to be bearing the brunt of the criticism for this ruling and for writing the opinion on it, Justice Kennedy, has made very many rulings that Cruz has naturally agreed with.

Kennedy voted in the majority for the Hobby Lobby ruling, Citizens United, and against Washington DC's gun ban. Also, just this week, he voted in the majority to rule against the EPA. So this is a judge that rules for religious freedom in Hobby Lobby, freedom of speech in Citizens United, and for the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, all conservative talking points, and he gets labelled as one of the "individual lawless judges?" The Hobby Lobby and Citizen United rulings were also contentious, but those on the right such as Cruz held their tongues as these now "lawless judges" ruled in their favor.

Naturally Ted Cruz had no issue with any of the aforementioned rulings (the Hobby Lobby ruling is also specifically mentioned on his website) and now he wants to completely change the nature of the Supreme Court over a ruling or two that didn't go his way?  Such is a reaction of a child smashing their failed science project, not of a grown man, a former attorney general of Texas (the current one doesn't fall far from the tree, either), and one of our nation's 100 Senators. Someone who speaks so passionately about the constitution shouldn't be so willing to change it, especially when many recent rulings have gone his way.

Even more absurd, there is no guarantee Cruz's harebrained scheme would even work. It would just subject the judges to the political whims of the time and going with the GOP's recent track record on the national stage, it is safe to say things wouldn't change much at all. There is also an ebb and flow with public sentiment and the political climate that Cruz is conveniently forgetting about. A conservative leaning judge would be at the behest of a liberal majority and vice versa. All it would do is to further politicize our justices and as has been proven on the local and state levels, politicizing the judiciary creates dubious and often questionable scenarios.

Perhaps the best illustration of just how absurd the reactions are to the ruling on gay marriage is the current phenomenon of county clerks now refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds of religious freedom. In 2008, an appeals court struck down the appeal of Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota to deny service to any customer carrying alcohol, on the grounds of religious freedom. So we have small town conservatives sharing the same logically shaky ground as Muslim fundamentalists. I guess it is as they say, politics does make for strange bedfellows.

I do not remember conservative Christians marching arm-in-arm with Muslims down main street in St. Paul shouting for the right to discriminate derived from religious freedom. Because it didn't happen. We know this because the same Christians invoking the religious freedom argument to deny gay couples a marriage certificate definitely don't support the cause of Muslim cab drivers  using the same argument to discriminate against largely Christian Americans carrying alcohol.

Much like that of Cruz, these reactions are petty. If Republicans, be it a serious 2016 contender like Ted Cruz or many of the rank-and-file such as these county clerks, cannot move along on an issue like gay marriage, one that has no affect on the economy, tax reform, ensuring sound markets, or other conservative tenets, it poses major questions for the party's viability in 2016 and beyond.





References:



http://www.salon.com/2015/06/29/the_6_most_hysterical_right_wing_responses_to_scotus_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-hannity-darkest-days-scotus
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/29/paxton-state-workers-can-deny-marriage-licenses-same-sex-couples/29456745/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/judicial-elections-fundraising-115503.html#.VZYZyvlVhBd
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-09-muslim-taxis_N.htm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/republicans-gay-marriage-angry-119711.html#.VZaPa_lVhBd

Donald Trump Launches Presidential Exploratory Committee: Why Everyone Should Celebrate

So Trump is at it again.

. @realDonaldTrump has formed exploratory com for Pres and is our guest ON THE RECORD at 7p tonight /Fox @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/Vx7UJZ8yb9
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) March 18, 2015

Now, one's head might be filled with all sorts of logical questions as to why Trump would endure such a painful process another time. Trump recently mentioned that Romney choked in 2012, so what does that say of Trump's 2012 attempts at exploring a presidential bid? And if this exploratory bid didn't garner enough enthusiasm to beat a weak candidate in 2012, what does that say of him now? Or, my favorite, how much money must he throw in this dumpster fire before he gives up?

But I think such consternation would be missing the point of it all. The point is, Trump has not been successful at any of these attempts, despite all the wealth, power, and prestige the real estate mogul wields. The American public has continuously rebuffed his advances like a defiant Dikembe Mutombo swatting down jump shot after jump shot, attempted dunk after attempted dunk (remember Donald, there is no flying in the House of Mutombo). Such woefully pathetic attempts should not be shunned, but celebrated.

Trump's failed presidential aspirations, which some may view as either half-hearted or self-serving, still show that despite all of the issues with elections and political contributions in America today, be it the role of super PACs or judges soliciting lawyers for contributions, that at least our highest political office cannot be bought outright. So let's not bemoan another possible presidential bid from our favorite boisterous, comb-over-sporting billionaire, let's embrace it (and the entertainment it brings) as a sign that our electoral process still (kind of) works. Go Donald. Go America.






References:




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teasing-a-2016-presidential-bid-donald-trump-slams-mitt-romney-jeb-bush/
http://pagesix.com/2013/05/27/trump-researching-2016-run/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-R3bBmhqU
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/once-the-sideshows-super-pacs-now-at-the-forefront-of-presidential-runs/2015/03/12/516d371c-c777-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/judicial-elections-fundraising-115503.html#.VQuPr47F8lI
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/18/exclusive-donald-trump-there-has-never-been-a-candidate-like-me/

Ben Carson in 2016? Not a Chance in Hell

Well, that was quick. After airing his odd views on homosexuality earlier this week, any aspirations as to whether Ben Carson is a viable presidential candidate for 2016 can be decisively suppressed. In case you missed it, Carson recently opined in an interview with CNN:

"Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,"

My reaction to the interview was, "how is any of this relevant?" If Carson truly has issues with the concept of homosexuality and gay marriage, wouldn't something along the lines of "while I don't agree with gay marriage, being a conservative, I don't agree there should be a law against it, either" be a bit more palatable and in tune, with you know, conservatism?

Carson aired this opinion despite the fact that gay marriage restrictions have fallen in state after state this year (with Alabama steadfastly trying to be on the wrong side of history, again) along with 379 large corporations (including several sports teams) in support of gay marriage submitting a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court for their pending case. It seems like the country is trying to move along on this issue and there might not be anything left to debate come 2016, which might actually be a great boon to Republicans.

How nice would it be to have one presidential electoral season, where gay marriage was not a subject for debate? Such sentiment shouldn't have to be such a lofty proposition for a segment of the country that preaches small government, considering the issue has no affect on the economy, resolving health care, fixing social security, finding common ground on immigration, or any of our issues in the Middle East, be it ISIS or Iran.

Perhaps that is what is so maddening about such a stance as Carson's. One would think that with the rapid progress being made on gay marriage across the country, that the Republican Party would willingly rid themselves of an issue that has served only as an albatross about their neck and focus on other issues, other platforms, they might be more successful at selling.

Sadly, Carson is not the only Republican that doesn't want to move with the country on this issue and several seem intent to dredge the issue back up. Ted Cruz recently proposed a bill to force same sex marriage in all fifty states and Mike Huckabee compared legalizing gay marriage to forcing a Jewish baker to serve bacon-wrapped shrimp. Absurd propositions both, as people getting married two doors down, two towns over, or two states away has no bearing and no affect your own personal life, be they gay or straight and it is even more absurd we still have to point this out in 2015.

However, unlike Cruz and Huckabee, Carson actually has something to lose on this topic. Cruz is in the middle of his first term in the senate (and he is merely catering to the Tea Party segment that elected him) and Huckabee seems resigned to peddling his book. Carson is the one that is trying to create momentum for a presidential bid and one would think he would be more tactful so early in the process.

Tact, or the lack of it, is the real indictment on Ben Carson. There are plenty of characters in Washington D.C., but many of them at least had the tact to hide their odd, ill-informed, or downright stupid views from their electorate until after they've obtained office. The timing of Carson's views on homosexuality and gay marriage conjures up images of the incredibly hapless duo of Akin and Murdoch, the two Republican politicians who actually thought it wise to volunteer their views on rape (or was it legitimate rape?) during an election year in what should have been easy campaigns for both.

As absurd and ultimately comical the situations of Akin and Murdoch were, at least they were only running for positions in congress. Carson is eyeing the big stage, the presidency. Shouldn't the Republican Party and its constituents demand better at this point, after two presidential election losses? Simply put, the Republican Party needs to be more selective of its presidential candidates. This is the most powerful and important political office in the world and we should not be entertaining candidates who think it is important to ask whether prison makes one gay or not. Such irrelevant comments by Ben Carson are indicative of a candidate who offers no substance, no foresight, and therefore, no chance of success in 2016.




References:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alabama-supreme-court-not-budging-on-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-115095.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/does-mike-huckabee-really_b_6591804.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/03/vote-the-bums-out-the-eight-worst-congressmen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Todd_Akin:_.22legitimate_rape.22

The Siren Song of Ted Cruz

In antiquity, the Siren was a much-feared mythical creature, whose alluring voice and enduring beauty entranced weary sailors to approach, only for these sailors to meet their doom upon rocky, treacherous shores. Although we need not worry about such mythical creatures in our modern and civilized times, the mantle of this mythical creature has been assumed by powerful individuals in the realm politics who choose to weave their own siren song. Enter Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Cruz recently made headlines in an interview with CNBC by providing his opinion on the ideal 2016 Republican Presidential candidate:

If Republicans run another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney ... we will end up with the same result, which is millions of people will stay home on Election Day

The tale that Cruz is weaving is that the likes of McCain and Mitt Romney simply were not "conservative" enough and such is the reason why the Republicans lost the two previous presidential elections. This is as if many conservative voters in 2012, who hated President Obama with every inch of their bodies, decided that, because Romney was not their ideal candidate that they would just not vote at all, which is a laughable conclusion at best.

The exit poll data shows the real issue, the areas where the Republicans were truly lacking in 2012: women and minorities. Any 2016 strategy that does not plan to court more of each of these groups is a failed one, period. Furthermore, any politician advocating anything but is just weaving an elaborate siren song, hoping to charm voters of their own party by telling them what they want to hear, not what they really need to hear.

The main issue with Cruz's narrative is that historically, it also is not true. While McCain and Romney definitely have been moderates over their political careers, they surely did not run as moderates during their respective campaigns.

Have we forgotten about McCain's about-face on the torture issue so he could secure his presidential bid? Sarah Palin scaring off every moderate in sight surely did not help either, as explained in a 2011 article from The Atlantic:

But McCain and Palin didn't run as mavericks. Instead, they turned hard right. Palin’s old colleagues were stunned. “The speech at the Republican convention that made her a star, that was just shocking,” French told me. “She could have said, ‘I’ll do for the nation what I did for Alaska: I’ll work with both sides and won’t care where the ideas come from.’ Her background supported that. Instead, they handed her a red-meat script she’s been reading from ever since.”

Romney made even more overtures to the fringe elements of his party in order to obtain his 2012 bid, specifically changing his stance on birth control and abortion. A main reason for such overtures was the competition he was up against. Running against the likes of Bachmann and Santorum, both Tea Party darlings, the most viable candidate in Romney had to abandon his moderate roots in order to obtain the bid. Lest we forget, things became so absurd that even Santorum's own wife told him to tone down the social issues rhetoric (via Politico):

The day after the Michigan primary, Karen scolded her husband for answering too many questions on the stump about birth control, rather than focusing on how, at that point, he had picked up as many delegates as Mitt Romney. 

“My advice to him was stop answering the question,” she said. “Tell ‘em, ‘I’m not going to answer this question, let me tell you what I know about national security. I know a lot about national security.’”

The 2008 and 2012 presidential elections have shown that Republican candidates adopting far-right stances will result in failure. How do you make inroads with women and minorities, who have largely rejected you in two previous presidential elections, by moving further to the right? This is a time for hard questions, not ego-padding, which is all Cruz's rhetoric is doing. Candid talk, such as that offered recently by Rand Paul, is really what is needed and more constructive in the long run.

We all should know better by now, as this isn't the first time Cruz has used fiery rhetoric to whip the Republican base into a frenzy. The senator from Texas made headlines in 2013 for a 21-hour filibuster beseeching colleagues in the House to reject any bill funding the government that would also fund the Affordable Care Act. This of course drew harsh rebukes from many House GOP members (Rep. Peter King called him a"fraud"), questioning why Cruz is putting the onus on the House when he can't get the votes in the Senate to even support such a measure, if passed.

Even Grover Nordquist, champion-of-all-things-conservative, questioned Cruz's motives and tact (via Politico):

The only confusion that comes out is that Cruz stood on the side and confused people about the fact that every Republican agrees. He said if you don’t agree with my tactic and with the specific structure of my idea, you’re bad. He said if the House would simply pass the bill with defunding he would force the Senate to act. He would lead this grass-roots movement that would get Democrats to change their mind. So the House passed it, it went to the Senate, and Ted Cruz said, oh, we don’t have the votes over here. And I can’t find the e-mails or ads targeting Democrats to support it. Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn't deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away.

The 2013 government shutdown did not accomplish its desired end and resulted in failure, just as the 2008 and 2012 elections did, by candidates embracing an ideology that Cruz is now pushing for the Republican base to embrace again in 2016. This is not a logical strategy. Jobs, the economy, and tax reform should be at the forefront of the Republican platform in 2016, not a focus on social issues Cruz would bring in 2016, and Bachmann and Santorum brought in 2012. So if you must listen to the allure of Cruz's siren song, finding a way to restrain yourself might be the best course of action.

Odysseus and the Sirens - Bardo National Museum

Odysseus was so curious of the sirens, he ordered his crew to secure him to the ship's mast so he could listen to their enchanting song as his crew stoically rowed past. If you too find yourself tempted by Cruz's siren song, echo Odysseus and secure yourself to something firm, such as logic and recent history, and perhaps such temptations will be smothered as the wrecks of the 2008 and 2012 elections and the failed government shutdown pass you by and serve as an ominous reminder to beware the song of sirens.




References:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102135645#.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102146168
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/upshot/why-2014-is-actually-shaping-up-as-a-bad-republican-year.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Odysseus-Sirens.jpg
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/10/30/cruz-president-gop-moderate-clinton/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)#mediaviewer/File:Mosa%C3%AFque_d%27Ulysse_et_les_sir%C3%A8nes.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/02/politics/rand-paul-gop-sucks-james-baker/?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iref=obinsite
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73605.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/20/peter-king-ted-cruz-is-a-fraud/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/02/grover-norquist-ted-cruz-pushed-house-republicans-into-traffic-and-wandered-away/

McCain Forgets Economics of Drug War in Latest Immigration Row

With the latest border crisis, in which thousands of undocumented children have swarmed the southern border, Republicans and Democrats are yet again at loggerheads over how to resolve the immigration issue. A group of Republicans have rebuffed President Obama's initial request of a $3.7 billion emergency spending bill to resolve the issue, emphasizing the need for language in the bill to ramp up deportations. From John McCain (via USA Today):

"The best way to (stem the flow) is for planeloads of these young people to be returning to the country of origin and their families," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CNN on Sunday. McCain said it will deter families and "coyotes" who solicit money to get children to the border because they will see it's an ineffective way to get their kids into the U.S. "Then it will stop — and not before," he said.

While McCain is absolutely right that these children need to be returned to their homes, he is completely wrong in asserting it will deter the coyotes. The reason for that is simple economics. The demand for their services is derived from the demand for people in Central America to seek better lives elsewhere. This is so because in many areas of Mexico and Central America, life has been completely destabilized by violent drug cartels. Until a way is found to counter the drug cartels and the havoc they have wrought, demand for such side effects as coyotes and the like will remain indefinitely. The chart below is from a Pew study, which tracks the growth of undocumented immigration from Mexico since 1980:

The numbers within the blue columns represent the annualized number of undocumented immigrants per year. By 2004, that number has increased ten-fold to 485,000 undocumented Mexican immigrants per year. That is quite an increase from the 40,000 per year starting in 1980. This is of course no coincidence, as during this time the US ramped up its foreign intervention in the War on Drugs, with extended forays into both Columbia and Panama, as well as combating the traffickers in Mexico. With the destruction of the Medellin Cartel in Columbia, Mexican cartels have now assumed the mantle of chief exporter of cocaine to the US. So, as the US increased enforcement of the drug war, all it did was really just increase illegal immigration to the US.

The effect of the cartels in the countries to south of the border can be viewed in another way, by looking to the country north of our other border. The question is, do we have a Canadian immigration problem? Are there towns in Washington, Montana, and North Dakota, passing all sorts of laws denouncing Canadian culture, customs, and delicacies? Are there calls to ban Molson Ice and Bryan Adams? Effigies of Bieber being torched in the streets?

While such things have occurred (some examples here, here, and here) in our southern states in reaction to Hispanic immigrants, such animosity is not prevalent with our neighbors north of the border (short of trying to find a way to send Bieber back, naturally). The reason this is so, because Canada is a stable country with a sound economy, bereft of violent cartels vying for control of the country. No need for Canadians to flock en masse to our borders because their standard of living is fairly good at home. 

The correct question to ask is: not what our next short-term fix for the immigration issue will be, but how do we help make Mexico and these other countries better so their people want to stay and live there?

You do this by finding ways to hinder the money supply for the drug cartels.  By outlawing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, as we did with alcohol, all it did was cede control of the markets for these drugs to criminal enterprise, with no legal competition. And just as with alcohol, these cartels sprouted up almost overnight, moving quickly to satiate the demand for these products as supply is only affected by prohibition, not demand. Supply the cartels and the likes of Capone have been more than happy to provide.

So before we get delusional with any sort of border quick-fixes such as high walls or advanced monitoring technology, let's not forget that these cartels are so flush with cash now that they are building submarines and labyrinthine tunnels to get around any measures we would put forward. Go ahead and built a life-sized replica of "The Wall" from Game of Thrones for all you will, it still won't work.

The best way the United States can help to bring stability to Mexico and other countries in Central America is to address our drug policy. While many may have an issue with legalization of all drugs, by merely legalizing marijuana, it could have a profound impact on the cartels' money supply. As noted in Vice during an interview with a federal agent on marijuana legalization:

“Is it hurting the cartels? Yes. The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren't able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”

So even with just two states legalizing marijuana and dozens of others doing so for just medical marijuana, the drug cartels are already being greatly affected by legal competition. Furthermore, the concept of addressing the cartel's funding is one right from the DEA's playbook. From a release on the DEA website about the HSBC fines for its role in funding the drug cartels:

"Without their illicit proceeds used to fund criminal activities, the lifeblood of their operations is disrupted."

Not only do we have proof that the small amount of legalization has worked, we also have federal officials acknowledging that the funding for the cartels must be disrupted. However, until politicians like John McCain want to realize that legalization of marijuana is the best way to disrupt the cartels and in turn, help to bring stability to Mexico and the rest of Central America, then almost any remedy for the immigration issue facing the United States will be addressing the symptoms of the problem, not the cause.



References:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/13/border-children-immigration-crisis/12594927/
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34215.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/carrollton-farmers-branch/headlines/20130820-farmers-branch-votes-to-continue-rental-ban-fight.ece
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/english-only-law-proposed-government-mailings-arizona_n_2637994.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/arizona-mexican-american-studies-curriculum-constitutional_n_2851034.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/08/23/7048/buchanan-nativism/
http://news.yahoo.com/feds-cant-catch-cartels-cocaine-filled-submarines-010821526.html
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1895418_1877436,00.html
https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels
http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/hq/2012/hq121112.shtml

An Industry Afraid of Competition: The Telecommunications Racket

The 2014 year has been a tumultuous one for the telecommunications industry. First came the ruling on Net Neutrality, which set the web aflame with talk of internet service providers (ISPs) now being able to influence which content they might allow and for what price. Then came the Time Warner-Comcast merger announcement, which was naturally met with skepticism. Further compounding the issue, Netflix soon agreed to a deal with Comcast to ensure its products would be delivered quickly and without interruption via Comcast's own network. Naturally, it was assumed this deal was directly tied to the earlier Net Neutrality, a claim initially denied by Netflix leadership. Then not even a month later, the Netflix CEO did an about-face, saying exactly that.

Meanwhile, Google made an announcement that they are looking to expand their unparalleled, speedy 1 gigabit internet service (100 times the national average) to 34 more cities. This would be a massive expansion of their service, as currently it is limited to three cities: Provo, Kansas City, and Austin (announced just last year).

All this maneuvering between Comcast, Time Warner, Netflix and Google is important because, in our fast-paced and modern society, we are wholly dependent on the internet for nearly everything we do now. However, the increasing prominence of the internet in our lives has not been matched by respective increases in quality and efficiency of the products used to deliver it. In fact, the products being offered by these telecommunications companies in the US are simply inferior compared to those offered in the rest of the world. Citing a recent study by Ookla, John Aziz of The Week writes that the US ranks 31st in download speeds and 42 in upload speeds, behind Estonia and Lesotho respectively. So much for American exceptionalism. However, the lackluster nature of internet service in America is far out shined by the dismal management of it.

In 2013, Business Insider evaluated data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI), ranking the worst companies for customer service. Of the fifteen companies evaluated, four were internet service providers: ATT, Century Link, Comcast, and Time Warner (Charter and Cox made it on the list for their TV service). The telecommunications companies also did not fare much better in the Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" poll for 2014. Not only did Comcast win, but ATT, Time Warner, and Verizon were also ranked.

These statistics are relevant as, generally the shortcomings with the products and services provided by these companies would eventually be remedied by superior products and services of other competitors. So where is the competition? An analysis of the testimony from the executives of Comcast and Time Warner, who testified last week to the Senate as to why their proposed merger should be allowed, offers more insight into the practices of the industry as a whole. In their Joint Statement, executives David Cohen (Comcast) and Arthur Minson (Time Warner) made several very dubious, eyebrow-raising claims to say the least.

"First, Comcast and TWC do not compete for customers in any market - either for broadband, video, or voice services. The transaction will not reduce competition or consumer choice at all. Rather, the transaction will enhance competition in key market segments, including advanced business services and advertising. (page 3)."

The executives assert since the two companies don't directly compete, the merger will not have an affect on competition. That very idea is the reason why every American should not only be worried about the state of the telecommunications industry in the US, but downright furious. In the eastern portion of the US, while the two companies are not directly competing, their markets are literally interspersed among one another, all along the coast line (chart below taken from page five of the Joint Statement):

If the two companies were following the traditional model of accumulating market share, sooner or later two such titans would come to blows, would they not? That is the exact reason why the statement is so preposterous. Just because they do not compete now, doesn't mean they eventually would not down the road. The merger will essentially eliminate a suitor for competition. Frankly, the business acumen should be in question of anyone, not to mention two industry executives, making the argument that the loss of a competitor in an industry will actually "enhance" competition. A glance at the map also makes one wonder, how are these two companies, with their markets so close to one another, already not competing?

The answer is quite simply that they do not have to. According to the FCC, 30% of American households have only one choice for internet service (Hello data caps!). Why endure the capital costs of expanding fiber optic networks as well as reduced profits due to increased competition in new markets, when you can just sit back and have your business defaulted to you? Verizon's decision to simply stop its FIOS expansion is further evidence of this. Essentially, companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon have carved out their own hegemonies and have abandoned the age-old business rite of success-by-market-share (images of the Second Triumvirate carving up the map come to mind).

As if the arguments before the Senate could not get any more absurd, our two friends double-down on their "less competition means more competition" fairy tale several times throughout their joint statement (pages 36, 37) and even had the gall to say that improving customer service is a top priority (page 28). How can this merger help these two companies enhance their customer service, where as mentioned earlier, their historically abysmal customer service track record shows they didn't care much about it before this transaction? They even cite the expansion of Google Fiber as a reason to approve the merger (page 41), essentially implying that because Google is competing, the market must be competitive. The utter irony of two noncompetitive industry giants citing a competitive upstart as a reason for their merger to be approved is astounding and downright disingenuous.

The very reason such a statement is disingenuous is that these industry leaders have waged a punitive anti-competition campaign for a decade. Earlier this year, industry lobbyists submitted Senate Bill 304 to the Kansas State Legislature with a goal of banning community broadband service across the state. This is a direct response from the industry to Google Fiber, as Google partnered with Kansas City to launch it service. Interesting how, the answer from the industry to Google is not to innovate, but to try to pass a bill to limit competition. So after getting their butts kicked in the Kansas City market their answer was to legislate instead of innovate. Not very competitive and also nothing new from the industry. In fact, there are already 20 such laws nationwide. It is quite clear now that Google has become the driver for competition in the industry. In fact, ATT announced their own fiber expansion in Austin, only after Google launched their service, of course.

If the hypocrisy of touting the benefits of competition to the Senate while having pursued nearly a decade's worth of legislation limiting such competition is not bad enough, the industry players have also been forcing out competition by other means: frivolous lawsuits. In an interview with Ars Technica, Michael Wagner, former engineering chief of Falcon Broadband, describes the company's woes to launch their service:

"They did not want anybody else to come into their territory because they wanted to have that monopoly with their franchise agreements," Wagner told Ars. "What they started to do was file frivolous lawsuit after lawsuit to try to basically bankrupt us so we couldn't compete." Wagner recalled about 10 lawsuits from Adephia, and later Comcast, who took over Adelphia's operations in 2006.

So despite Cohen and Minson's best efforts, it is quite clear that the industry is nowhere near as competitive as they are spinning to the Senate, with frivolous lawsuits just being another tool used by industry giants to smother potential new competition.

At the end of the day, there really is not much for the American consumer to do, unfortunately. Our only recourse is to really bide our time for the Google bogeyman to expand its reach and bring more competition to the industry. It is reassuring that, despite Google Fiber's immense popularity and demand, Google is not resting on its laurels, but developing even faster internet than its already-fast fiber service. In time, this may bring change to a stagnant industry, all because the industry giants themselves have legislated and litigated to remain noncompetitive and block new competition. In America, where we espouse the benefits capitalism and the competition it creates, it is quite clear the opposite is true for our telecommunications industry leaders.





References:



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/opinion/a-disappointing-internet-decision.html
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/time-warner-cable-to-merge-with-comcast-corporation
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/netflix-comcast-deal-streaming/5757631/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/business/media/netflix-chief-alters-view-on-net-deal.html?_r=0
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/google-fiber-expansion-moves-fast-san-antonio-approves-construction/
http://business.time.com/2013/04/08/google-fiber-reportedly-coming-to-austin-tx-as-cities-race-to-boost-web-speeds/#ixzz2Q7YyUMPL
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-with-worst-customer-service-2013-5?op=1
http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Voted+Worst+Company+in+America+for+2014+/article34678c.htm
http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow
http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/verizon_fios/
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/04-09-14CohenMinsonJointTestimony.pdf
http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/01/3262071/proposed-bill-to-outlaw-community.html
http://bgr.com/2014/04/01/google-fiber-locations-spreading-isps-react/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/
http://www.wired.com/2014/02/100-gigabits/

Arizona Senate Apparently Has Nothing Else Better To Do, Passes Law Allowing Businesses to Discriminate Against Gays

Last week, Arizona lawmakers passed a bill along party lines that would allow local businesses to refuse sale of goods and services to gay Americans. Naturally, it has created quite an uproar with even some Republicans hoping it be vetoed by the governor. First reaction was to ask, does the Arizona legislature have nothing else better to do?  In tough economic times such as this, one would hope that there are plenty of issues for legislatures to address, not passing laws that will only hurt the state's bottom line.

Let's start out with the slippery slope such an approach would start. So a segment of society does not like gay people and does not want to offer products to them. What about another segment that might not like minorities of any color or religion? Or how about something more nonsensical such as clothing choice, hair color, etc (at long last, can I begin my crusade against flat cap wearers)? Such a law would legitimize discrimination in the markets, despite the fact that a business person who accepts such an approach will likely not be in business for long. More so, what do you think the reaction of such people would be if a bill was put forth to deny services to religious people? We all know the uproar that would create.

This is just another case of the current Republican Party not being able to prioritize what is important. The Republican Party of my youth was one that often preached sound business approaches to not only running a business, but to also governments at the local, state, and federal levels. How does reducing your potential customer population help your business? Quite simply it does not and is not a sound business practice. Which is probably why Arizona businesses do not even want the law. So, now we have a Republican Party abandoning its business roots to cater to an extreme element within its own ranks. Cathi Herod, President of the Conservative Center for Arizona Policy, said in support of the bill:

"The Arizona legislature sent a clear message today: In our state everyone is free to live and work according to their faith"

Such an interpretation of one's religious freedoms is profoundly misguided and just flat-out wrong.  I often hear many devout Christians cite common idioms such as "hate the sin, love the sinner (St. Augustine)" and "judge not lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1-5)" during political discussions and debates. So it is ironic that those same Christians will go against their biblical teachings by using their faith as a tool to discriminate against others. Depending on your interpretation, homosexuality is mentioned throughout the Old and New testaments (christianity.about.com has an interesting breakdown here). However, no where in the bible does it say that one should discriminate against homosexuals. People supporting this law are not only contradicting their own religious views of peace, love, and forgiveness, but also twisting them to their own ends by invoking their religion when such a stance is not even supported by the very religious texts they often cite.

So here we have a law being passed under the guise of religious freedom, but is actually antithetical to the teachings of the very religion of those that passed it (and let's be honest, we know how the proponents of this law would react to other religions doing the same). Furthermore, this is cast by a Republican Party reeling from two presidential election losses and is desperately trying to make up ground with a new strategy. If being compared to Muslim terrorists by a former Bush aide and lumped into the conversation with archaic, shameful laws passed by East African nations is part of this strategy, then they are just smashing it. However, as someone who is yearning for the Republican Party to return to its small government roots, this is not a sign of change, but just more of the same. Which is something the current Republican Party can ill afford.



References:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-usa-gays-arizona-idUSBREA1K06M20140221
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198979-sen-flake-hopes-ariz-governor-vetoes-anti-gay-bill
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/starnes-we-will-not-tolerate-anti-christian-bigotry.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-gay-rights-arizona-20140221,0,1812097.story#axzz2u9gXK36o
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/who-am-i-judge-popes-most-powerful-phrase-2013-v21984495
http://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/where-can-i-find-where-jesus-says-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/why-i-cant-say-love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin-anymore_b_4521519.html
http://christianity.about.com/od/Bible-Verses/a/Bible-Verses-Homosexuality.htm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-finds-proof-that-sharia-law-is-changing-everything-in-america/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-bush-strategist-anti-lgbt-law-uses-christianity-like-muslim-terrorists-use-islam/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/africa/uganda-anti-gay-bill/