The Middle Thirty - Rantings and Ravings on All Things Political: 2013

Friday, November 8, 2013

Cuccinelli and Virgina, A Wasted Opportunity

The close win by McAuliffe in the Virginia gubernatorial race is especially hurtful to Republicans in that it was a truly a wasted opportunity. Such a slight win leaves one to wonder, what could the Virginia GOP leaders, Cuccinelli, and Lt. Governor candidate E.W. Jackson all done differently? Naturally, this type of win evokes emotions and arguments from across the political spectrum. Some blame Cuccinelli's "culture warrior" stance on many social issues. Some blame the Virginia GOP's decision to have a convention instead of a primary. Others look to the success of the libertarian candidate and point the finger there. The fact is, it is a bit of a combination of all of them.

Let's start with the obvious. Virginia is a battleground state. Although the higher offices have been held by Republicans, the state went to Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Now, common sense would dictate that a Republican candidate with a moderate tone would be best for the next gubernatorial election given the political climate of the state, especially with the scandal that plagued the last Republican governor. However, things started off on the wrong foot right from the beginning.

With the State GOP leadership deciding to go with a convention instead of a primary, they essentially usurped the decision from Virginia's voters. As is noted by current Lt. Governor Bolling (via The Washington Post):

"Bolling blamed his party for holding a nominating convention, which he said boosts ideological candidates who are much less likely to win given Virginia’s diverse electorate."

As we know from past presidential elections, with a primary comes a vetting process, often a painful one. Perhaps Cuccinelli may have survived the primary. After all, he has had a long career in politics. However, it is doubtful that his inexperienced running mate, fire-and-brimstone preacher E.W. Jackson would have. That brings us to the next problem: what was the strategy in having E.W. Jackson as Cuccinelli's running mate in the first place? Generally political parties use the two positions to balance each other out, with each candidate trying to attract specific types of voters in an attempt to potentially broaden their overall message and reach.

Cuccinelli's already robust track-record in that regard should have forced the state GOP leaders to find a candidate with a different, even off-setting message than what E.W. Jackson offered. Just to review, Cuccinelli famously defended a Crimes Against Nature law (via The Huffington Post):

"A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B."

Despite the state's supreme court declaring the law unconstitutional, Cuccinelli begged for a rehearing. He also used his position as Attorney General to sue a climate scientist at UVA, something the courts eventually tossed out. This is ironic in that a small government proponent used his position in government to try to influence academia in a clear abuse of power. To finish things off, Cuccinelli has also been very outspoken in regards to gay marriage.

With such a strong emphasis on social issues by Cuccinelli, having another social crusader in E.W. Jackson on the ballot was not only not needed, it was essentially doubling-down on crazy. The intense rhetoric fielded by both candidates on social issues seemed to drown out their speech in other important areas such as health care and the economy.

It just seems the Virginia GOP leadership forgot about the outcome of the 2012 election and how the focus on social issues haunted many of the candidates. Let's not forget about Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch (those two extra Senate seats would be really helpful right now, don't you think?). Quite frankly, running on social issues on a local scale might work, but on the national scale or for a battleground state, it does not. The appeal of the libertarian candidate, gaining 6.5% of the vote, shows that for Virginia. A Republican with a moderate or libertarian-leaning message would have likely undercut any widespread support of a third-party candidate, which would have been the difference in this election.

Republicans in Virginia as well as Republican leaders across the country must now look in the mirror. What is more important? The hypocritical stance of emphasizing small government while supporting legislation against abortion and gay rights or truly focusing on small government such as the deficit, the economy, and the recent health care woes and leaving these social issues to individuals to solve on their own? Even Karl Rove acknowledged things must change. With such a close election against a weak opponent, one can only hope that the Republican Party wants to change. Until then, more wasted opportunities lie ahead.

References:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/polls-open-across-virginia-in-hotly-contested-governors-race/2013/11/04/06c6205c-45d2-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/08/libertarian-robert-sarvis-drew-record-high-votes-in-virginia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia,_2008
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/11/star-scientific-ceo-jonnie-williams-resigns-amid-bob-mcdonnell-scandal-96578.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/ralph-northam-wins-race-for-virginia-lieutenant-governor/2013/11/05/3ce6cf02-4257-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/30/e_w_jackson_lives_the_christian_value_of_lying_like_crazy.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/ken-cuccinelli-sodomy_n_4226708.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cuccinelli-wants-rehearing-virginias-anti-sodomy-law
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/03/02/virginia-supreme-court-tosses-out-ag-cuccinelli-inquisition-on-michael-mann/
http://www.wafb.com/story/15255638/slideshow?widgetid=86735
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/11/07/karl-rove-cuccinelli-virginia-governor-shutdown/3465043/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/politics/virginia-gop-asks-why-it-lost-to-rival-deemed-weak.html?_r=0

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Spectre of Iraq Looms Over Syria Decision

The Obama Administration's strategy toward Syria has been one stymied by bitter diplomacy, political partisanship, and past foreign policy blunders. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Assad did use chemical weapons on his own people, there is little actual support for action on Syria in the US, leaving Obama with little recourse but to look to the UN for action.

A quick glance at our country's history in the region, with a focus on Iran and Iraq, will show why finding support to strike Syria is scant:

1953 - The CIA and British MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, over fears that the nationalization of Iran's oil industry would lead to a Soviet takeover. Shah Reza Pahlavi was put into power and would remain an ally until his ouster in 1979.
1979 - the Shah of Iran is ousted by revolutionaries and the Islamic Republic of Iran is established. Condemned by this new, hostile government for the 1953 coup, the United States then sought to ally ourselves with another rising power in the region, Saddam Hussein.
1980 - With new ally Saddam Hussein invading our former ally of 25 years, The Iran-Iraq war begins. The US would provide Iraq with helicopters, training, and dual-use technology. The war would rage on for 8 years, with a total of one million killed, along with the use of chemical weapons by Saddam's forces.

During this period, the CIA was also arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Invasion, as made famous by Charlie Wilson's War.

1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait. The international community responds and in 1991 Operation Desert Storm began to displace Saddam from Kuwait. Coalition forces stop just short of moving into Baghdad and removing Saddam.
2001 - In reaction to the September 11 attacks, the US invades Afghanistan to displace the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2003 - US invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein over the allegations of Iraq stock piling WMDs and chemical weapons. Troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2011 without any WMDs or Chemical weapons being found.
2011 - Former ally, Mujahideen fighter, and architect of the September 11 attacks Osama Bin Laden is killed in Pakistan.
2011 - Libyans overthrow their government with NATO air support during the Arab Spring.
2011 - Syrians revolt against the Assad regime. Estimated 100,000 dead through June 2013.

The history of US intervention in the Middle East and the surrounding Arab countries is essentially one of a failed foreign policy. Former allies of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan would all later become enemies. Twice, our intervention in to providing resources and training would backfire as we would go on to fight Iraq (two times) and the successors to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Such a history, compounded with the recent reports of the increasing divide between rebel forces in Syria, would definitely make one apprehensive about getting involved at all and with good reason. It almost seems like a chapter out of 1984, where allegiances have switched so many times it has become hard to keep track ("We've always been at war with Eastasia").

If it were as simple to look at our trouble history in the region and our failed nation-building, then the conclusion to not get involved in Syria would be an easy one. However, the entrance of partisan politics into the mix has clouded the situation, prominently within the ranks of the Republican Party. A sharp divide has arisen, especially between the likes of libertarian-leaning Rand Paul and the old guard of John McCain, along with former Bush cabinet members of Cheney and Rumsfeld chiming in. Let's start with the irony of the latter two being arrogant enough to think they have the qualifications to even speak further on foreign policy. You can see a nice video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983:

With Cheney, here is a video of his opinion as to why the George HW Bush Administration did not remove Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm:

As we know, both were apart of George W. Bush's Administration during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld's prior interaction with Saddam is more symbolic, as it would become an embarrassing episode in the drama of US-Iraq relations. With Cheney, the interview is more profound as it illustrates all the problems the US would later have during the Iraq invasion of 2003 and subsequent occupation. Despite such revelations of a potential insurgency and lack of regional allied support, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush all pressed forward with the invasion.

Such issues did not prevent both from chiming in on Syria, along party lines. Rumsfeld, via politico:

"There really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation"

Cheney, via The Daily Caller:

“Is it strictly humanitarian?” he continued. “Is it geo-strategic? Does the United States have a vested interest in the outcome? Are we potentially involved in some kind of proxy war with the Soviets or the Russians, excuse me, who are supporting Assad? I think it is important that Assad go down. I think — my instinct would have been to support the opposition sooner. You had an opportunity, if you cared about it, if it was in fact in the national interest. You had an opportunity earlier to provide support without having to get American forces directly involved and they took a pass. Now they are going to do it. But the question is whether or not they are a day late and a dollar short."

It is so nice to see both Rumsfeld and Cheney growing a conscience about the United States moving into a possible protracted war. Too bad they bother didn't ask such rhetorical questions or provide the same resistance when they made the choice to invade Iraq in 2003. I am sure their criticism has nothing to do with the fact that there is a Democrat in the White House.

Let us not forget how quickly Iraq turned bad. What was supposed to be a short invasion, turned into a near-decade quagmire, with 4400+ American soldiers dead. These two men served as part of an administration, so sure of its success in Iraq, it didn't even bother to provide security to many important sites in Baghdad after the invasion and looting became rampant. Finally, after withdrawing in 2011, the ultimate slap-in-the face occurred as China moved in to essentially control Iraq's oil industry. I think after all these debacles, it is just time for both Cheney and Rumsfeld to simply shut up about foreign policy. More humble men would be shamed into silence, but for them hubris abounds.

The divide between the GOP on Syria serves as a microcosm of how the country also feels about the Syria issue. Despite the chemical weapons use by Assad, the country is tired of war, so I do think the resistance by many in congress is a result of this. I think the average American, after seeing the blunders of Iraq, has at least become enlightened in one regard: politicians shouldn't be trusted with the lives of our soldiers so wantonly as in 2003. Also, maybe we should demand our government do a better job of vetting our allies, as if being associated with Hussein and Bin Laden is not bad enough, our record in South America is not very stellar either.

This phenomenon, however, also illustrates the bitter irony of the Syria situation. Unlike Iraq, where the evidence for WMDs and chemical weapons was dubious, here we have stronger evidence with international members also acknowledging it. As an American who did support the Iraq invasion, I can admit now that we were hoodwinked, not by some moving prose from our president as to the merits of the war, but by our own patriotism. But now, exhausted from two protracted wars, we do not want to act. If only we had demanded such evidence from the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney, perhaps things could have been different in Iraq.

Essentially, for the Obama administration, moving on Syria is a lose-lose and in such a political environment, perhaps seeking approval of congress and the UN is probably best route. However, it also shows how utterly partisan the political environment still is in the US, with pundits acknowledging the hard choices ahead of the Obama administration, yet still seek to blame the president. From Buzzfeed:

"And Rush Limbaugh, the most powerful conservative pundit in the country, openly confessed that he hadn't made up his mind on the issue. After tearing in to the president for failing to act when Syria first crossed “the red line,” and deriding Democrats’ foreign policy “hypocrisy,” he arrived at the question of whether the U.S. should strike Syria."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-syria-crisis-inspectors-idUSBRE98Q0GQ20130927

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600875/obama-seeks-syria-strike-with-congress-approval/
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/09/23/130923taco_talk_davidson?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/syria-debate-deepens-republican-divide
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304373104579105483307740074.html

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Gupta and Ganja

Dr. Sanjay Gupta's recent change of heart in regards to marijuana prohibition, well explained in his profound mea culpa, is fascinating for a variety of reasons. My first reaction, however, was wondering aloud, "what took you so long, Gupta?" My political science professor in college had a term to describe educated people, who for some reason or another, were still ignorant of so much in the world despite their education. He called this phenomenon, Learned Ignoramus. It isn't lack of scholarship as to why this person remains ignorant of the realities in regards to their views, but due to apathy, laziness, fear, or some other issue, they just choose not to look at or acknowledge the data. I think this is a good way to describe Gupta's former views on marijuana. To quote the doctor:

"Well, I am here to apologize.

I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis."

Gupta essentially admits his apathy towards the scholarship studying the positive benefits of marijuana. This is further discussed in the article where he mentions that there are studies dating back to the 1800s which promote such benefits. Basically, the data has always been there, but many like Gupta, due to societal norms, preconceived notions, or other reasons, just chose to ignore it. However this is not a sharp critique of Gupta, as he goes on to explain in detail the issues with the drug war, including the DEA's lack of scientific data and and some eye-popping stats on the role of pharmaceutical drugs in regards to prohibition. The piece is an astounding, all-encompassing discussion and a must-read.

While the economic benefits of ending the prohibition have been explored on this blog, the question to ask is, if highly talented, successful doctors and academics such as Gupta can be mislead on this issue, what about the rest of the country? More importantly, our politicians? If people in academia, who make a living from analyzing facts and data can be hoodwinked so easily, does the rest of the country stand a chance? As Gupta mentioned in his piece, the reasoning behind marijuana's prohibition is not grounded in fact:

"Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance"

Looking at the history of marijuana prohibition, the doctor is dead on. The man who led the charge against marijuana was a certain Harry J. Anslinger. This was a man who used sensationalist headlines describing all manner of unsubstantiated ways that marijuana was ruining society, all-the-while emphasizing its abuse by minorities. If that is not enough for you, do not forget the great Reefer Madness videos:

So we have a law based in pure rhetoric and propaganda, with a sprinkle of racism to boot. Would you be surprised that, this was merely the same formula used to ban another substance in America? As described by Grace-Elizabeth Hale, in an New York Times Op-Ed about Coca-Cola and cocaine:

"Middle-class whites worried that soft drinks were contributing to what they saw as exploding cocaine use among African-Americans. Southern newspapers reported that “negro cocaine fiends” were raping white women, the police powerless to stop them. By 1903, Candler had bowed to white fears (and a wave of anti-narcotics legislation), removing the cocaine and adding more sugar and caffeine."

Again, more rhetoric and propaganda, this time with a heaping dose of racism. To think, the advocates of such an approach were doing so with a straight face, despite the fact that this was at a time when Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan activities were in full swing. A third drug also faced similar unsubstantiated persecution during this era. We know it as The Green Fairy or simply, absinthe. To quote a Salon piece from 2007 (when absinthe became legal in the US once more):

"1890, the book “Wormwood: A Drama of Paris” vilified absinthe, portraying the downward spiral that inevitably follows a drink. (Think “Reefer Madness” for fin-de-siècle Paris.) In 1905, a disturbed Swiss man, drunk on absinthe, murdered his entire family. Absinthe didn't make him do it — any more than a bipolar who hacks up his neighbor after drinking Jamesons has been deranged by Irish whiskey. But the tide of public opinion had shifted, spurred on by negative digs from prohibitionists and the wine industry, not interested in the competition. European countries began banning absinthe in 1906. Six years later, America followed suit."

A third substance essentially suffered the same fate: banned due to mere rhetoric, propaganda, and fanaticism. No facts, no studies cited. Make no mistake, this activism is not a coincidence, as the temperance movement was sweeping the United States and Europe. A more damning observation is the prohibition behind cocaine and marijuana was deeply rooted in racism, which is also an indictment on the DEA's current logic to still keep these drugs banned.

Three of the most vilified drugs in the twentieth century were essentially banned without any real evidence or scientific data presented against them. Two of which remain banned in most Western countries today. Gupta's marijuana odyssey is so profound as it illustrates, that despite our moral inclinations or misgivings on a subject, we must ensure our policies and regulations are rooted in facts and scientific data. We shouldn't assume others will look at it for us, either. Furthermore, we then demand our politicians to cite such data before we allow them to tell us why our rights must be restricted, lest we become Learned Ignoramus.

References:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/04/peter-wehner-has-blood-on-his-hands.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-drank-coke.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/absinthe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement

Monday, August 5, 2013

The NSA, Liberty, and Safety

Although the Amash Amendment failed in the House of Representatives, the very concept of the amendment and its near-success brought about some symbolic political ripple-affects. It revealed a chink in Boehner's armor for one, showing that neither the House Republican leadership or Democratic leadership were solid in terms of this type of surveillance. Furthermore, it has yet again dragged back to the forefront the constitutionality of this surveillance and the eternal question, how much liberty should we rescind for alleged safety?

As one would expect, many arguments again erupted along the lines of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Now one might logically argue, with the entrance of weapons of mass destruction to the game, that the rules have changed and they would make a good point. However, the crux of Franklin's argument is perhaps that, you can never be truly safe?

Many members of congress, the president, and FBI Director Mueller have all argued that such surveillance is paramount. The latter goes on to even say that this surveillance could have even prevented 9/11. Taking them at their word just briefly, let's look at this issue objectively. Here are the American casualty numbers since September 11, for this War on Terror, including almost anything that you could loosely tie-in (Iraq):

September 11 Attacks: 2,996 dead
War in Afghanistan: 2,246 of the armed services +1,143 contractors = 3,389 total dead
War in Iraq: 4,487 of the armed services + 1,554 contractors = 6,041 total dead
Fort Hood Shootings: 13 dead
Benghazi Attack: 4 dead
Boston Bombings (and aftermath): 5 dead

Grand Total: 12,448

If you look at the numbers alone, they might be staggering. The loss of so many Americans is tragic and definitely represents the heavily toll our country has paid for the gains made in this War on Terror. But, in the wake of all the laws we have passed since 9/11, such as the Patriot Act, it demands the question, are we really all that safe?

Sure, you can argue, we might be safer from Islamic Fundamentalists. But at what cost? While we rescind our basic constitutional rights in the euphoria related to terrorism, we often forget that there are a great many dangers in this life and odds are, a terrorist blast will not be what ends your life. Looking at recent numbers from the CDC for 2010, the other dangers are in fact much greater:

Heart Disease: 597,689 dead
Cancer: 574,743 dead
Stroke: 129,476 dead

That is 1,301,638 Americans dead from three ailments alone in 2010. Throw in the roughly 30,000 Americans that die on our roads each year, that number of 1.3 plus million Americans in one year trumps the casualties from our decade plus long War on Terror quite easily. So while members of our government like Mueller beseech us that the constitutionally-dubious NSA surveillance is imperative to keep us safe from harm, our struggles with heart disease, cancer and stroke prevention show such fears are misguided and misplaced.

It is ironic that many Americans bemoan the inefficiency and ineptitude of our government at nearly every level, but when the concept national security is brought to the forefront, we all the sudden toss aside these predispositions and believe that the government will act upon this information derived from trampling the constitution with vigor, clarity, and precision. If so, then why did this information not prevent the Fort Hood Massacre? The Boston Marathon Bombing? Such thinking is tantamount to the would-be inventor bemoaning the fact that someone beat him to implementing his great idea after seeing it on TV. Our government is excellent at having ideas but horrible at implementing them. To think our government will act efficiently despite itself with the data derived from the NSA surveillance is nothing short of complete denial.

Make no mistake, this is not a call of rolling back the War on Terror or isolationism. It is only a call for rational talk, as with what Amash offered on the floor of the house, in regards to safety and liberty. Before we willingly give over our rights, we must truly think about what is to be gained from such actions as well as what dangers still loom despite such actions. As Ben Franklin points out, being safe from one thing might not exactly make you safe from another.

References:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/justin-amash-nsa-amendment-94722.html
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589143/fbi-director-surveillance-programs-might-have-prevented-9-11/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft._Hood_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_bombings
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1105.pdf

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

When Jamie Dimon Says You Don't Need Banking Regulation, You Probably Need Banking Regulation

With the announcement by senators Elizabeth Warren and John McCain to pursue Glass-Steagall-era regulations for the banking industry, the debate as to whether such regulations are a good idea has been revived. The CEOs of the major banks voiced their opinions on such regulation, most prominent being JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon (via Forbes):

“There are huge benefits to size. We bank Caterpillar in like 40 countries. We can do a $20 billion bridge loan overnight for a company that’s about to do a major acquisition. Size lets us build a $500 million data center that speeds up transactions and invest billions of dollars in products like ATMs and apps that allow your iPhone to deposit checks. We move $2 trillion a day, and you can see it by account, by company. These aren't, like, little things. And they accrue to the customer. That’s what capitalism is.”

First off, let's cite the irony of a bank's CEO who had to receive a bailout exhorting to us as to what capitalism is. The absurdity of that statement alone should be a call for alarm and remind us that the banks have simply lost their right to speak on this issue. When Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 (via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), the banks received everything they wanted in deregulation. They were able to become a one-stop shop, bringing investment and commercial banking under the same roof. From the business aspect, this was a great financial boon as they were able to offer a more diverse portfolio of products to their customers. However, it also struck down the barriers that kept many banks separate and thus allowed for a succession of mergers and acquisitions which created the massive banks we have today. Now you can argue such government statutes as the Community Reinvestment Act only rewarded already bad behavior, and I would agree with you. However the question remains as, if that law was so unpalatable to the banks, then why didn't they focus their lobbying power on repealing it instead of Glass-Steagall? Therein lies the rub.

As we all know from the 2008 Subprime Mortgage Crisis, having these large banks largely self-regulate turned out to be a bad idea. But let's go before that. The banking history of the United States has always been a tumultuous one and banks conducting themselves unethically with economic repercussions following in turn is nothing new. The bank panics of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907 go on to prove that. There are some prominent ones among them. Andrew Jackson, along with many Americans, lost money in the panic of 1819 which sowed the seeds of his hatred for the banks.

The 1907 panic, in which JP Morgan himself was also a big player in, resulted in the creation of the Federal Reserve System. From there we have the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, which stemmed from bubbles bursting during a time of intense speculation and unethical actions on behalf of Wall Street. The implementation of Glass-Steagall followed suit in 1933. The result was to be, between 1933 and 1999, the most stable banking period in the history of the United States. Sure there were the economic woes in the early eighties followed by the crash in 1987, but things did not spiral out of control as they did in 2008.

Just by looking objectively at the issue, history does not favor Jamie Dimon's argument. We tried deregulation of the banks and it failed miserably. To add insult to injury, the half-baked attempt to regulate the banks post-2008 remains largely unimplemented, the bill known as Dodd-Frank. Naturally the bill's two authors leaving congress soon after its passing didn't help the implementation of it and Barnie Frank was an impediment to auditing Fannie and Freddie before the crisis. Let's not even get into the irony of Frank slapping his name on the bill after blocking such regulations earlier. The great thing about Warren and McCain teaming up is that it is a bipartisan effort, something lacking in today's politics. A bipartisan effort to fix a bipartisan problem, as Glass-Steagall was repealed by a Republican congress and Democratic president.

If we want to consider ourselves a modern, advanced society, we need to approach issues along the lines of an objective evaluation of history and the facts and data provided within. The results of such an evaluation demand something be done about the banks, regardless of party affiliation. Now perhaps the bill presented by Warren and McCain might not be the best way to go about it, as is illustrated in a great piece by the Washington Post's Dylan Matthews, but at least it starts a discussion.

However, if you are still skeptical about all this, the pièce de résistance of the argument for logical regulation of the banks lies within the mind of the architect of Glass-Steagall's very demise, Sandy Weill. In a 2012 interview with CNBC, the famed Wall Street trader opined:

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail.”

Quite the surprising comment coming from the guy who had "The Shatterer of Glass-Steagall" engraved on a placard and placed on his wall, as if some hunting trophy. If such a profound about-face does not illustrate the dire need to implement sound banking regulations in spite of partisan politics, then nothing will.

Refences:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/07/11/elizabeth-warren-hits-big-banks-where-it-hurts-new-bill-would-restore-glass-steagall/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100906282
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuXMXmqSHnc
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/12/elizabeth-warren-and-john-mccain-want-glass-steagall-back-should-you/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48315170
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03weill.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=business&

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Immigration Reform: A Logical Business Decision

With the Senate passing a historic, bipartisan immigration bill two weeks ago, it now lies to the House of Representatives to act. Knowing the partisan nature of Washington as well as the Republican-dominated house, it is safe to say that this fight to pass pragmatic immigration reform has merely just started.

The main issue of contention we hear, not only with this bill, but with the immigration debate in general is the idea of giving "amnesty" (or "legalization" as it is being called now) to the 11 million or so illegal immigrants already in country. Furthermore, some are worried that committing such an act will do nothing but swell the ranks of the Democratic party. That is assuming these newly minted American citizens will suddenly don blue and that the "country is over" once that occurs. As absurd as that sounds, it is the very argument Ann Coulter made just recently, to an unconvinced Sean Hannity no less.

There are so many things wrong that argument, it is hard to find a place to start. But, as I often do with this blog, I will address this argument and this immigration issue with a business hat on. The fact is we have an immigration problem due to a variety of reasons, but we cannot ignore that our previous efforts have failed and we have roughly 11 million people here illegally. Considering the issues with our economy and deficit from a business perspective, it is in our best interest to find a way to get these illegal immigrants integrated into the system to ultimately become tax-paying citizens. Compared to the status quo where illegal immigrants are not contributing to our tax base and continue to be a drain on our economy, this is a logical, business-savvy choice. Businesses often have to re-evaluate strategy in the face of adversity and cut their losses when need be, selecting a new vision going forward. This is precisely one of those occasions.

Furthermore, the fallacy of Coulter's rhetoric is automatically assuming these immigrants are lost to the Republican party. Why is that? Here in Texas, many people of Hispanic/Latino descent vote Republican (GW Bush carried 44% percent in 2004), as is the same in Florida. The worst part about such an argument is that if Coulter thinks these immigrants are automatically lost to the GOP, isn't that an indictment on the GOP? These people are migrating from a country wracked with violence and government corruption and one would think a small government message from Republicans might reverberate with such a people. If nothing else, it sounds like we conservatives have an image problem in regards to immigration.

Let us not forget the immigration bill penned by the "Gang of Eight" senators is a direct result of the 2012 election. In the wake of Obama's victory, Republican leadership quickly realized that a change in tune was needed, as stated by Rubio (from NPR):

"It's really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their grandmother. It's very difficult to get people to listen to anything else you're saying," Rubio said. "So I think it's critical. There's just common sense involved here in terms of how you portray it. Policy matters, too, but rhetoric is important."

The fact is, pundits like Coulter are crying that the sky is falling if we implement a path to citizenship (one that will take a whopping 13 years) instead of viewing it as a logical business opportunity. All of these 11 million immigrants should be viewed as potential customers, not automatic competitors. Sure, currently the Democrats do have more to gain from implementing immigration reform initially, but if the Republicans truly embrace it, they can market their message to these immigrants who came here for merely the chance of a better life. Not to mention, in the face of already losing the immigrant vote in 2012, to do nothing would even be more disastrous. One thing is for sure, immigration reform is coming and it is best to embrace it than to be run over by it.

A path to citizenship is only one aspect of immigration reform. As is mentioned in the Senate bill, the former will only be on the table until border security has reached a comfortable level, which is the right thing to do. But let's be honest, even these measures fall short of the glaring reality that until this drug war is solved, which is the source of Mexico's current woes, this immigration issue will not go away as the people of Mexico will aspire to seek better lives elsewhere. But a bill such as the one proposed by the Senate is a step in the right direction.

At the end of the day, however, I really do not care about the initial affect on the political parties that this immigration reform may have. We need this reform as a country. For our economy and for our future. This issue transcends political boundaries. All too often are we burdened with thinking about the selfish impacts of a decision on our beloved political parties instead of putting country first, and we wonder why so many things are not not working in America.

Perhaps it is best to invoke the knowledge of one of the most logical beings in the universe, the almighty Spock (Live Long And Prosper):

Creating a path for immigrants to become taxpayers is logical. LLAP
— Leonard Nimoy (@TheRealNimoy) July 9, 2013

So let's embrace logic and business sense by supporting a path to citizenship. Sure, it may not be the most ideal situation, but due to the shortcomings of our current system and political structure, it is definitely the most logical one.

References:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/immigration-reform-5-things/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQfwOne_1rU
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/07/08/ann-coulter-is-wrong-about-latinos/
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/28/166054170/post-election-republicans-immigration-message-evolves
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/11/immigration-goodlatte-pathway-citizenship/2510021/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595733476062490.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
https://twitter.com/TheRealNimoy/status/354663510581587969

Monday, July 8, 2013

Kay Bailey Hutchison Is The Logical Choice

In wake of the announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry that he will not be running for a fourth term, the question to ask is, who will the GOP replace him with? Current State Attorney General Greg Abbot and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst are logical choices, but the best one truly is Kay Bailey Hutchison. Dewhurst was bested in the Republican primaries for Texas' open senate seat by Ted Cruz, so nominating someone who could not win recent a election primary automatically rules him out. While Abbot seems to be gaining ground as a valid candidate, former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson brings a wealth of experience and something even more valuable to the GOP: a strong female candidate.

State Republican leadership would be wise to embrace such a candidate to match against more-than-likely Democratic Candidate, Wendy Davis. This is paramount due to the recent rancor over the abortion issue in Texas and possibly losing female voters in the process. Kay Bailey Hutchison is helpful in this regard as historically she has been pro-choice and was chided by Perry for her support of Roe vs. Wade during the 2010 primaries. So what better way to fight a strong, female, pro-choice candidate than with one of your own? So the entire issue that helped to propel Wendy Davis to the spot light would be moot for the next election. To think, a gubernatorial election in Texas that wouldn't be dominated by the abortion issue? Sign me up.

One might say that such a choice would be too logical, and as goes politics, means that it will be axed immediately. Needless to say with Perry's announcement, Republican leadership in the state has a surmountable task ahead of them and logic might just be the best choice. We can only hope.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

The Gosnell Paradox

Still consumed with the abortion debate that has taken the nation by storm since last week's standoff in Texas, my fellow conservatives took a turn for the worse when invoking the crimes committed by Gosnell in Philadelphia as a reason for this renewed push against abortion.

We can start off by saying that what Gosnell did in Pennsylvania was not only illegal, but monstrous in every way, shape and form. However, as is pointed out by USA Today, he also broke the 24-week law already on the books. So you ask, how can this be? Small government conservatives, who attempted to ward off the creation of new gun laws in spite of the Newtown and Aurora massacres ...are now advocating for more laws in the wake of other crimes?

This is exactly what is happening. When crimes are committed with guns, we claim we just need to enforce the laws on the books and not burden other, law-abiding Americans with more restraints. But with Gosnell, a man running an abortion clinic who repeatedly broke the law while conducting his practice, we argue for more laws on top of the ones Gosnell already broke, across the country no less. The logic is that is if you want to create another law on top of a law already passed, the issue is truly with enforcement of the law, not the law itself...right?

For example, let's see what John Boehner had to say on both subjects. Abortion (via the Huffington Post):

"No. Listen, after this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I."

Boehner on Guns (via The Slate):

“We’re not enforcing the laws that we have on the books today, and so if we’re going to have a background check that’s in the law, lets make sure we do a real background check, which in not all cases actually happens."

So when someone breaks laws on the books when conducting abortions, we need more laws. However, when someone breaks laws on the books when using firearms, we need restraint and are better off enforcing the laws we already have, not creating new ones.

Further damaging is the rhetoric featured by Washington Examiner Columnist David Freddoso:

"That reason, of course, concerns the lack of regulation that enabled the notorious Philadelphia abortionist and now-convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell."

"The grand jury noted that even after Gosnell's unqualified, unlicensed staff had (at his direction) given her a lethal overdose of local anesthetic..."

"...The grand jury concluded that, had Gosnell's clinic been regulated like other "ambulatory surgical facilities..."

"These are the kind of rules that Davis filibustered against."

But his stance on the size of government changes when rightfully defending the Second Amendment in 2010:

"Even within that framework, our government already prevents gun purchases by felons (deprived by "due process of law"), fugitives and illegal aliens."

Again, with abortion, we seem to throw logic out the window and clamor for more laws and regulations on top of the ones already in place. If Gosnell followed the law on the books, the point would be moot.Where is the argument for enforcing the laws already enacted? As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a hypocritical stance and is extremely damaging to the Republican Party. We are picking and choosing with small government and the results of the 2012 presidential election were a direct result of that. The prioritization of these social issues by the GOP is an albatross that has done nothing but damage the party's credibility. After all, it is rather awkward to be advocating for small government and large government at the same time. Small government is about tolerating other aspects of society that you may not agree with, but do so in the pursuit of small government. In today's tumultuous political climate, many Republicans seem to have forgotten that.

Finally, it is disingenuous to say that the Republican Party was compelled to act in the wake of Gosnell's heinous crimes. We make it seem as if we were some dutiful superhero, lurking in the dark and only finally being drawn to action in response to insurmountably despicable crimes against the public good. This all sounds well and good, except for the fact that 2011 was a record year for abortion laws, with 43 more passing in various states in 2012.

Perhaps it is just yet another woeful case of pundits searching for real-life scenarios to embrace by taking advantage of public outcry in order to advance their biased agendas. Historically, the best way to counteract this political ax-grinding is to rely on the business professionals in these arenas and seek their guidance, you know like the Texas Hospital Association, the Texas Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who oppose these bills. Listening to business interests, I thought what was what we Republicans used to be about? A paradox indeed.

References:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers-like-wendy-davis/article/2532532
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/30/20-week-abortion-ban-editorials-debates/2477579/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/john-boehner-abortion_n_3460974.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/10/gun_control_compromise_house_speaker_john_boehner_will_wait_and_see_on_senate.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-only-kermit-gosnell-had-worn-pink-sneakers-like-wendy-davis/article/2532532
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/david-freddoso-should-ted-kennedy-have-been-allowed-to-buy-a-gun/Content?oid=2129553
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/06/was-filibuster-rick-perrys-waterloo.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/state-abortion-laws_n_1684825.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/2012_was_a_banner_year_for_anti_abortion_laws/
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/wendy_davis_gears_up_for_round_two_of_texas_abortion_battle/
http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/economic_development/P30/

Monday, July 1, 2013

Putin Says Snowden Must Stop Leaking, Chokes Back Laughter

Today Vladimir Putin, doing his best straight-face, mentioned that in order to stay in Russia, Snowden must stop leaking information. Images of a gleeful, yet restrained Putin conjure up memories from the speech featured in Sasha Baron Cohen's The Dictator in which the titular character has trouble holding his own laughter while addressing the West. One has to assume Putin is loving this situation, as this major stroke of political luck not only allows Putin to stick his finger in the eyes of his Western allies over their support of the Syrian Rebels, but also now gives him a profound diplomatic bargaining chip as well. I am sure we have no doubt that comrade Putin will put his thumb down on Snowden, right?

If the 2008 fiscal collapse wasn't a sign, this ever-changing situation just helps to illustrate interconnected we are in this world and how one country's peccadilloes can quickly spread to others, with dubious results. This is a nightmare scenario for the Obama administration, as concerns of Russia obtaining classified information surely come to mind. Needless to say, the Snowden saga does not appear to be ending anytime soon and the stakes were just upped now that a vengeful Putin has his hands on the NSA leaker.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Was The Filibuster Rick Perry's Waterloo?

The filibuster conducted on the floor of the Texas Senate last night by Wendy Davis was something truly amazing to behold. Not only was it quite impressive that anyone could accomplish such a feat under the constraints, but it was also educational on not only the inner workings of filibusters, but also on how the Texas Senate functions.

I, like many, tuned in through a live feed offered via the Texas Tribune's YouTube channel. It seemed that Wendy Davis was going to be successful with her marathon filibuster, then with two hours left, partisanship reared its ugly head. Another Senator, Donna Campbell, called a point of order for Wendy Davis straying off-topic. Senator Davis was making a point on how the sonogram law passed by the Texas legislature, along with SB 5, will add only more constraints onto Texas women. Dewhurst, presiding over the Senate and all-too-willing to find a way to kill the filibuster, sustained Campbell's point of order.

Needless to say, I thought those two actions were a shameless display of partisan politics. First, as other senators noted, mentioning a sonogram law that affects abortions in relation to a discussion about a current abortion bill, logically makes sense and is definitely germane. If not for the efforts of Senator Watson, this would have been Davis' third strike and the filibuster dead with it. The second strike was Davis receiving aid in attaching a back brace, and the first was for mentioning Roe v Wade during the earlier portion of the filibuster. Again, the latter, like the third strike was definitely related to the discussion, but Dewhurst abused his power and used a very subjective definition of germane to try to quell the filibuster. As we all know, it essentially launched a second filibuster via Senators West and Watson and SB 5 died, well at least for a day.

As has already been mentioned on this blog, the devotion of Republicans to these social issues, when there are other issues such as the transportation bill to tackle, is only holding the party back. A presidential election is still fresh in all of our minds where the zealous pursuit of these social issues essentially doomed our party, alienating moderates, women, and minorities. Dewhurst's blatant, shameful partisanship and abuse of power will not help the Republican Party, as many from not only around the state, but around the country took notice.

So why was the abortion bill even on the docket for the special session? Especially when there were other bills that required work? Well Governor Perry insisted on it. He picked a fight and he lost, and ironically, made a celebrity out of Wendy Davis in the process. Any doubts of her candidacy for the next gubernatorial election are eliminated now.

The battle for SB 5 serves as a microcosm of the issues currently plaguing the Republican Party. This focus on abortion is a purely hypocritical stance. We argue against big government, but then create a sonogram law to intrude on rights of Texans and an even more draconian abortion law, SB 5 to take that further by eliminating choices completely. We say we are pro-business here in Texas, but have no qualms in attempting to pass SB 5 which would have definitely closed 37 of the state's 42 abortion clinics. Closing businesses through legislation is not good for business. Not to mention, we are so mixed up with these social issues, we do not even know when to apply our logic. We use the argument when defending the second amendment that, if you ban guns, only outlaws will have them. This implies that people will continue to use guns regardless of the law. However when fighting against abortion, we think that by banning abortions, they will all the sudden stop, despite the massive historical precedent showing that is not true.

Essentially, we are for small government, except for when we are not and we are pro-business except for when we are not, and we made a mockery of the Texas Senate in the process. This defeat of epic proportions lies with Governor Perry. I think, at least in regards to his influence in the state, it may be his Waterloo. Even if SB 5 passes in one form or another during the second special session, it will be a Pyrrhic Victory, an Alamo. The national focus is now on Texas and instead of making inroads in luring women back to the Republican party, we have alienated them further with this zealous and misguided conviction to social issues, which at the end of the day does not help in fixing budgetary requirements, ailing infrastructure, or keeping government small. Pushing this social agenda one too many times has finally backfired, as Democrats and Texas women now have a strong candidate to rally around in Wendy Davis.

It is best to close with a quote from our great governor today (via Dallas Morning News):

Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn

We value life, except for when we don't. Things were going so well for this state when the Republican Party just cared about doing business. Why don't we just get back to that?

References:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/wendy-davis-begins-filibuster-to-stop-omnibus-abortion-bill.html/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q8Hr0O20LY
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/wendy-davis-senate-bill-5-filibuster-second-special-session-texas-legislature-213200601.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2012/08/has-republican-party-become-abortion.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130626-editorial-lets-avoid-a-rerun-of-texas-special-
session.ece
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/texas-senator-filibusters-against-abortion-bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_united_states
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/wendy-davis-rick-perry_n_3506917.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/06/lou-dobbs-comments-illustrate-just-how.html
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/gov-rick-perry-to-push-abortion-regulations-again-in-special-session-starting-next-week.html/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0626/Texas-to-execute-woman-Capital-punishment-No.-500

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

What Good Is the Justice Department?

Last month, the Justice Department made headlines by seizing the phone records of AP reporters, drawing the ire from free speech advocates and news agencies world wide. The move in itself is concerning and the motive is yet to be seen. But the question to ask is, does the Justice Department have anything else to do? The Justice Department's raid on the AP brings into question all of their recent behavior, which is just as dubious. Most recently you will hear of their failed battle against the morning after pill, which as we can see was yet another fruitless endeavor and certainly does not help the case in proving their worth.

These recent actions require every citizen to ask, what good is the Justice Department? Shouldn't this entity be the one going toe-to-toe with criminal organizations, powerful trusts, industry insiders, and any other entity that is too powerful for the regional powers-at-be to handle? Well an even further study of their efforts will show you that the Justice Department seems to be only concerned about the little fish. Their most infamous headline in 2012 was their handling of the Aaron Swartz case, for instance.

Swartz, the internet phenom whose efforts help lay the groundwork for many websites such as Reddit, committed suicide over what many see as a heavy-handed approach by the Justice Department in prosecuting him. Swartz was charged with breaking into an internet cabinet and downloading millions of JSTOR articles. Despite the fact that JSTOR did not want to press charges and by the Justice Department's own admission that Swartz did not aim to financially gain from downloading the articles, they pressed forward with an absurdly lopsided prosecution which could have resulted in Swartz serving 35 years through using an outdated, cold-war era statute, CFAA.

More concerning was the fact that, this was not the first suicide on the hands of Stephen Heymann, the federal prosecutor. The question isn't what Swartz did was right or wrong, it is was the amount of emphasis our Federal Government put on the case necessary? There are countless heinous crimes happening in America every day, and they throw their weight behind prosecuting an internet activist, downloading academic articles just to make a statement? This was just a little fish and it is clear the Justice Department was making an example out of Swartz. What are some big fish, you ask?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been quite open about her disdain of the banks since the 2008 fiscal collapse, questioning why drug dealers in America get hard time, yet bankers who break the law with impunity get nothing? Regardless of your opinion of the questionable legality of Wall Street's actions leading up to The Fiscal Collapse, our Justice Department did not even bother with an investigation. Furthermore, there is a case that exemplifies the Justice Department's inaction, one that is much more black and white: the HSBC money laundering case. HSBC broke the law, plain and simple. Yet, our government took the easy way out by just slapping them with a fine. Not to mention, HSBC was helping to bankroll the drug cartels, so it just goes to show that while using and selling drugs in America is against the law, apparently being a front for a drug cartel's operations to provide drugs, is perfectly fine.

To add insult to injury, Eric Holder, our stalwart Attorney General, bemoaned the fact that since HSBC's presence in our markets and economy is so large, that pressing criminal charges upon them might be bad for the economy. So here we have the Attorney General of the United States, afraid to take an enterprise guilty of criminal activity to court...for what might happen with the economy? Holder not only admitted that the Justice Department will not go after hard targets, but that any entity with enough financial presence is immune to our laws.

Essentially, we have an attorney general that is either too scared, apathetic, or just profoundly lazy to go after any big fish in America. Mind you, that goes against the very reason why the Justice Department was created. What happened to the Justice Department of old, going up against the likes of Standard Oil or Al Capone? Or how about not worrying about the economic implications of taking an industry giant like Microsoft to court in 1999 for anti-trust violations? Even more recently we have the Justice Department settling with British Petroleum, in which BP did accept charges. So we can go after Standard Oil, Microsoft, and British Petroleum but not HSBC?

It seems like, perhaps the Justice Department is just too busy of late. With profoundly important cases such as the attempted forfeiture of Motel Caswell, who would have the time? In this case, the Justice Department argued that the sheer amount of crime that took place upon the motel's property was grounds to seize it. Well, a federal judge didn't buy that argument after the motel's lawyers proved that the respective level of crime occurs at many other hotels in the region. It was another fruitless endeavor, wasting our courts' valuable time and our tax dollars to boot, over a case that would have little implications over anything.

So we have recent cases of our Justice Department going after reporters, the morning after pill, an internet activist, and a motel in Massachusetts. Meanwhile HSBC is guilty of business dealings with drug cartels and our attorney general says they are just too powerful to deal with. A Justice Department too scared to go after power criminal enterprise is of no good to anyone. It is time for Eric Holder, along with the likes of Stephen Heymann and Lanny Breuer to resign or be dismissed from office for their favoritism of powerful elites and making a mockery of justice in America.

References:

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/14/183810320/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/pill_06-11.html
http://business.time.com/2013/05/10/aaron-swartzs-father-calls-for-u-s-legal-reforms-ahead-of-mit-report/
http://business.time.com/2013/03/19/u-s-hacker-crackdown-sparks-debate-over-computer-fraud-law/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/internet-activists-prosecutor-linked-to-another-h
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/elizabeth-warren-hsbc-money-laundering_n_2830166.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/hsbc-too-big-to-jail_n_2279439.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/26/us-motel-seizure-idUSBRE90P02420130126
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Lou Dobbs' Comments Illustrate Just How Far the Republican Party Still Has To Go

The comments made by Lou Dobbs and Co. on his show last week really exhibit the fact that the Republican Party still has a long way to go in supporting women's rights and courting women back over to the conservative side of the isle. The panel was discussing their opinion of the results of a Pew Study that found 4 in 10 American households have women as the primary breadwinners and they were becoming quite animated about it. I think the pragmatic response by the average Joe would be, who really cares who makes the money, right?

But remember, this is a political party that lost the female vote in the 2012 election, thanks to making abortion and rape an election issue (a phenomenon so absurd, it is now cemented in history with its own wiki page), and then being constantly reminded of it thanks to the idiocy of the likes of Akin and Mourdoch, who were not only so profoundly stupid to bring up such a topic while running for federal office during an election year, but lacked the tact to hold their crazy comments in until the elections were over. Being stupid and tactless usually isn't the sound way to obtain public office.

So in the wake of such lunacy, we still haven't wised up. It is June 2013 now, and we still have a bunch of angry, old men complaining about the role of women in our society. Although Dobbs and Erickson were rightfully ripped by fellow Fox Analyst Megyn Kelly almost immediately after, the question remains is, what good is such discussion for anyone? How does this discussion help even the scales of women voters between the Democrats and Republicans?

One problem with the mentality of Dobbs and Erickson, is that it is literally so whacked that it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. In their eyes, the study shows yet another indicator of the downfall of American society. But what their discussion did was to alienate more female voters and remind those on the fence why not to vote Republican. So, next time we are in for serious election, we will lose the women vote, again and the likes of Dobbs and Erickson, still in their denial, will be waving their hands saying "I told you so!" This is despite the fact that it is a mentality like theirs that is really holding the Republican party back, not such farcical things as women making more money to support their families.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the segment, was the near-constant struggle of girls and women in Pakistan and Afghanistan to have basic rights. Their rhetoric reminds me of the tribal elders in these countries fuming about young girls getting an education, with others acting upon their vitriol with violent outcomes. While the actions may show how these two groups of men differ, their mentality is the same: bitter, old men who refuse to acknowledge and adapt to the expanding role of women in their societies.

More damning is, I thought we were supposed to be the party of sound business practices? Well, sound businesses adapt to the changes in the market and ones that don't, fail. So right now, we are failing miserably. Time to cut ties with the likes of Dobbs and Erickson if we want to be successful moving forward.

References:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/fox-female-breadwinners_n_3358926.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Todd_Akin:_.22legitimate_rape.22
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/megyn-kelly-lou-dobbs-erick-erickson-fox-news-92080.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-mourdock-rape-comment-puts-romney-defense/story?id=17552263
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/girl-shot-by-taliban-and-her-father-who-founded-girls-school-in-pakistan/

Thursday, April 18, 2013

If Only We Cared About Privacy Rights as Much as we do about Gun Rights

This week has been a tumultuous one for the world of politics. Between the Boston Marathon bombings, the failure of the Senate's Gun Control Bill, and now the CISPA bill, it has been a busy one to say the least. Today The House passed CISPA, it's second attempt at the bill, by a 288-127 margin with 194 of those votes for coming from the Republican Party.

The concerns about CISPA are well known. Privacy advocates claim it tramples the Fourth Amendment by allowing corporations a free hand to share your data with the government, without need of a warrant, and most importantly, with impunity. But the more peculiar aspect about CISPA is that it and its predecessors (the first CISPA bill, SOPA, PIPA, etc.) are all being pushed from members of congress in the Republican Party. In this party that I identify with most, we have seen it staunchly dig in to defend the Second Amendment in recent weeks, regardless of the bill, its intention, or even the bipartisan support for it. The Republican Party has historically claimed to be the party of small government and championing the constitution. But I ask, do our Republicans in congress know that the Bill of Rights to the constitution actually has more amendments than just two?

So we will allow absolutely no encroachment on the Second Amendment, but we will create a law that literally destroys the Fourth Amendment? As a gun owner, I had no qualms with the Senate's bill as I for a long time have questioned why there are any exceptions to background checks. Here in Texas, I have bought two firearms at gun shows from licensed vendors two different times, and received two background checks as well. But, if you are buying from a private seller, none are needed. You would think there would be more rancor from gun vendors being held on unequal footing, but I digress. My point is, we won't even allow common sense legislation on the gun issue. Anything that comes near the Second Amendment is off the table. Yet, we want to pass a law that allows corporations to share our private information with the government, the very same government the proponents of CISPA decry whenever gun legislation comes up to a vote? A bit of a dubious stance, don't you think?

Mike Rodgers, the author of CISPA, says that is not the intention of the bill and have labelled detractors as "14 year-olds" who do have issues with the bill. We are living in a world where Bank of America mistakenly foreclosed on hundreds of homes and is just now receiving punishment, where the investment banks got everything they wanted in deregulation, then only a decade later manage to tank the world's economy (with some help from shaky government statutes and naive borrowers) and received no punishment whatsoever. Just using those examples, the proponents of CISPA then want us to assume the businesses here will not abuse their power? Not only is it laughable, it is just downright stupid. Businesses will always find rules to exploit and it is tough enough in this climate to hold anyone accountable. It isn't an indictment on business in America, it is just human nature. If it is profitable and within the law, someone will find a way to accommodate and we do not need to be crafting laws that are overly vague to make things even easier to exploit.

That is the main problem with CISPA and was also a shortcoming of SOPA, both bills outsourced responsibility to the private sector with no recourse if this new power was abused. Everyone wants better cybersecurity, just like everyone wanted better protection of digital copyrights, but we want it the right way. Simple amendments that would have made CISPA more palatable were struck down. Mike Rodgers is adamant in that CISPA will not strip your rights, even though the language is quite implicit in that it will (not to mention, the largest hacking threat is from abroad, which this law will not help with). If he is so strong in the belief for his cause, wouldn't he want to assuage the fears of the bill's opponents, especially in the Senate and in the White House, so this bill would pass? It is quite damning with the fact that he doesn't want to. One can only imagine as to why. Maybe it is because he stands the most to directly benefit from this version of CISPA passing? That's right, here we have a congressman crafting a law in which he will directly benefit from monetarily. It is crooked, disgusting, shameful, and an affront to our way of life.

But let us not focus on only Rodgers' self-serving legislation. The bigger issue at stake is, yet again, the Republican Party has found itself on the wrong side of a very important issue. The 2012 election showed that the Republican Party had the wrong stance on women's rights and immigration. Being the main supporters of SOPA probably didn't help, either. Now, we are rationalizing the hypocritical stance of inviting government intrusion onto one constitutional amendment, all the while fighting vigorously to stop government intrusion onto another. You cannot call yourself the party of small government and of the constitution when you pick and choose which constitutional freedoms to sell off. But privacy be damned, we have our guns and that is the only thing that we seem to care about.

References:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580310/senate-hits-pause-indefinitely-on-gun-bill-reid-says/
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/cispa-passes-house-vote-faces-senate-possible-veto-1C9357282
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/04/17/should-you-be-panicking-about-cispa/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/federal-gun-registry_n_3101204.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3htEqpr99lk
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/04/18/the-latest-bureaucratic-bungle-of-the-foreclosure-settlement-bounced-checks/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-19/parsons-blames-glass-steagall-repeal-for-crisis
http://techland.time.com/2011/11/17/sopa-wont-stop-online-piracy-would-censor-everyone-else/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57580268-38/cispa-permits-police-to-do-warrantless-database-searches/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/chinese-hackers-us-block_n_3022088.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2013/04/16/obama-issues-cispa-veto-threat/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/pro-cispa-backers-spend-over-100-times-more-lobbying-opponents/