Insane

These sentiments from Andrew Sullivan need to be repeated, continuously, until these ideas are officially repudiated by the Supreme Court of the United States - preferably on the Appeal of Yoo's conviction for war crimes.

"Yoo's belief that the president has permanent super-powers in wartime and that wartime can be a permanent condition against a concept such as "terror" are not legitimate let alone "legal" views. They are insane. They render the United States an elected fascist dictatorship, where the law is what the president says it is and he has the power to torture evidence out of suspects to prove whatever case he wants. The idea that this is what the Founders of this country wanted when they allowed for an energetic executive in times of emergency to act with dispatch - as in shooting three Somali pirates - is such an over-reach it boggles the mind that any reasonable person can begin to contemplate it."

Joe H.

Health Care Reform and Reconciliation - Update

Republican leaders are all over the airways decrying Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to pass Health care reform through a legislative process known as "Reconciliation," which requires only 50 senate votes - plus Vice President Joe Biden's tie breaking vote..

I understand that politics sometimes calls for dissembling, distraction, obfuscation, and other methods of manipulation, including disingenuous invitations to a health care summit that our President knows has zero chance of bearing legislative fruit. But current Republican opposition to the use of Reconciliation to pass health care reform is either brazen amnesia or shameless hypocrisy.

Take your pick.

A few additional unsolicited thoughts? (1) Timothy Noah has a good research team. (2) Rarely have I ever encountered an issue where the lie being told is so clearly contrary to the factual record - so utterly contrary to the indisputable historical facts. It makes me wonder - how do people who lie so openly and shamelessly about matters so easily disprovable ever get people to trust them?

Remarkable!

Joe H.

UPDATE.

This Special Commentary by Keith Olberman on the health care debate is moving and poignant. I highly recommend it.

Our Official Posture Towards the World

I haven't been writing much lately (except legal memoranda in a big construction case we've been arbitrating for over a month). I've also not responded much to comments, which will change later this week when the arbitration takes a short break.

But I did take the time to read the report from the Office of Professional Responsibility regarding the legal work of John Yoo and Jay Bybee in the famous "Torture Memos." Far from exonerating these men (as some people are claiming), the report excoriates their legal work and concludes that "it is a close call" as to whether Yoo and Bybee intentionally misstated the law - as opposed to merely being lead astray by their sincerely held extremist views on executive power. You can read the report here.

After reading the report, Glen Greenwald summarized the United States' posture towards the rest of the world, based on this report in combination with the Obama's continued refusal to prosecute, as follows:

"Yes, we implemented a worldwide torture regime that we justified with lawyers' memoranda that were false, wrong, shoddy, lawless, sloppy and extremist, but because those lawyers were such warped radicals, they probably believed what they were saying at the time, so we're going to declare that we had the right to do what we did and are shielded from all consequences, even though we've signed treaties agreeing to prosecute anyone who authorizes torture and constantly demand that other nations prosecute their own torturers. Besides, we have important things to do and so we want to look forward, not backward."

I'd add only " . . . and the horse you rode in on!"

Joe H.

The OPR Report

I hope Andrew Sullivan's hope in America is realized. This is far more worthwhile than anything I'm going to write today.

Joe

Calling Out The Bishops

You're not going to get any argument from me on this issue.

Joe H.

Sarah Palin Calls for Rahm Emanual to Resign

Sarah Palin appeared on the Bill O'Rielly show yesterday afternoon and repeated her call for Rahm Emanual, President Obama's Chief of Staff, to resign. Apparently, Emanual called someone a "fucking retard" in a private conversation - an act for which he later apologized publicly when it was revealed.

Palin takes great exception to people making sport of those who, like her infant son, suffer from disabilities like Down Syndrome. She would never do anything remotely belittling to such people.

Palin would never make fun of her son "Trig."

Honestly, the hypocrisy and callowness of some people is beyond the pale.

Joe H.

(In case you don't notice it the first time, look at the alternate description of the Trisomi 21 (Down Syndrome) disorder in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry).

Citzens United - A "Time, Place, and Management" Proposal

I've yet to comment on the recent US Supreme Court Decision in the Citizens United case - the case in which the Supreme Court held that Corporations may spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries for political advocacy - including support for particular candidates. I have many thoughts - most of them negative - But I've been too busy to think them through.

I did have one thought that I'm ready to share. There is a long line of Supreme Court cases upholding what are called "Time, Place, and Management" restrictions on speech. Legislative bodies are constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the content, or limiting the amount, of speech. But legislatures are allowed to regulate when and where speech occurs. For example, when the President appears at an event, city officials sometimes designate an area for protesters - usually too far away for anyone to notice their protests, but that is another matter. This infringement, justified by the need to keep the president safe, is perfectly constitutional. Other examples abound. You can say what ever you want, but you can't say it in the middle of the freeway, or inside the city park after hours.

Congress could confine political speech to particular broadcast channels that are dedicated solely to political speech. Access to these channels could be provided free of charge to anyone with a television/radio. Citizens who wanted to watch/listen to political commercials could tune in. Those who didn't want to watch/listen could tune out.

Perhaps we could allow actual candidates to buy adds on all the other broadcast channels, provided that they do it with money raised from actual human beings, but restrict all other forms of political advocacy to these "protest area" channels?

In some ways, this is a very radical proposal - it would revolutionize the way politics is done. Still, it is consistent with Citizens United and other Supreme Court precedents. It allows corporations (like those pesky protesters way over there) to speak in a publicly accessible place to their heart's content. The fact that the vast majority of us wouldn't tune in to listen, and that this would limit the "actual" ability of corporations and other entities to influence elections, is no skin off anyone's teeth - it is no different than the problem protesters face in getting people to come to the remote location to listen to them.

Any thoughts?

Joe H.

May The Judgment Not Be Too Heavy Upon US

I hope you all read this article. We need to face what we've become - particularly those of us who defend this conduct.

Joe H.

A Monumental Indictment of Most Everything - UPDATE

Dick Cheney goes on National T.V. and confesses to, in fact brags about, ordering the waterboarding of US detainees. Waterboarding is an act that both our current President and Attorney general, and every tribunal that has considered the matter (via an ongoing prosecution), have determined to be torture. Under Federal law, torture is a felony - punishable by death in certain circumstances!

I completely agree with Glen Greenwald. Dick Cheney is taunting the Obama administration. He knows the administration will not prosecute him. He knows they fear a backlash that would harm them politically and derail their legislative agenda. So he taunts them.

Consider what we've come to as a nation. We have executive branch officials publicly (and illegally) refusing to prosecute felonious conduct, while the former official who committed the felonies taunts them on national T.V.

If that isn't, as Glen Greenwald put it, "a monumental indictment of most everything," I don't know what is.

God I hope we wake up soon.

Joe H.

UPDATE - In case any of my readers want to continue to deny that US forces tortured helpless detainees, federal prosecutors and federal judges are now conceeding that detainees in US custody were tortured.

Joe H.

Dick Cheney - War Criminal

"I was a big supporter of waterboarding."

That pretty much sums it up.

Joe H.

Health Care Debate

There are a lot of problems with our system of health insurance. There are also many complexities. But, at bottom, the health insurance problem in the United States can be reduced to three very simple propositions.

1. Millions of people in this country are too poor, or too sick, or too old, to afford health insurance at the rate that insurance companies would charge them for a policy on the free market.

2. We would all be better off, in numerous ways that I won't list - others have listed the benefits ad nauseam - if everyone had a health insurance plan that provided ample coverage, at a price they could afford.

3. The only way to accomplish this is to convince or force those of us who are rich enough and/or healthy enough to afford health insurance for ourselves and our families, to pay the premiums of those who can't afford them.

No. 3, in a nutshell, is what Democratic politicians are trying to pull off. They are asking, or seeking to compel, young, healthy and wealthy people (including the insurance companies themselves), to chip in more than they currently do - either through additional taxes to finance subsidies for poor families, or through mandates that force young people to purchase insurance coverage that they are less likely to need, and thus to want, or through regulation that forces insurance companies to insure individuals at rates not reflecting their true risk, or through all of these measures in combination - in order to pay the premiums of those of us who are too poor, or too sick, or too old to afford them.

Other things are happening in the Health Care bill. But that is its essence. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke.

There are lots of interesting questions regarding this effort. But, from the perspective of a political philosopher, the most interesting question is whether this is a legitimate exercise of the government's coercive power?

I'll comment on that question later, but I'd love to hear what others think.

Joe H.

Islands of Madness - Update

A psychologist friend of mine once told me about a syndrome that they refer to as "Islands of Madness." This moniker refers to individuals who can reason and assess evidence perfectly well about almost all issues and topics, but who are completely unable to do so about particular topics.

Here is a great (but terrifying) example of this phenomenon. One fear is of mine is that the increasing ability of people to self-select their fact sources is going to exponentially magnify this problem.

If you think this is no big deal, remember Timothy McVeigh. And don't think for one second that this phenomenon is limited to the political right - left-wing utopias killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

Joe H.

Update: This piece by Andrew Sullivan provides another take on the political insanity of Christians with regards to Sarah Palin and Barack Obama - I found it to be a convincing explanation.

Down With The People?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "down with the people," but this article by Jacob Weisburg accurately identifies one of the core problems of American democracy - us!

The real danger is not that we are too stupid to govern ourselves (although we may be too ignorant). The real danger is that we are becoming collectively delusionial.

Joe H.

Compartmentalism

I too am amazed at the ability of the authoritarian mind to compartmentalize. But This is way over the top. . This level of mental jui jitsu has got to soak up enormous psychological energy.

Then again, millions of people believe Sarah Palin is presidential material.

Joe H.

Eminently Sensible

This line of argument regarding the unintended consequences of portraying terrorists as "warriors" seems eminently sensible to me. Am I just hopelessly opposed to everything, to every expressed view, that modern conservative leaders offer - or are they really as misguided as they seem?

To be honest, I don't think they are misguided. I think they are nihilists who will say (and possibly do) almost anything to regain power.

Want to convince me otherwise - explain how Paul Waldman's argument is wrong.

Joe H.

Mind Numbingly Stupid?

Conservative economist and author Bruce Bartlett summed up the results of this recent DailyKos/Research 2000 poll as follows

"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."

The results of this poll are somewhat alarming, but they have little to do with stupidity. They, instead, have everything to do with blind loyality to a team, or an ideology, or both! They are also the product of an intentionally cultivated fanatical willingness to believe (or at least entertain - notice the extremely high percentage of "don't knows") any claim that supports "the cause."

"Intentionally cultivated fanatical willingness to believe any claim that supports the cause." That sounds like American Evangelical Christianity to me.

Joe H

A Humourous and Self Depricating Reductio ad Absurdum.

"At the Republican caucus, they held up -- they said, we've got a plan; it's going to provide everybody coverage at no cost. And I said, well, if that were true, why wouldn't I take it? My wife Michelle thinks I'm stubborn sometimes, but I'm not that stubborn. Okay, let me think. I could have everybody get health care coverage that's high quality. And it's free, which I'll bet is really popular. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to go through the pain of really working through this hard process in Congress, getting yelled at and called a socialist, because I just -- that's how I roll. I'm a glutton for punishment." (Laughter.)

Barack Obama, yesterday.

So that's how you highlight an absurdity - you perform a humorous and self deprecating reductio ad absurdum.

Sort of like "where are those weapons of mass destruction, anyway? I thought I put them under the desk? Oh well, I'll find them later."

Wait a minute, that president wasn't offering a reductio ad absurdum . He was instead the living absurdum result of the proposition that "our political process is fabulous." Moreover, that president wasn't mocking a false assertion and its deceitful proponents. He was dismissing legitimate criticism of himself and his decision to inflate the available intelligence so as to convince the country to support an ill conceived war.

My Bad. Never mind.

Anyway, let's try doing a simple reductio boys and girls - no need for self deprecation at this point in our training. Let's just respond in reduction to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Center, both of whom insist that "being gay is a lifestyle choice."

Joe