Saij's blog

2007 Farm Bill: More Corporate Welfare

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:01:03 -0700

We're fat. Americans are the fattest people on the planet, bar none. We (as a people) don't exercise, and we eat like shit. And part of the reason for that is that we have a corporate welfare system that extends to those large commercial farmers that produce products that are horrible for our health like corn, white rice, and sugar, driving down the price of those products while causing the prices of vegetables to rise.

But, it isn't just our physical health that suffers, it's our economic health. Those small and organic farmers that may in fact need the help, don't get it. And those farmers from 3rd world countries that are still farming by hand, are pushed into poverty because they can't compete with the bohemeth tractor-farms in the US who are getting billions of dollars a year in government handouts, causing massive poverty and death.

On the bright side, the new Farm Bill does provide some money for conservation, but it amounts to little more than 10% of the funding. I'd suggest we double or triple that amount for conservation efforts and then cut the rest of the subsidies to zero. We'd save money, allow for the free market to do it's thing, have cheaper healthy food, and drive the price of crap-food up a bit to reflect not only it's natural market price but also it's negative effect on the human body.

I thought republicans didn't like welfare?

Republicans Snubb Spanish Speaking Americans

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:26:21 -0700

(cross-posted @ Good Tithings)

On Sept. 9th, The Dem’s engaged the first ever Spanish language debate, hosted by Univision. Two of the candidates, Gov. Richardson and Sen. Dodd, speak Spanish fluently, but, they were all translated to level the playing field.

This is a great gesture here in the west, where there is very large Spanish speaking community. Even if most voting Spanish speakers in America also speak English, doing the debate in their cultural language is a way of saying, “You matter to the Democratic Party.” And they should! Spanish Speakers make up a large chunk of the cultural fabric here in the West. And that fabric votes.

The Republicans, by contrast (with the exception of John McCain) snubbed the Spanish speaking population of America by declining to do something similar. And by snubbing the latinos, they snubbed the entirety of the West.

The Republican base is shrinking by the day.

Should the Dem's hurry to Confirm Michael Mukasey?

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:05:21 -0700

(Cross-posted @ Good Tithings)

The Justice Department has been in the ICU for some time. If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am) the top 5 seats have been vacant for a while. This can't be good for one of the most important branches in the executive.

President Bush has Nominated someone he feels would be right for the job: Michael Mukasey.

We are in an age of pressing questions: Military commisions, National security, terrorism, wire tapping, and weakening civil liberties. Just to name a few.

Is Michael Mukasey the guy to take on these issues? And should the Democratic congress jump in to confirming him?

Scott Horton makes the case in favor of saying, "yes":

Mukasey is a true conservative in much the same sense that Edmund Burke was a conservative. And perhaps that’s the strongest argument that can be mustered for his confirmation.

If that is true (that he is a Burke-styled conservative) then we can only hope that he's conservative enough to believe that each individual deserves a fair trail, and is entitle to hear what crimes he is being charged with before he's locked away for 5 years. We can only hope that he has a strong enough belief in the constitution that he'll not allow illegal wire tapping. And we can only hope that he is enough like Burke to abhor torture and unnecessary violence.

But the only way for us to know these things is if the Democratic Congress has the guts to ask him the hard questions. I'd hesitate rushing into confirmation of anyone, particularly anyone that has the blessing of our current President. I understand that the office of Attorney General is one that must be filled. But, there is no use filling it with a Bush Patsy.

With a very likely transferring of executive power coming in 2008, it may seem futile to worry too much over who gets the job (since they'll likely be outed immediately after). But, one year would be one year too many for those who's lives are being torn apart by the Administrations current policies.

The justice department has a far reach and a strong hand. We must be brutally aware of who we give that hand to.

Who Should Replace Gonzales as Attorney General?

Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:09:49 -0700

(cross-posted @ Goodtithings.com)

With Gonzales leaving, the position is not a desirous one. The Administration is clearly of the lame duck variety, and the job is short term and high pressure.

Steven Lubet and Andrew Koppelman suggest Professor Steven G. Calabresi, of the Northwestern University School of Law, in their Sun Times op-ed:

Calabresi’s conservative credentials are impeccable. A co-founder of the Federalist Society, he is the chairman of the organization’s board of directors. He served in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations before joining the Northwestern faculty in 1990. He has since become one of the country’s most influential Constitutional law scholars. His views concerning issues such as executive power and judicial restraint are generally in step with the Bush administration, but he also has been widely praised by liberals for his depth of knowledge and intellectual brilliance.

But, wait, there’s more …

No Bush appointee could be expected to depart from the unitary executive theory, but Calabresi understands it in a more sophisticated way — as something other than an unrestrained grant of presidential power — and is better able to recognize and explain constitutional limits than anyone now in the Justice Department.

Of course, there is one problem …

We have not discussed this idea with Steve (or with our dean, who would have to approve a leave of absence), but we think the logic of the proposal is compelling.

Opinion Journalism: Blogs, Bullshit, and the Search for Truth

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:34:35 -0700

(Cross-posted @ GoodTithings.com)

There is much question recently about the current changes in journalism in response to outlets like Fox News and the Internet. And the questions are valid. Does the rise of opinion journalism—blogs, O’Reilly, Air America—do a disservice to our democracy? Is the loss of the presumption of objectivity in the media mean that voters and the populace at large will cease to trust the news that they get? Or, worse, will they be perpetually misinformed?

Opinion journalism is hardly new. It’s existed as long as the field of journalism itself has existed. But, the first seriously modern op-ed pages didn’t come around until September 21^st, 1970 in the pages of the New York Times. And ever since, the op-ed page and the editorial have been sharing an awkward coexistence with the mantra of objectivity in journalism. Modern Journalism is typified by the idea that a reporters own personal beliefs should not in anyway influence his writing, nor should they ever be apparent to the audience.

It hasn’t always been this way. In the early days of our American Democracy, opinion journalism was the order of the day. Newspapers were nearly exclusively biased. Are we returning to the old way? I think we are in many respects. And I think this is good. The idea of any human being being truly objective is bunk, and we all know it. There are facts, and those facts are independent of the person who reports them, but the facts themselves are only part of the story. It is the interpretation of those facts that makes them relevant to a human audience. And humans can’t help but come to the table with a stance and an opinion, no matter how hard they try and hide from it. To pretend that a journalist can be objective is to lie to ourselves.

The death of your own father is not news to you unless you have a subjective reason for caring about his death. Would the death of a squirrel make the nightly news? Of course not. But, why not? It’s the death of a living being. The reason is that humans have no serious emotional attachment to squirrels (well, my grandmother does, but she’s an exception). We do have serious emotional attachments to our own fathers. We have a vested interest, a subjective one, in politics, world affairs, and local happenings. That is what makes news news—our subjective interest.

Science is mistakenly seen as a bastion of objectivity. It is a place where the facts speak, and the scientist reports, or so goes the thinking. But, it isn’t true. Science is worthless without analysis. Charles Darwin wrote, in response to critics who felt The Origin of Species was too theoretical, that “All Observation must be for or against some point of view if it is to be of any service.”

Darwin:

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go in to a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!

Journalism, like science, is not the act of counting pebbles. It is the act of deciding what is and what is not important for all of us to know. And that is a personal decision on the part of the journalist, or on the part of the Paper that employs that journalist. As such, it cannot be objective—It would be a contradiction in terms.

Most blogs are not Journalism at all. Mine is certainly no such thing. But, they are certainly prone to opinion. And this “pronation” (is this a word?) coupled with true fact gathering may indeed produce the best kind of journalism—fact gathering with a purpose—and it will all be instant, searchable, and available to anyone with an Internet connection. Blogs (at least the best of them) have the potential to represent Darwin’s Philosophy of Science applied to Journalism.

I don’t think the shift has happened yet. The best true journalism out there is still occurring largely in traditional print media. And traditional print media is the least comfortable with what is happening in their field. But the shift is happening.

Of course, the criticism of the kind of journalism I’m proposing has teeth. The worst possible “journalism” is of the Bill O’Reilly variety. (In truth, Bill is NOT a journalist. But, his audience often confuses him as one. And to be fair, he confuses himself as one). The fear is that his version is exactly what journalism will devolve into if we aren’t careful. (I think we’ve already opened up that can of worms, and the worms ain’t going back in.)

The beauty of blogs is that they are transparent. You don’t have to ask the question, “what does the writer believe.” It’s all out in the open. I know that if I goto Andrew Sullivan’s Blog that I’m reading a blog by a British-Gay-Republican who once was a de facto attack dog for the administration but has, in last number of years, turned on them with a vengeance. It’s all there. In traditional media, we don’t know, or we aren’t supposed to know, what the writer thinks, where they are coming from, and as such we have a hard time seeing fact from opinion.

Whether we like it or not, there is change-a-brewin’. Journalism has been forever changed by blogs and by cable television. And, I for one, am optimistic.

The Ethanol Sham, Farm Subsidies, and Environmental Flim Flam

Thu, 17 May 2007 20:26:28 -0700

(cross-posted @ Good Tithings and Daily Kos)

Matt Yglesias attended a speech by Gov. Bill Richardson this morning. He emphasized his agreement with Richardson on a basic tenet of any potentially successful environmental plan: Land Use Policy. That is, it’s one thing to talk about reducing emissions, and another to talk about renewable energy. But, it’s all bunk if we don’t talk seriously about reducing the amount people drive. And that isn’t possible unless we talk seriously about enabling people to reduce the amount that they drive by way of better mass-transportation infrastructure. Most Americans live in urban and suburban areas ripe for good transit. But, they don’t have it.

Matt said:

At any rate, if you’ve been following this blog you’ll know I’m not really much of an environmentalist in my gut. But when you look at it, whatever’s in your gut, it’d still be really nice for the world not to perish in cataclysmic climate change in the 2060s and that’s going to require dramatic policies.

Well, I am an environmentalist in my gut, and so have even more reason to be inspired by Gov. Richardson’s statements. And I am (not for the first time).

Matt also says that Gov. Richardson made it through the whole debate without mentioning Ethanol. Thank god. Ethanol, a corn derivative, is a sham. It’s a part of the larger problem of government farm subsidies in this country. Ethanol doesn’t burn much cleaner than oil, and it takes up ridiculous amounts of farm land that could be better spent growing worthwhile food products that are actually healthy for Americans.

[I’m convinced one of the reasons that organic food (read: grown the way humans had always grown food before modern industrial farming) is so expensive, is largely because of the farm subsidies that go mostly to commercial and Big farms. Organic farms can’t compete with a government-backed corporate farming industry that eats up all the land and saturates the market with low-quality produce. Our subsidies also have delirious effects on farmers of the third world, namely Africa and Latin America, where the ability to sell their products is the difference between life and starvation.]

Pushing the biofuel angle, without realizing the potential downsides of doing so is short-sighted at best. But, overemphasizing the upsides is just as stupid. Biofuels just aren’t a viable long-term answer. We need electric cars, and more importantly, less cars. Them’s just the facts. And I’m glad to hear that Gov. Bill Richardson understands them.

Jerry Falwell Dies at age 73

Tue, 15 May 2007 17:16:36 -0700

(cross-posted @ Goodtithings.com and DailyKos.com)

I’m not exactly sure how to write about this. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority and seminal leader of a group of people I think are completely out of touch with reality died today in his office at Liberty University. Of course, any death is met with a touch of sadness, as he is sure to have family and friends who loved him dearly. And on that note–a purely humanistic one–I give them my condolences.

I am not torn over whether his death is sad in that sense. I am torn over how to write about his legacy, since I am completely opposed to his conception of the “good”–that is, what is best for America and humans generally.

“I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved,” Falwell said when he stepped down as Moral Majority president in 1987.

I shudder because they did evolve. The religious right stands as one of the greatest forces against Liberal Democracy to come along during the latter half of the twentieth century. I see it as distinctly Un-American and anti-freedom. And its legacy is George W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, unilateralism, decreased trust in America abroad, and a devastating war in Iraq.

It is the Moral Majority and its offspring that have doomed the Republican party to split into pieces with many of those who favor economic liberty feeling totally at odds with the Republican “Base” and its Fundamentalist stance on social issues. Evidence of this is in the Libertarian exodus toward the Democratic Party and the election of 2006.

Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: “Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America’s anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation’s appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation.”

That said, he did a few good things, including building “Christian elementary schools, homes for unwed mothers and a home for alcoholics,” and he should be commended for them. He was just a man. Not a dictator, nor a murderer. He was simply a man who had a lot of influence over people who could have chosen not to listen to him, nor to work for him. That is, he isn’t totally responsible for his followers.

So, I’m torn. A human being has died. That’s bad. For while I disagreed with him on the issues, he wasn’t a mass murderer, nor a genocidal maniac. But his life spawned a legacy that soured our country. And it will take at least a generation to fix it.

I suppose, then, that his death is just that: a death. Jerry Falwell has died.

A Letter from General Petraeus: American Torture Policy

Sat, 12 May 2007 09:05:33 -0700

(cross-posted @ GoodTithings.com)

The Administration has been in a state of wilful denial about the horrors and immorality of using torture to extract information from prisoners of war. It has been in denial about how ineffective torture is at getting honest data. And it has been adamant that our Nation has every right to engage in such practice for the security of our nation, never taking seriously the inherent contradictions that seem so blatant to the rest of us.

General Petraeus, however, is decidedly not a baptised member of the cult-of-Bush. And in his Letter (text bellow) to the Military at large he makes that very clear. It is sad that it has come to this: a Military leader writing a letter to his troops to counter the stated policies (and their effects) of the Commander in Chief. George Bush still believes that such methods are among “the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country.” Here, in the words of General Petraeus–a man in the mold of the ancient warrior poets–is an antipode to the vile advocacy of torture and a defence of the spirit of our nation.

10 May 2007

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in Multi-National Force—Iraq:

Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.

In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat.

I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq.

I also know firsthand the bonds between members of the “brotherhood of the close fight.” Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arms—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk”; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human. If you feel such stress, do not hesitate to talk to your chain of command, your chaplain, or a medical expert.

We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examination of these issues. Leaders, in particular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make.

Thanks for what you continue to do. It is an honor to serve with each of you.

David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding

Bill Richardson to Appear on Heading Left Radio

Sun, 06 May 2007 11:32:12 -0700

(cross-posted @ GoodTithings.com)

Presidential candidate Bill Richardson is set to appear on Heading Left Radio in (as of writing this) 27 hours. It’s a call in type program, and the phone number is: (646) 652-4803

Governor Bill Richardson is an interesting prospect, as his accomplishments in the field of politics are quite remarkable, particularly (for me) in regards to pro Native American legislation that he sponsored, including:

the Indian Tribal Justice Act

the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments

the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act

the American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, the Indian Dams Safety Act

the Tribal Self-Governance Act

the Indian Tribal Jurisdiction Bill

and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act.

His foreign policy credentials are notably outstanding for a Governor (check out this interview with Jim Lehrer in 1997 while Richardson was Ambassador on the issue of Iraq, and a tv spot from 2002 when he was running for Governor). He’s fought for and won the release of hostages, soldiers and prisoners in Cuba, North Korea, the Sudan, and Iraq.

I’m not always in agreement with his policy ideas, but he is willing to take a stance and not drown under the drivel of political speak. Consider his ideas about the current Iraq strategy (from an interview with Chris Bowers on MyDD):

Apart from a contingent of marines to protect the American embassy, he does indeed mean “no residual force whatsoever.” No American troops in Iraqi to serve as trainers, no American counter-terrorism units in Iraq, no American troops to protect humanitarian workers–no any of that. Also, since marines are part of every American embassy contingent, he did not consider that a residual force. He would keep American troops in the region, but not in Iraq itself.

His rationale behind this plan is that no matter what residual American forces are doing in Iraq, they will both be targets and serve as one of the main justifications for continuing violence in the country. His solution is to convene a regional diplomatic conference, in which American withdrawal can be used as leverage, to bring in security forces from neighboring countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Governor Richardson agreed when I asked him if he felt other candidates were being disingenuous when they claimed they were in favor of total withdrawal, but still wanted residual American military forces in Iraq to accomplish x, y, and z. He promised that is a distinction he would draw, and an issue he would repeatedly raise in public during the campaign. I told him that would probably help him quite a bit, looked forward to that issue being discussed, and thanked him for his time.

I also get the impression, that though he is willing to take a stand, he is more than willing to listen intently to what others have to say about an issue. Unlike our current President, he seems genuinely intellectually curious and his mind is clearly sharp.

I find myself impressed by him, though I’m not convinced he has any chance on earth of actually winning. If for no other reason than because he seems so (dare I say it) “real”. But, in politics, being real is only good when you aren’t too real.

The Darwinian Conservative

Sat, 05 May 2007 09:59:54 -0700

(cross-posted @ Goodtithings.com)

Conservatives in the latter half of the 20^th century have plunged themselves down into the depths of irrationality and fundamentalism. They have buried their heads in the sand, and refused the advances of scientific knowledge with the greatest of passion. But, this refutation of reality has sown the seeds of their demise.

Unlike John Locke, who suggested that ones ideas should change as the facts change, fundamentalist (and people generally) have a tendency to change the underlying facts to be more in line with their belief. There is a new movement among some conservatives that aims to change that perception.

“I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin,” said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause. “The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”

The trouble is that jumping from certain particulars of evolutionary theory and biological science to an acute case of cultural morality is idiotic and shows a distinct lack of understanding of how complex the field really is. It is true that everything we see, every act of consciousness, every societal construct, every political system, and all of our perceived morality is born out of our biological evolution and what it has meant to be a species evolving on this planet. But, we aren't anywhere near close to understanding all of the facts of the case, let alone the implications of those facts.

In the most general sense, I think liberal democracy, capitalism, and moral pluralism are (relatively clearly) norms that society has evolved to better itself. (But the latter claim would give a fundamentalist the “heebee-jeebees”.)

In “The Moral Sense” (1993), followed by “The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families” (2002), James Q. Wilson used evolution to explain the genesis of morality and to support traditional family and sex roles.

Mr. Arnhart, in his 2005 book, “Darwinian Conservatism,” tackled the issue of conservatism’s compatibility with evolutionary theory head on, saying Darwinists and conservatives share a similar view of human beings: they are imperfect; they have organized in male-dominated hierarchies; they have a natural instinct for accumulation and power; and their moral thought has evolved over time.

Policies that are in tune with human nature, for example, like a male military or traditional social and sex roles, he said, are more likely to succeed.

There is a difference between what seems natural to humans, and what is good for the species. That is the point of evolution: to weed out the bad traits and promote the good ones. A male dominated, hetero-only, barbaric, violent, xenophobic, slavery-laden society is VERY natural for humans. Our societies (taking a historical view) have been more oppressive and cruel than open and caring. But, that doesn't mean we should have continued down that path. The greatest of modern societies evolved to combat these problems. And the pluralism in modern American society reflects that.

Conservative Fundamentalists will never embrace Darwinism because they can't embrace change—even if it's for the better. That's the political definition of the word “conservative”. But, they might embrace some bastardized version of Darwinism, one that includes what's natural but doesn't include the tenet of evolution as a continuing process. And that is itself quite frightening.

Legalize Marijuana? Dennis Hastert says, "NO!"

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:21:49 -0700

(Cross-posted @ GoodTithings.com)

Dennis Hastert, Republican Representative from Illinois, wrote a letter to the editors of the Chicago Sun Times saying:

There is absolutely no sound scientific evidence that marijuana has any medicinal value. The Food and Drug Administration is the only agency that can designate a substance as a medicine and to date has not done so.

Of course, that’s total bullshit. The FDA hardly has a solid track record when it comes to substances we all put into our body. Clearly Hastert doesn’t understand how the world of science works. Unlike our Presidents view of the world, everything in science isn’t decided by some kind of authoritarian body that slams it’s gavel down expecting the myriad masses to follow suit simply because the “decider” has spoken.

Instead, Science is a battle ground where scientists are constantly at war with one another over the tiniest of details that all add up to what we would call a body of knowledge. If the FDA hasn’t said anything about a subject, that hardly means there isn’t solid information on the topic in the world of science at large.

But most of us know that. We’ve taken science classes where we learned about things like the scientific method, academic honesty, etc (along with, gasp, evolution and natural selection). He is, and other among the right wing are, scrabbling because little by little the tide on this issue has been turning. And it’s becoming harder and harder to keep a drug illegal when it is Far less harmful than it’s legal counterpart (alcohol).

There is actually ample evidence that Marijuana has medicinal value (check out this Government-Funded study), but that isn’t even the point. It’s hypocritical and illogical to have Marijuana illegal when Alcohol isn’t. Marijuana is not the gateway drug many would believe it to be (due to a lack of understanding between the very real difference between Correlation and Causation). Alcohol is a major catalyst of violent crime, domestic abuse, rape and assault, etc, whereas Marijuana is not at all. And the “Drug War” is clearly a massive failure.

In short, Hastert is clueless. But, his letter is a telling sign that we might be getting closer to a (slightly more) reasonable drug policy.

Giuliani Flip Flops

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:35:58 -0700

(Cross posted @ GoodTithings.com)

To use the phrase that Fox news pushed onto us in 2004, Giuliani flip-flopped. And it’s obviously a ploy to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party. The Sad thing is that it will probably work.

Despite Mr. Giuliani’s long history of supporting gay rights — or rather, because of it — yesterday’s statement is likely to lead many observers to question whether the former mayor is concerned that his socially liberal record and positions aren’t flying in the Republican primary. While he still holds a commanding lead in the national polls, he has taken a hit over the last month or so after reiterating his support for the public funding of abortion.

Law and Justice: 200th Man Released on DNA Evidence

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:06:03 -0700

(cross-posted @ GoodTithings.com)

"Justice is the Fundamental Law of Society." --Thomas Jefferson

The Innocence project has been working with DNA evidence to exonerate American Citizens wrongly accused of, and jailed for, crimes they didn’t commit. Here’s a report to commemorate the 200th person freed after DNA evidence proved he didn’t rape a woman 25 years ago.

There is a mistaken belief that our Justice system is designed to vet out the truth. That is in fact completely false. Our system is designed specifically as a game between opposing sides, in the hope that in the battle over the hearts and minds of the jury, enough information will make itself available so that the jury can make an informed opinion.

Of course, there are advantages to the Adversarial position that we wouldn’t want to do without. The most obvious (to me) is the need to protect the accused from being subject to the whims of a biased court. If the trail was run with only a judge to look at the “facts” of the case, then the power of the judge would be astronomical. By creating a system in which the prosecution and the defense are at odds with one another, we get (in a microcosmic sense) a model of our own political system. One where (ideally) individuals are defended by someone who has their best interest in mind, even if only for monetary and prestige reasons.

But, if it is true that the Defense and Prosecution are, by design, often only in it to win, then the truth will periodically (by Murphy’s Law) inevitably get lost in the shuffle.

Take for example the concept of the eye witness. In every other field of intellectual endeavor eye witness accounts are taken with more than a grain of salt. For they are notoriously faulty. Think about how many people KNOW they saw with their own eyes the “Lock Ness Monster“, or “Big Foot”. And, not surprisingly, it is eye witness accounts that are the most common reason why innocent people go to prison.

There is some good evidence that we must look long and hard at how to update our legal system to bring it in line with the fundamental rules of Justice espoused by our nation.

(There is also a strong parallel here between these Americans who have been wrongfully imprisoned based on a break down of procedural integrity and the case of enemy combatants. If we can make mistakes in the FAR more open and transparent civilian legal system of this magnitude, imagine what kind of mistakes are happening in the military version. )

The Carbon Tax: Is There An Alternative?

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:07:40 -0700

(cross-posted @ Good Tithings and Daily Kos)

Fareed Zakaria makes a strong case for the Carbon Tax.

Understanding the causes and cures of global warming is actually very simple. One word: coal. Coal is the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy around and is being used in the world’s fastest-growing countries. If we cannot get a handle on the coal problem, nothing else matters.

He also tackles one of the good reasons for the Bush Administration ducking out of the Kyoto accords.

The administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO2 mandated by the accords.

Here’s the math. These 800 new plants will burn about 900 million extra tons of coal every year. By 2012 they will have emitted about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. During that period, if the countries that have signed the Kyoto accords implement them fully—a big “if”—they will cut their CO2 emissions by 483 million tons.

As a gut instinct, I am rarely for raising taxes as a way of solving our problems. But, there are times when it is more than justified: National Security, Police forces, Education, Public Defenders, Roads, (hopefully some kind of Health Care system), etc. The Carbon Tax does what the market hasn’t, provide incentives to business to switch over to more “green” alternatives.

The market has had its’ chance. The Bush administration has stripped and gutted every proposal to advance alternative fuels and promote more efficient ways of doing business leaving the ball in the court of the corporate world (and in the court of the developing world). But, it hasn’t worked. And it won’t. Dirty energy is far cheaper, and as such, far more attractive. Without a clear incentive by way of (something like) a carbon tax, there is little hope for change.

Nandan Nilekani, CEO of the Indian technology giant Infosys and one of the few Asian executives genuinely concerned about environmental issues, says that ultimately the industrialized world will have to provide subsidies to developing countries to build “clean coal” plants. “Right now in India, and I assume in China, plants are built through competitive bidding. The lowest bid usually wins. You will have to create a subsidy for clean coal to make it the lowest bid. Otherwise, the dirtiest will win.”

Potentially, a Carbon Tax could be used as a source of revenue for those kinds of subsidies. We could provide tax breaks to those who would use alternative fuels and tax those that don’t. (a kin to giving tax breaks for people who buy Electric/Hybrid cars rather than the current break for buying an SUV.)

The word “tax” is not a favorite of mine, nor of most people in this country. But, periodically, it is a tool we must use against those who would make the world a worse place for the rest of us. It is one thing to hurt yourself, it is another to hurt others. If we wouldn’t allow individuals to get away with it, the why would we allow Corporations and Governments?

UN Security Council Battles over Climate Change

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:04:20 -0700

(cross-posted @ Good Tithings)

The UN Security Council, the most powerful body at the United Nations, battled Tuesday over Climate Change. The council is bound to only deal with issues of International security (ie. Keeping the peace), and Briton, the country that currently occupies the presidency, has determined that Climate Change poses a global threat by increasing the incidences that spawn conflict.

Margaret Beckett, the British foreign Secretary, said:

“Our responsibility in this Council is to maintain international peace and security, including the prevention of conflict … An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict, such as migratory pressures and competition for resources.”

But China is starkly opposed claiming that the council has no business getting into the Climate Change debate. I don’t find this to be shocking. China has much to lose if the international community begins to look seriously at what the larger countries are doing to increasing the problem. China’s economy is in a rapid state of growth, and much of that depends on practices antithetical to “Green” practices.

President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, whose economy depends on hydropower from a reservoir depleted by drought, had called climate change “an act of aggression by the rich against the poor.”

This refrain is likely to sound out louder and louder as the years move forward and the climate worsens. Many of the worlds conflicts are predicated on a lack of access to clean water, natural resources, and food. In countries where there is a pre-existing level of poverty, scarcity of resources, and a lack of healthy government, the effects of Global Warming and Climate Change may exponentially increase the incidences of aggression.

It is an uphill battle getting the world on board, and President Bush hasn’t made that any easier. Whether we like it or not, the Climate is changing. How we respond will have a major influence on our, and our children’s, futures.