I reading around for my previous post, I found this website. It looks way over the top, and I fear that it may turn some peiople off as a result (would my parents trust it?) but it has a lot of good stuff.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/lw-exclusive-shocking-video-of-geert-wilders-hate-speech-on-us-soil/
Monday, June 27, 2011
Jihad and the First Amendment
Free government cannot exist without free speech. This is not a controversial proposition. Without the liberty to speak our minds publically, we cannot oppose a government seeking to infringe upon our rights, or collect the information we need to vote intelligently, or participate in what we now call “civil society.” Americans have recognized this relationship between speech and government since at least 1765.
Since about 1917, however, we have become more ambivalent about this idea. Americans began to see the world as a more threatening place, or rather, to see our government as less threatening than other governments or other people. During World War I, in defense of the draft (which raises questions of its own) the government passed a law prohibiting speech which might undermine the operations of the US military. (The further irony here is that the “Founding Fathers,” as they were, opposed the very existence of a standing army, as inherently dangerous to liberty. That the government would then create a draft and a law restricting the freedom of speech to defend the draft would have been beyond abhorrent.) Although the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” the federal government, including the Supreme Court, declared that when there is a “clear and present danger” to the government, people can be arrested for speaking their minds. From that time forward, the “clear and present danger test” has been assumed to be a fundamental part of our constitution.
Since 2001, our social acceptance of such restrictions has increased, especially when the people being restricted are Muslims. To be Muslim and utter the word “jihad” has become virtually illegal. Muslim leaders who don’t constantly reassure the public that they do not seek to blow us all up are treated with scorn and suspicion. Even those who do make assurances are subject to the kind of resistance met by the mosque in New York City.
In March, The New York Times Magazine did a story on Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim who considers himself a Salafist but also a loyal citizen of this country. He wants to make the case, both to the American government and to young Muslims, that those two things are not mutually exclusive. As Andrea Elliott wrote,
In other words, this is not just an academic matter. Not only are our citizens less well-informed as a result of such informal restrictions, but our national security suffers. Qadhi might be a highly useful instrument is convincing potential terrorists that violence is not the answer. As he said himself, “how angry and overzealous are you that you simply forget everything and you think that this is the way forward?”
He’s not only talking to jihadis, is he?
Since about 1917, however, we have become more ambivalent about this idea. Americans began to see the world as a more threatening place, or rather, to see our government as less threatening than other governments or other people. During World War I, in defense of the draft (which raises questions of its own) the government passed a law prohibiting speech which might undermine the operations of the US military. (The further irony here is that the “Founding Fathers,” as they were, opposed the very existence of a standing army, as inherently dangerous to liberty. That the government would then create a draft and a law restricting the freedom of speech to defend the draft would have been beyond abhorrent.) Although the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” the federal government, including the Supreme Court, declared that when there is a “clear and present danger” to the government, people can be arrested for speaking their minds. From that time forward, the “clear and present danger test” has been assumed to be a fundamental part of our constitution.
Since 2001, our social acceptance of such restrictions has increased, especially when the people being restricted are Muslims. To be Muslim and utter the word “jihad” has become virtually illegal. Muslim leaders who don’t constantly reassure the public that they do not seek to blow us all up are treated with scorn and suspicion. Even those who do make assurances are subject to the kind of resistance met by the mosque in New York City.
In March, The New York Times Magazine did a story on Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim who considers himself a Salafist but also a loyal citizen of this country. He wants to make the case, both to the American government and to young Muslims, that those two things are not mutually exclusive. As Andrea Elliott wrote,
[Qadhi] is the rare Western cleric fluent in the language of militants … steeped in the same tradition that spawned Osama bin Laden’s splinter movement. Arguably few American theologians are better positioned to offer an authoritative rebuttal of extremist ideology. But to do that, Qadhi says he would need to address the thorny question of what kinds of militant actions are permitted by Islamic law. It is a forbidden topic for most American clerics, who even refrain from criticizing their country’s foreign policy for fear of being branded unpatriotic … Engaging in a detailed discussion of militant jihad – a complex subject informed by centuries of scholarship – risks drawing the scrutiny of law enforcement.
In other words, this is not just an academic matter. Not only are our citizens less well-informed as a result of such informal restrictions, but our national security suffers. Qadhi might be a highly useful instrument is convincing potential terrorists that violence is not the answer. As he said himself, “how angry and overzealous are you that you simply forget everything and you think that this is the way forward?”
He’s not only talking to jihadis, is he?
Saland Does Right
I have been highly critical of Senator Stephen Saland in the past, and I still am frustrated by him in many cases. But he voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage last week, and for that he deserves as much credit as I can give him. He did it despite the flack he will take from members of his own party and from many of his constituents. That took some courage.
In his own words, here is why he voted as he did.
In his own words, here is why he voted as he did.
In 2009 when the marriage equality bill came before the Senate for a vote, I struggled with the decision. This is an issue which a great many have a deep and passionate interest, both those for marriage quality and those who support the traditional view of marriage. In part, the difficulty in arriving at my decision is that I respect and understand the views coming from both sides of the issue.
In fact, my decision today is rooted in my upbringing. My parents taught us to be respectful, tolerant and accepting of others and to do the right thing. I’ve received thousands of calls, e-mails, post cards and letters.
Many of them, whether they were from proponents or opponents, concluded by calling upon me to do the right thing. I want to do the right thing, but needless to say, that decision cannot be the “right thing” for both sides of the equation and, whatever my decision, there will be many who will be disappointed.
As a traditionalist, I have long viewed marriage as a union between a man and woman. As one who believes in equal rights, I understood that the State was denying marriage to those in same sex relationships. In 2009, I believed that civil unions for same sex couples would be a satisfactory conclusion.
Since that time, I have met with numerous groups and individuals on both sides of the issue, especially during the last few months. As I did, I anguished over the importance and significance of my vote.
My intellectual and emotional journey has at last ended. I must define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality in the definition of law as it pertains to marriage. To do otherwise would fly in the face of my upbringing.
For me to support marriage equality, however, it was imperative that the legislation contain all the necessary religious exemptions, so as not to interfere with religious beliefs which I hold as important as equal rights.
I believe this legislation satisfactorily resolves the religious exemptions.
I was part of a trio of Senators that negotiated with the Governor and his staff for greater religious protections in this legislation – vastly in excess of the prior defeated version and substantially more than this year’s earlier version. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the important and direct role of the Governor in these negotiations and his genuine sensitivity and concern to the importance of religious freedoms.
While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know that my vote is a vote of conscience. I have contemplated many difficult votes throughout my career and this is by far one of the most, if not the most difficult. Struggling with my traditionalist view of marriage and my deep rooted values to treat all people with respect and as equals, I believe after much deliberation, I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Health Care and Political Discourse
In the June 6 New Yorker, Ryan Lizza described what he called "Romney's Dilemma." The dilemma is that Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney once solved the problem of health care in Massachusetts. That might be a good thing -- in fact, Lizza considers it "the most significant bill of his career" -- except for the fact that he did it in the wrong way by today's standards for GOP candidates.
Romney's plan looks a lot like "Obamacare," the ultimate target for TEA Party types and therefore for Republicans in general. Essentially, it creates an open but regulated market for health care, thereby relieving the state of the burden of providing emergency (or even routine) health care in the form of emergency room services for the poor who can not afford to buy their own, or whose employers do not provide it for them. The key component in both plans is a requirement that everyone buy some form of insurance, and that's why TEA Partiers hate it.
The deep irony (or Orwellian nightmare, depending on your mood) of Romney's problem is that at the time he put the plan together, it was lauded by economic conservatives who saw it as a market solution to a government problem. And that's what it is. Now, however, it is depicted as socialism of the most sinister type.
This is creepy, and it represents the serious dysfunction of the Republican Party. Wack jobs a the forefront of the GOP are ignoring basic economic facts and riling up their constituents behind falsehood. The result is that we can not get behind a plan that could help solve two really serious problems simultaneously: the budget deficit and the health care crisis, which go hand-in-hand. Unless Obama, the Democratic leadership and some sane Republicans can get out and explain and defend this sort of thing to the public at large, we are all in trouble.
Romney's plan looks a lot like "Obamacare," the ultimate target for TEA Party types and therefore for Republicans in general. Essentially, it creates an open but regulated market for health care, thereby relieving the state of the burden of providing emergency (or even routine) health care in the form of emergency room services for the poor who can not afford to buy their own, or whose employers do not provide it for them. The key component in both plans is a requirement that everyone buy some form of insurance, and that's why TEA Partiers hate it.
The deep irony (or Orwellian nightmare, depending on your mood) of Romney's problem is that at the time he put the plan together, it was lauded by economic conservatives who saw it as a market solution to a government problem. And that's what it is. Now, however, it is depicted as socialism of the most sinister type.
This is creepy, and it represents the serious dysfunction of the Republican Party. Wack jobs a the forefront of the GOP are ignoring basic economic facts and riling up their constituents behind falsehood. The result is that we can not get behind a plan that could help solve two really serious problems simultaneously: the budget deficit and the health care crisis, which go hand-in-hand. Unless Obama, the Democratic leadership and some sane Republicans can get out and explain and defend this sort of thing to the public at large, we are all in trouble.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
What is Kennedy About?
The United States Supreme Court is as bitterly divided as it has ever been. On one wing are Chief JusticeRoberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. On another are Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Then there is Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy has written some of the most important -- and some of the most difficult to reconcile -- decisions in the last twenty-five years. He wrote the majority opinion in the Citizens United decision in part because he was the swing vote. He was the author of the Court's most recent decisions on gay rights, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
And last week he wrote the opinion in a decision declaring the California penal system to be in fundamental violation of the 8th Amendment because of its drastic overcrowding and abominable health conditions. Brown v. Plata announced that state governments do not have unlimited authority to manage the way they handle prisoners because the constitution requires the courts to maintain certain levels of treatment.
In each case he has made someone angry. To an extent this may be unavoidable, since the issues being considered matter so much and the differences among justices are so stark. But some of the anger arises because it is not easy to predict exactly where Kennedy will fall on any given issue. Linda Greenhouse, perhaps the most veteran Supreme Court reporter working today, called his latest decision "remarkable." Scalia called it "a judicial travesty" because it "ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity." Considering how many times Scalia has joined with Kennedy on important stuff, his anger stands out.
So what, exactly, is Kennedy's jurisprudence? This is no small question, and has drawn the attention of several scholars and reporters.
Frank Colucci says that "Kennedy’s core belief [is] that judges have a duty to ensure the word liberty in the Constitution be given its full and necessary meaning. " That kind of reading would annoy people like Scalia, who believe most deeply in judicial restraint. (Or at least say they do; I think Scalia can be a skunk on this question. See the Citizens United case.)
Helen Knowles says he is a libertarian.
Ilya Shapiro, writing in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, rejects the idea that Kennedy is a true libertarian, and argues that "Justice Kennedy may thus be better described as being in favor of good government—with liberty as a positive and welcome externality—but one that requires his workmanlike beneficence to bring the majestic law to the people."
My biggest concern here is that Kennedy may be thinking less about coherent jurisprudence and more about the politics of the Supreme Court. I don't mean this cynically. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor famously made their marks by trying to maintain the civility and balance of the Court itself, as an institution. He has said that he worries about such things in our system as a whole, and I certainly agree, as I have written in this space. So Kennedy may be trying to do what John Roberts really should be doing: leading the Court as a group of people.
As senior justice in many cases, "Kennedy might keep an opinion for himself that Stevens would have handed off to another liberal justice. Kennedy might write the same decision more narrowly than Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have." This desire to moderate pinions may have as much to do with maintaining some institutional working balance as maintaining intellectual consistency.
I'm concerned because this goal may be a good one, but it reflects a failure on the part of the (very young) chief to manage his job, and may bode badly for the future. I hope Kennedy and the Court can reach his goal without his having to abandon efforts at consistency.
Kennedy has written some of the most important -- and some of the most difficult to reconcile -- decisions in the last twenty-five years. He wrote the majority opinion in the Citizens United decision in part because he was the swing vote. He was the author of the Court's most recent decisions on gay rights, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
And last week he wrote the opinion in a decision declaring the California penal system to be in fundamental violation of the 8th Amendment because of its drastic overcrowding and abominable health conditions. Brown v. Plata announced that state governments do not have unlimited authority to manage the way they handle prisoners because the constitution requires the courts to maintain certain levels of treatment.
In each case he has made someone angry. To an extent this may be unavoidable, since the issues being considered matter so much and the differences among justices are so stark. But some of the anger arises because it is not easy to predict exactly where Kennedy will fall on any given issue. Linda Greenhouse, perhaps the most veteran Supreme Court reporter working today, called his latest decision "remarkable." Scalia called it "a judicial travesty" because it "ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity." Considering how many times Scalia has joined with Kennedy on important stuff, his anger stands out.
So what, exactly, is Kennedy's jurisprudence? This is no small question, and has drawn the attention of several scholars and reporters.
Frank Colucci says that "Kennedy’s core belief [is] that judges have a duty to ensure the word liberty in the Constitution be given its full and necessary meaning. " That kind of reading would annoy people like Scalia, who believe most deeply in judicial restraint. (Or at least say they do; I think Scalia can be a skunk on this question. See the Citizens United case.)
Helen Knowles says he is a libertarian.
Ilya Shapiro, writing in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, rejects the idea that Kennedy is a true libertarian, and argues that "Justice Kennedy may thus be better described as being in favor of good government—with liberty as a positive and welcome externality—but one that requires his workmanlike beneficence to bring the majestic law to the people."
My biggest concern here is that Kennedy may be thinking less about coherent jurisprudence and more about the politics of the Supreme Court. I don't mean this cynically. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor famously made their marks by trying to maintain the civility and balance of the Court itself, as an institution. He has said that he worries about such things in our system as a whole, and I certainly agree, as I have written in this space. So Kennedy may be trying to do what John Roberts really should be doing: leading the Court as a group of people.
As senior justice in many cases, "Kennedy might keep an opinion for himself that Stevens would have handed off to another liberal justice. Kennedy might write the same decision more narrowly than Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have." This desire to moderate pinions may have as much to do with maintaining some institutional working balance as maintaining intellectual consistency.
I'm concerned because this goal may be a good one, but it reflects a failure on the part of the (very young) chief to manage his job, and may bode badly for the future. I hope Kennedy and the Court can reach his goal without his having to abandon efforts at consistency.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Fraudulent by Nature?
By most accounts, Goldman Sachs was among the worst actors in the meltdown of the financial system in 2007. First, it blindly took profits from collections of bad bonds when it should have known that those bonds would result in a huge collapse. Then, when it finally began to pay attention, it bought instruments that would take profit from its own bad advice. In other words, it sold -- and even pushed -- products to people that it was betting against. (For a full and clear explanation of all this, I recommend The Big Short by Michael Lewis.)
Now, at least, the big Wall Street firm is facing some accountability, in the form of an SEC lawsuit. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman is also considering prosecution for fraud. But the SEC has let the big guys off the hook by focusing on just one man, Fabrice Tourre, as if he were solely responsible for the sale of these fraudulent securities.
Not only that, but the SEC is also investigating fraud committed by a Chinese firm called Longtop Financial Technologies. One of the firms involved in that fraud was … Goldman Sachs, which helped the Chinese company go public in the United States. New York Times reporter Floyd Norris writes that "what is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled. "
It seems to me that Norris is being entirely too generous. At what point do we accept that the people at Goldman Sachs are either not smart or not honest. The pattern points to the latter. People who work for Goldman Sachs have to k now that the firm for which they work has a history of criminally negligent or outright fraudulent behavior. They continue to work there because they want more money. In other words, they are greedy. Let's call it what it is. Goldman Sachs is a criminal enterprise, fraudulent at its core.
Now, at least, the big Wall Street firm is facing some accountability, in the form of an SEC lawsuit. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman is also considering prosecution for fraud. But the SEC has let the big guys off the hook by focusing on just one man, Fabrice Tourre, as if he were solely responsible for the sale of these fraudulent securities.
Not only that, but the SEC is also investigating fraud committed by a Chinese firm called Longtop Financial Technologies. One of the firms involved in that fraud was … Goldman Sachs, which helped the Chinese company go public in the United States. New York Times reporter Floyd Norris writes that "what is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled. "
It seems to me that Norris is being entirely too generous. At what point do we accept that the people at Goldman Sachs are either not smart or not honest. The pattern points to the latter. People who work for Goldman Sachs have to k now that the firm for which they work has a history of criminally negligent or outright fraudulent behavior. They continue to work there because they want more money. In other words, they are greedy. Let's call it what it is. Goldman Sachs is a criminal enterprise, fraudulent at its core.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Quote of the Day
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him."
-Leo Tolstoy
(Quoted in Michael Lewis, The Big Short)
-Leo Tolstoy
(Quoted in Michael Lewis, The Big Short)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)