Do Jews Have To Support Israel?

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

David Bernstein suggests that they do, or at least that to not do so is in some way "un-Jewish."

Put these two together and you find a strongly left-leaning young woman who is struggling to define a Jewish identity she can be content with, but who feels the need to jettison aspects of mainstream Judaism (wickedness, Israel, and, it seems to me, the idea that Israel’s problems are not just self-inflicted, but in large part a result of its enemies’ wickedness) when they conflict with her primary ideological identity.

It’s certainly not my business to tell someone how “Jewish” they should be. But it’s strange to see so many people suggesting that if Jewish communal values and priorities conflict with their own ideological vision, and they choose the latter over the former, that somehow the Jewish world has abandoned them rather than vice versa.

I'm not Jewish, so I obviously have a less clear idea of what "Jewish communal values and
priorities" are, but I find it odd that political support for an often-controversial nation would be considered by many an important part of a religious and cultural identity. As an American, I don't feel that I'm abandoning American communal values and priorities when I suggest that American supremacy might not be the best courseof action. As someone of European descent, I don't feel like I'm abandoning my cultural heritage by criticizing European policies, whether historical or modern. Is that just me?

If support for Israel is actually considered an integral part of Jewish identity - if it's not just Bernstein - then maybe that's why political opposition to Israel is often confused with anti-Semitism (or here).

Being a Poster-Boy

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Brian Leiter posted a fascinating letter from a minority philosophy professor fed up with being the "poster-boy" for failed diversity initiatives at universities. Some interesting excerpts:

I have grown skeptical in general about affirmative action/equal opportunity notices from leading philosophy departments, at least regarding minority candidates. In short, I believe that such notices stigmatize minority candidates, mislead non-minorities about the prevalence of minority hires and hiring attempts, and provide false cover against the charge of lack of faculty diversity--while rarely making an ultimate difference to actual hiring practices.

...

The widespread perception among whites that affirmative action is alive and unfairly effective doubly stigmatizes underrepresented minorities in philosophy. First, there is the standard view that if blacks were qualified/as qualified, affirmative action would not be necessary. Second, and more perniciously, this standard view is seemingly confirmed by the paucity of black philosophers, especially in leading departments--after all, if we cannot get hired and tenured despite affirmative action, we really must not be qualified.

A mere outreach effort (see [university name removed]) is insulting. It suggests that minority candidates might lack the common knowledge that would lead them to look at JFP, for instance. If outreach almost never factors into the hiring practices of leading philosophy departments, it has no point for minorities--though I understand that departments want to appease themselves and their administrations that the paucity of minority faculty is beyond their immediate control.

(Political?) Hypocrisy

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

There have been plenty of sex scandals in Washington in the past two decades. It's probably possible to accuse many people of hypocrisy over the different ways they've reacted to similar situations. But in a totally reasonable attack on 'liberals' in the wake of Anthony Weiner's escapades, David Bernstein chose to make one of the most nonsensical comparisons possible. Quoting another writing approvingly, he suggested that Democrats were hypocritical because they defended Bill Clinton and pressured Anthony Weiner to resign after a far less serious scandal. There are two possible ways to read the pressure on Weiner to resign, as I see it (if one accepts the kind of silly premise of comparing it to the Clinton events):

1. Conservatives succeeded in Clinton's case in what they were trying to do: make it costly (in terms of public embarassment) to support Clinton. Because of that, they succeeded in changing Democrat's behavior in the future, when it came to Weiner.
2. Conservatives have succeeded in the last decade or so at making their more puritanical values a significant part of the national conversation, in a way that legitimately makes Democrat's see Weiner worse now than they saw Clinton then.

Either way, it's ridiculous to attack one party for shifting to take a position more like the one the other party took a while back. To suggest that's "political hypocrisy" is to suggest that we should never be open to changing our beliefs or actions in the way others encourage us to do.

I find myself wondering whether Bernstein really didn't see through this, or if he just didn't care so long as he could pass along a criticism of the "liberals."

News Roundup

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

It's time for another one of these. Quick blurbs about stories you might find interesting.

• Austrian state television apologized for showing an allegedly (I haven't seen it) anti-Semitic 1933 Disney cartoon of the Three Little Pigs story.
• Rob Vischer at Mirror of Justice links to a post by Scott Yenor. Yenor argues that homosexual marriage would represent the end of a long chain of events separating marriage from its traditional roles. Vischer disagrees, suggesting that homosexual marriage maintains many of the traditional roles of marriage, posing a threat only to the link between marriage and procreation.
• The FBI got the right to, without a specific warrant, temporarily take over and cleanse any computer infected with malware.
• In related news, the FBI is lowering its standards for how much evidence they need to justify various investigatory techniques.
• The US Department of Justice is helping the Brits gain access to confidential interviews researchers conducted with members of the IRA. Boston College is fighting back.
• First graders in New York think it's unjust that some classrooms have air conditioning while students in other rooms have to suffer through the heat. Their principal apparently finds the letters "amusing." I'll bet good money her office has air conditioning.
  

Culbreath: Men Lead, and Women Follow

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

A few days ago, I wrote about a blog ("What's Wrong [sic] With The World") that Brian Leiter pointed to. That post detailed Jeff Culbreath's opinion that Herman Cain should stick to his guns and not allow Muslims to serve in his administration. Why? Because Catholicism is right, and Islam is wrong. Obviously.

Now Leiter points to another disturbing post by Culbreath. He begins by quoting approvingly an op-ed by the President of Catholic University detailing the University's plans to return to single-sex housing. That, in and of itself, isn't horribly objectionable. I think it's paternalistic, silly, and demoralizing to students (my own University of Chicago allows second-years and above to have coed dorm rooms), but to each their own — and if students are displeased by Catholic University's choice, they can (of course) use their market power to deliver that message.

Culbreath's true opinions come through in the comments.

Chris - it's hard to know who's more to blame, the men or the women. There's plenty of culpability to go around. In general, though, women usually follow the lead of men. Feminism would have gone nowhere if not for overwhelming male support...

The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems that feminism is an illusion, the creation of a minority of powerful men - "alphas", if you will - who will stop at nothing to secure the "benefits" of female volatility, rootlessness and discontent...

The traditionalist understanding is quite different: women are morally responsible, to be sure, but men are the primary moral agents of the human race. Women follow. If this rule often falters in individual cases - an intentional phenomenon that helps give it cover - the rule is absolutely iron-clad in the aggregate. Feminism would come to an end immediately if even a minority of powerful men demanded it.

Culbreath seems to like this "traditional understanding." Why shouldn't he? It makes him one of the "primary moral agents of the human race." That's a tempting group to be a part of, even if you have to share it with almost half the world. (Except, perhaps, Muslims. After all, their religion is just wrong.)

I'm generally hesitant to label things as "racist," "anti-semitic," and the like. If there's a way to read a statement so that I just disagree with it, without seeing those disgusting motives, I will. But here, I have no problem calling Culbreath what he is: a disgusting misogynist who, for some reason, feels competent to determine right, wrong, and moral agency on a universal scale.

Schools v Online Speech

(By Noah J. Cohen)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/student-online-speech/

According to Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door," but universally, state government permits school districts much greater leeway to curb the freedom of speech of students than anyone would suggest the general public's freedom should be restrictable. This is to ensure an atmosphere conducive to social and academic growth. Because parents are legally obliged to send their children to school, it is understandable that the severe pressure on school supervisors to foster what parents' deem a healthy work environment for the children leads to the occasional overstep. One increasingly common violation school administrators attempt to commit is to impose their standards on the everyday lives of the students under their routine jurisdiction. Though we may accept that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, we should expect that minors' off-campus right to freedom of speech aligns more gracefully with its federal definition. This notion has been protected by the courts fairly consistently.

There has been a rash of cyber-bullying recently, and this has prompted fresh examination of the landmark 1969 case. Should schools be able to discipline students for causing a disturbance off-campus that makes its way, through whatever channel, into schoolyard talk? The courts of this decade tend to determine that, yes, the schools have the power to punish off-campus transgressions that find their way into the classrooms, even if those who carry the illicit conversation into the school are not the same students who originated the content, on the condition that the disturbance that the transgression effects on classroom activity is substantial. Still, modern courts have pussyfooted around such adjudications, often declaring an insufficiency of classroom disturbance to merit the affirmation of the punishment, allowing the court to avoid a controversial ruling. This was the outcome of Justin Layshock's case. You may decide for yourself how you would have ruled; the .pdf of the case file is available here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/074465p1.pdf

2012 New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

I just finished reviewing the 2012 New Hampshire Republican presidential debate. I'll have more to say about it, and it'll work its way into my rankings of the individual candidates over the next few days (the newly posted rankings for Romney and Santorum take the debate into account). But for now, a few quick thoughts.

The winner of the debate was pretty clearly John King, the CNN moderator. Comparatively to other presidential debates (both round robin and head-to-head), I thought King did an excellent job (especially in the first half — he seemed to get tired) of pushing the candidates to stay on message, and posing tough questions.

The Republicans are, so far, being good about keeping the intrafamily disputes to themselves. They didn't really go after one another (Pawlenty wimped out on his newly coined "Obamaneycare," for instance: he should have to do one of these), and each gave plenty of shout outs to other Republicans who aren't running for president.

Pawlenty has one of the most irritating smirks I've ever seen.

Herman Cain made a few statements about policy issues. He should really stick to his old plan of just dodging the questions.

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: First Glance (6)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Part 1: Herman Cain & Newt Gingrich
Part 2: Gary Johnson & Fred Karger
Part 3: Tom Miller & Ron Paul
Part 4: Andy Martin & Jimmy McMillan
Part 5: Tim Pawlenty & Buddy Roemer
Part 6: Mitt Romney & Rick Santorum (this post)
Part 7: Michele Bachmann & Jon Huntsman
Part 8: Thad McCotter & Roy Moore (upcoming)
Part 9: Vern Wuensche (upcoming)

I think it's time to take a first look at the potential candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pulling from a source list here. I'm going to look at each candidate on four main topics: Civil Rights, National Security, Economy, Constitutional Vision. I'll rate them on a four point scale (from best to worst): Strong, Acceptable, Weak, Unacceptable. I'll also include a brief justification, so if I miss something relevant (which I probably will, with so many candidates to consider) feel free to leave a note in the comments section and I may adjust the ratings. Most of my information is going to be pulled from the candidates' websites, for those that already have them.

This post will address Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Look at the top for links to other posts in this series, and watch for more new posts to come.

Mitt Romney

Civil Rights: Unacceptable
Romney has a mixed record on abortion, but he's swung to the right and would support a federal ban on all abortions. Romney's death penalty stance is somewhat reasonable: he supports it, but at least espouses high standards for actually using it. He would reinstate DADT if elected. He supports 'doubling Guantanamo' instead of closing it. But what ends up tanking Romney's civil liberty rating is this: he thinks that all security measures are justified by the fact that the most important civil liberty it to be "kept alive." He supports a federal amendment to deprive homosexual couples of equal rights. And worst of all, he doesn't think civil rights are an important discussion in this campaign. On the other hand, he does oppose the use of eminent domain to support private enterprise.

National Security: Acceptable
Romney supports a focus on diplomatic and humanitarian efforts overseas. Unfortunately, he also supports irresponsible expansions in military (and nuclear) spending, as well as an attitude towards Israel that seems to shut down all discussion of their proper role as our ally.

Economy: Weak
Romney would lower taxes on corporations even though America already has very low corporate taxes in comparison to our competitors. He would favor corporations and their rich owners over the unions representing workers. He views economic impact as the only relevant standard for federal regulation. For some reason, he thinks that now is a good time to be talking about deregulating the nuclear industry. He believes that bankruptcy proceedings are good because they allow corporations to benefit at the expense of workers. He does, though, seem to support government investing more in education and training to give the poor more opportunities for work. [Update 8/1/11: after sitting on the sidelines, Romney issued a last minute, right-wing statement against the Republican victory bill on the debt ceiling.]

Constitutional Vision: Unacceptable
Romney understands the simplistic federalism-as-experimentation mantra, but he doesn't give any indication of comprehending the role of the federal government in preventing collective action problems. He also seems to think that liberty is the defining characteristic of America, as though we're nothing more than a peaceful anarchy. In fact, cooperation is what defines us as a nation. In the NH Republican debate, he seemed to express a very strong-executive (as opposed to legislative) philosophy in economic policy. He also suggested that devolution of power from the national to state governments is always good, and that private enterprise is always better than collective action. [Update 8/18/11: It's also not clear Romney understands the constitutional powers of the Presidency.]

Rick Santorum

Civil Rights: Unacceptable
Santorum thinks that the federal government should force women to remain pregnant. Worse, he supported and 'spearheaded' the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would not only prevent the federal government from recognizing legitimate same-sex marriages by states that chose to allow them (like the "Defense [sic] of Marriage Act"), but would forbid any state from allowing same-sex marriage. That's about as crazy-right as one can go on this issue.

National Security: Weak
Santorum's "national security" policy consists of a rant about the dangers posed by radical Islam. He runs with the cliche line that "they hate everything we are – a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality". By focusing on the beliefs of terrorist leaders, Santorum misses the opportunity to cement our national security by undermining those issues which terrorist leaders use to get the support of young men who couldn't care less about the way we live in America.

Economy: Unacceptable
Santorum calls himself a defender of the taxpayer, but what he means is a defender of the rich and businesses. He touts his support for Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-rich and his endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce, as well as his opposition to necessary welfare programs, which ensure that the vagaries of capitalism do not play out in the deaths of vulnerable citizens.

Constitutional Vision: Unacceptable
In the New Hampshire Republican debate, Santorum suggested that America's constitutional nature should be completely bound to the decisions made by our founders, and he said that as a leader, he believes faith and reason always lead to the same point.

---

Now, cumulatively speaking, we have (ranked in best-to-worst order, with scores in the following order: Strong - Acceptable - Weak - Unacceptable):

Karger: 1 - 3 - 0 - 0
Roemer: 1 - 1 - 1 - 0
Johnson: 0 - 2 - 2 - 0
Huntsman: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Paul: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Romney: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Gingrich: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Bachmann: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Miller: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Pawlenty: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Santorum: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3

Are The Winds of Security Changing?

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

In a previous post here, Noah suggests that "it is only a matter of time before the nature of the ordeal we know as "airport security" is drastically revamped." As I commented there, I'm a bit skeptical. I don't see Americans as likely to stand up for their rights any time soon, so long as it's easier to just deal with the invasion of privacy.

On the other hand, two recent stories back up the suggestion that law-abiding citizens might be getting fed up with our national security society. (To be fair, neither story is about airport security. My guess, though, is that public sentiment won't distinguish between airport and other forms of security searches.)

Late last month, a group of British cruise passengers experienced heightened scrutiny for contempt-of-security officer, facing a seven-hour inspection after a few of the passengers pointed out the ridiculousness of extensive screening for a group of elderly tourists. TSA has admitted to similar contempt-of-TSA screening at airports, where passengers are singled out for harassment because of "Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."

On the other side of the country, tensions are apparently growing between boaters on the Hudson River and the many law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction there. Since 9/11 there's been a sharp increase in the number of stops and searches without any apparent cause, and the boaters aren't happy about it. Some are even selling their boats, and marina owners are joining in the complaints, saying that excessive searches are bad for their business.

I suspect we'll hear more stories like this in the years to come. I doubt they'll have as significant an effect as Noah is suggesting, but perhaps this is indeed a sign of things to come.

An Invasion I Support

(By Noah J. Cohen)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12internet.html?_r=1&hp

The U.S. is not all bumbling muscle. For her size, she is very well networked, and this 21st-century networking is a blessing whose proliferation has great power to help burgeoning progressive movements in less developed countries. The technological strong-arm of our government can do something that no war can do: it can give the oppressed a clear means to reclaim their voice.

Oppressive governments can intimidate populations many times their size usually because the disempowered lack device to organize themselves with forethought and subtlety. An uncensored internet, then, is among democracy's greatest allies, because the internet can help downtrodden individuals understand that they are not alone, and help to bring them together. The kinds of protests it can give purchase to are more dynamic for their international accessibility, and that much harder to crush. The internet is like the common man's cloak and dagger, and the best part is, there's no bloodshed to it; servers don't bleed when they're taken down.

I think the liberation of the internet, the waging of a cyberwar, is a noble endeavor for the U.S. to undertake, because it's the only kind of battle I can think of that spreads freedom with immediate results where those results don't come in the form of casualties.

TSA Mercifully Contrite

(By Noah J. Cohen)

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpps/news/national/dad-special-needs-son-harassed-by-tsa-at-detroit-metropolitan-airport-20110608-wpms_13594994

The TSA, having protested a 6-inch plastic toy hammer as a potential weapon of terror in the hands of a severely retarded man, concede to the necessity of developing yet another "special circumstance protocol," this time for special needs individuals, who often lack the intellectual maturity to cope with the tense environment of airport security or the wherewithal to respond appropriately to TSA demands.

The hopeful bet, and I believe the smart bet, is that it is only a matter of time before the nature of the ordeal we know as "airport security" is drastically revamped. The measures imposed by the Transportation Security Administration prove susceptible to human error on a nearly daily basis, and seem an affront to both social sense and legal sense. Though America has not forgotten 9/11, I doubt the populace is quite afraid or complacent enough to let unreasonable search and seizure remain an institutional normality for much longer.

He Comes Bearing Oppression (But It's OK, Because He's Totally Right)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Sometimes I forget that bigotry and ignorance actually still exist at a substantial level. I live in bliss for a few days, until someone helps bring me back to earth. This time, it was a link at Professor Brian Leiter's blog. He points to this article at "What's Wrong With the World".

First, some background. A few days ago, Robert George (a professor and advocate of Catholic values) wrote a piece at Mirror of Justice entitled "Mr. Cain, please do the right thing, and the American thing". In the article, Professor George objects to statements Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain made to Glenn Beck regarding a stringent "loyalty test" he would require Muslims to pass before working in his administration. As it happens, this "loyalty test" business is actually a walk-back from his original statement that he wouldn't allow any Muslims into the US government, since he wouldn't have time to screen the few loyal citizens away from the multitude of Islamic infiltrators who want to overthrow the United States' constitutional system and replace it with Sharia law.

In addition to quoting the least offensive of Cain's statements, Professor George was also overly solicitous towards Catholics. He created an equivalence between Cain's statements (which would establish a religious test completely irrelevant to the office under consideration) with a Democratic candidate who said that Catholic health "professionals" unwilling to perform certain necessary medical procedures shouldn't work in jobs that require professionals to perform those procedures. (Which would establish a test imminently related to the direct requirements of the job, and exclude only those unwilling to comply with those relevant requirements.)

But apparently that wasn't enough for Jeff Culbreath, who (in the post linked to by Leiter) berated Professor George for suggesting there's some kind of equivalence between religious freedom for Muslims and religious freedom for Catholics. He says:

Catholicism and Islam have objective content: one is true, the other is false; one is committed to peace, the other to war; one is a religion of justice, the other of oppression…Islamism is a grave threat to the United States, and those who embrace the wicked doctrines of Mohammed should not expect the welcome mat at the highest levels of government. Herman Cain would be wise to stick to his guns, and Robert George to admit his mistake.

In other words, Culbreath thinks that only those religions he agrees with deserve any protection under the Constitution.

Of course, to anyone blessed with the most basic reasoning skills, the most significant problem with Culbreath's argument is clear as day: religious freedom that protects those religions agreed to by the majority isn't any religious freedom at all. As it stands, Catholics (and even moreso, Protestants) don't need many protections for their religious freedom, because they are politically strong enough to protect themselves through the political process. Those religions we consider "wrong" are the only ones that need protection in the first place.

But I forgot, God spoke to Culbreath and told him the right way to run the world. Us heathens had better just get used to that.

No Real Opt-Out of TSA's Naked Scans

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

I had my first personal experience with TSA's pervy naked scanners today. This time I decided to go with the Fourth-Amendment-in-lead-paint-boxers, next time I'll probably refuse the scanner and file the sexual assault complaint if they pat me down.

But for this time, my main thought is that TSA's much-touted opt-out guarantee (where those who don't want to go through the naked-scanner don't have to) is a big joke. There was one sign a ways back in the line that mentioned, in the fine print, that the naked scanners are optional. But if you don't see that, and if you aren't informed about (or willing to stand up for) your rights, there's nothing optional about the procedure. TSA officers don't give you the option of using the naked scanner, they order you to enter it; and when I showed the briefest hesitance about going into it, the officer on duty herded me in.

TSA uses the low number of opt-outs as proof that the traveling public doesn't mind the naked scanners. But in reality, it seems that the opt-out isn't a real option after all.

UPDATE: Edited for slightly softer language.

Saturday Fourth Amendment News

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

In honor of the plane I'm about to get on, here are two bits of Fourth Amendment news:

The TSA apparently thinks it should be lauded for catching screeners who were abusing their powers after other people filed complaints. Never mind the fact that its TSA's responsibility to ensure that if they're going to violate our privacy, they at least do so in a semi-professional way. Never mind the fact that they shouldn't be asking for moreways to violate our privacy when we can't even trust them with the extreme power they already have. What really bothers me about this story is that TSA has existed since 2001, and their Office of Professional Responsibility is "newly established."

In other news, a cop apparently tried to claim he had a right to privacy in the way he went about violating someone else's privacy. A police department set up a sting for a suspected dirty cop, with hidden cameras in a room of an undercover "drug dealer" who the cop was sent to arrest. When he's arrested for stealing evidence, he tries to claim that he has a right to privacy while searching a suspect's room. Really? Really?

Ohio: Leading The Charge For Youth Justice?

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

As a native of Ann Arbor, I am genetically programmed to have a distaste for anything that comes out of Ohio. But like the sneaky bastards they are, they slowly won me over with things like Cedar Point. And by that, I mean it was just Cedar Point.

Then, the state kind of lost its moral credibility when they tried for two hours to execute Romell Bloom before giving up because they couldn't find a vein to kill him with. Lesson: if you ever plan to get on death row, do a lot of heroin in your youth so that your veins become inaccessible to the executioners. (By the way, Bloom appears to still be alive—the aborted execution was in 2009.)

But now, Ohio is giving me cause for hope. Eugene Volokh reports that Ohio's Supreme Court (which, according to him, consists of six Republican appointees out of seven members) struck down a statutory rape charge against a 12 year old boy who was convicted of having non-forcible (i.e. consensual) sex with an 11 year old boy. The Court said, quite correctly, that statutory rape statutes that apply equally to both participants in a sexual act violate the Equal Protection Clause unless both participants are charged.

These statutes, and their enforcement, is a travesty on our criminal justice system. They allow people to play the system and prosecutors to label one person a perpetrator and one person a victim in an entirely arbitrary fashion.

Of course, there are ways to deal with sex between two individuals who are under the typical age of consent in a state. The law could establish an age-difference (say, a year or two), and if the participants are separated by more than that the older one could be charged with statutory rape. (Subject, I believe, to proof that the other participant's age would have been known to a reasonable person, but that's a different discussion.) Or, a state could choose to penalize the individual who was not under the influence of drugs, if only one was.

There are options. But statutes that allow prosecutors to play God and prosecute the man whomever they wish to punish are ridiculous, and I applaud Ohio for taking a state.

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: First Glance (5)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Part 1: Herman Cain & Newt Gingrich
Part 2: Gary Johnson & Fred Karger
Part 3: Tom Miller & Ron Paul
Part 4: Andy Martin & Jimmy McMillan
Part 5: Tim Pawlenty & Buddy Roemer (this post)
Part 6: Mitt Romney & Rick Santorum
Part 7: Michele Bachmann & Jon Huntsman
Part 8: Thad McCotter & Roy Moore (upcoming)
Part 9: Vern Wuensche (upcoming)

I think it's time to take a first look at the potential candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pulling from a source list here. I'm going to look at each candidate on four main topics: Civil Rights, National Security, Economy, Constitutional Vision. I'll rate them on a four point scale (from best to worst): Strong, Acceptable, Weak, Unacceptable. I'll also include a brief justification, so if I miss something relevant (which I probably will, with so many candidates to consider) feel free to leave a note in the comments section and I may adjust the ratings. Most of my information is going to be pulled from the candidates' websites, for those that already have them.

This post will address Tim Pawlenty and Buddy Roemer. Look at the top for links to other posts in this series, and watch for more new posts to come.

Tim Pawlenty

Civil Rights: Unacceptable
Pawlenty opposes marriage equality and thinks that the federal government should enforce discriminatory marriage rules. He thinks the government should force unwilling women to remain pregnant. Worst of all, he has nothing on his website about any civil rights issues, labeling the previous two as "values issues."

National Security: Unacceptable
For some reason, Pawlenty thinks that America's image and popularity in the Middle East are irrelevant to our national security, and he thinks that we should unquestioningly stand behind Israel because they are a "historic ally," apparently without any care for justice or the future stability of the region.

Economy: Unacceptable
Pawlenty lied in a speech at the University of Chicago when he said that American corporations pay the second highest tax rate in the world. He seems to think that a comparison of overall average wages between the government and the private sector is a meaningful piece of data. And he thinks that the budget should be balanced on the backs of the vulnerable. [Update 8/1/11: Pawlenty is completely crazy when it comes to the debt ceiling.]

Constitutional Vision: Weak/Unknown
I can't determine much about Pawlenty's constitutional vision, if he has one. But on one major constitutional issue of the next few years, the constitutionality of an individual health care mandate, he's dead wrong. Oh, and he brags about loading the Minnesota courts with conservative judges.

Buddy Roemer

Civil Rights: Acceptable
This rating is teetering on the edge of "Weak," but I decided that, as he's running as a Republican, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. He supported chain gangs and a strong and pervasive death penalty, but also supports abortion rights, medical marijuana, and a robust free speech right to profane music.

National Security: Unknown

Economy: Weak
Roemer is big into the tax cut Republican mode, but beyond that I don't really know much.

Constitutional Vision: Strong
The core of Roemer's campaign is the idea that politicians should be "free to lead." He intends to make sure he is by refusing to take any donation over $100, to demonstrate his independence from special interest money. It's a strong message at a time when most Republicans are celebrating Citizens United, and I applaud him for it. Roemer reaffirmed this commitment during an interview on the Colbert Report.

---

Now, cumulatively speaking, we have (ranked in best-to-worst order, with scores in the following order: Strong - Acceptable - Weak - Unacceptable):

Karger: 1 - 3 - 0 - 0
Roemer: 1 - 1 - 1 - 0
Johnson: 0 - 2 - 2 - 0
Huntsman: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Paul: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Romney: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Gingrich: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Bachmann: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Miller: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Pawlenty: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Santorum: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3

Pawlenty: Spewing Nonsense

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Tim Pawlenty spoke at the University of Chicago yesterday, and he apparently advocated cutting corporate taxes by 58%. This at a time when a former Reagan and Bush domestic and monetary policy adviser (Bruce Bartlett) points out that corporate taxes account for only 1.3% of GDP this year, a third of what they were in the 1950s. And our corporate taxes are the lowest of any country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development when compared to GDP. That is, we have lower corporate taxes than Norway, Australia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Britain, Finland, Israel, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, the Neatherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, France, Ireland, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Greece, Slovenia, Germany, Iceland, and Turkey.

But yeah, lower taxes. We're clearly taxing the life out of those corporations. It's time for seniors to do their part.

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: First Glance (4)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Part 1: Herman Cain & Newt Gingrich
Part 2: Gary Johnson & Fred Karger
Part 3: Tom Miller & Ron Paul
Part 4: Andy Martin & Jimmy McMillan (this post)
Part 5: Tim Pawlenty & Buddy Roemer
Part 6: Mitt Romney & Rick Santorum
Part 7: Michele Bachmann & Jon Huntsman
Part 8: Thad McCotter & Roy Moore (upcoming)
Part 9: Vern Wuensche (upcoming)

I think it's time to take a first look at the potential candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pulling from a source list here. I'm going to look at each candidate on four main topics: Civil Rights, National Security, Economy, Constitutional Vision. I'll rate them on a four point scale (from best to worst): Strong, Acceptable, Weak, Unacceptable. I'll also include a brief justification, so if I miss something relevant (which I probably will, with so many candidates to consider) feel free to leave a note in the comments section and I may adjust the ratings. Most of my information is going to be pulled from the candidates' websites, for those that already have them.

This post will address Andy Martin and Jimmy McMillan. Look at the top for links to other posts in this series, and watch for more new posts to come.

Andy Martin
Martin was a primary source of rumors about President Obama being a secret Muslim, then claimed (based of a "gut feeling") that Obama was actually the secret son of a suspected Communist. He's also a major player in the birther movement. [See here]. He has earned no space for consideration on this blog.

Jimmy McMillan
The rent is too damn high.

---

Now, cumulatively speaking, we have (ranked in best-to-worst order, with scores in the following order: Strong - Acceptable - Weak - Unacceptable):

Karger: 1 - 3 - 0 - 0
Roemer: 1 - 1 - 1 - 0
Johnson: 0 - 2 - 2 - 0
Huntsman: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Paul: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Romney: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Gingrich: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Bachmann: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Miller: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Pawlenty: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Santorum: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3

Roundup

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

This is a finals week roundup, since I'm too busy to write a more substantive post.

• In an amusing error, a CBS news alert email references "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi." If only, if only.
• The acquittal of an ex-prosecutor for what would have been his fourth DUI conviction emphasizes the necessity of integrity among the police. The jury apparently decided they couldn't trust the cops, who in the past had abused their power to fix tickets for family members and friends.
• Frank Pasquale has a review of the book Nothing to Hide, which presents a compelling case for increased privacy protections in the modern world. Definitely worth a read.
• Jonathan Adler has an amusing story about a couple who foreclosed on their bank, showing up at the branch with the sheriff to confiscate desks, computers, and all of the cash in the drawers after the bank refused to pay attorney fees from a wrongful-foreclosure suit. (The bank didn't own the couple's house, but tried to foreclose on it anyways.)
• Eugene Volokh writes about how Rand Paul just ensured that no one will confuse the Paul family for libertarians ever again. (The relative audio is here.)
• Dominic Nardi, a PhD student in political science at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, represent!) has a very good post about the development of constitutionalism in Myanmar.

And now, as a treat for the ladies (and some of the men), here's a lesson in political science 101:

Sex Scandal

Hott

UChicago SOUL Ends the Dialogue

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Over the last quarter, UChicago's student organization SOUL (Students Organizing United with Labor) has been leading an effort to guarantee that the school's housekeeping employees be retained and protected during a planned service outsourcing next year. I sympathize with SOUL's goals: the employees have developed a relationship with the university and its students, and the university should not be allowed to abrogate its moral responsibility towards those employees by letting a subcontracting company do the dirty work of lowering salaries and eliminating benefits.

Unfortunately, in a move that was particularly sad to see from UChicago students, SOUL chose to end the dialog last Thursday in favor of making unilateral demands that will most likely never be met.

During a "study in" at the administration building with the stated goal of having the university release a statement agreeing to SOUL's demands, Kim Goff-Crews (UChicago's Dean of Students) offered to meet with SOUL to discuss their concerns. They refused to meet, and instead issued a statement. In relevant part:

Throughout this quarter we have voiced our concerns through rallying, handing–in of petitions, call–ins and letter delivery...

Representatives from the Worker-Student Coalition and SOUL have met repeatedly with administrators, and our demands have consistently been rejected, in spite of this mandate.

We have articulated our position and you have articulated yours. We are no longer interested in hearing the justification for denying basic protections to university employees.

Therefore, let it be clear that further meetings would not be conducive to any progressive understanding and reconciliation. We refuse to let our voices be muffled by bureaucracy, empty words, and distressing circuitous logic.

We now wait for the public release of a written statement committing to fulfilling our demands.

Granted, I have not been a part of SOUL's process. I'm not aware of the content of their meetings, or how responsive the administration has been to their concerns. But what's clear to me is that by turning down the meeting, SOUL just lost the high ground.

The fact that SOUL thinks that speaking to an administrator means a risk of their "voice [being] muffled by bureaucracy, empty words, and distressing circuitous logic" demonstrates a lack of conviction in their position. If they're right, and if their position is well-reasoned and well-researched, then a mere meeting won't be able to hurt their position. But if they're not confident in themselves, if they're scared that giving the administration a chance to speak will undermine them, then denying the meeting makes perfect sense.

This is UChicago, so let me close with a bit of Mill:

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right...

In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind...The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.

Update: This is a general policy of mine, but I'd like to specifically note for this post that if any of those responsible for the SOUL letter feel I'm wrong, they're welcome to a full post response.

Texas, You're Killing Me

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Robert Guest (a Texas defense attorney) has a story about the Texas Legislature's approach to the DWI problem. The most interesting part, to me, was near the end.

Apparently, there was a deferred prosecution bill proposed in the legislature. Deferred prosecution is like probation, but you're never actually convicted, assuming that you complete your probationary period. Sounds fair enough. But how do we know there wasn't anything wrong with this bill, and that it's a smart approach to DWI enforcement? Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving ALL supported it.

When I read that, I had to make sure I wasn't dreaming. The idea of getting MADD to agree to something reasonable enough that the defense bar would go for it...it boggles the mind. But even more than that, how did the bill not pass? How did the legislature turn down a bill that garnered mutual support from natural enemies?

The bill, which was supported by prosecutors, defense attorneys and MADD, "had a lot of momentum," Alpert said, but the possible loss of money for the state from surcharges that accompany convictions may have doomed it. "This wasn't the year to be cutting into sources of revenue," he said.

Translation: the bill would probably cut down on drunk driving. It would help to rehabilitate offenders, and destroy fewer lives in the criminal justice system. It would save prosecution costs. But does any of that matter to the Texas Legislature? Of course not, damn it.

We've got to convict these people so we can take their money.

Why did we fight a war to get this state from Mexico?

Judgmental Old People

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

One might think that my title is overly stereotypical. But I have data! Gallup's 2011 Values and Beliefs Poll is out, and it includes a breakdown into three age groups: 18-34, 35-54, 55+. (Young people, apparently, have neither values of beliefs—nor are they "Americans," it seems, since Gallup claims that it's results speak for "Americans," despite strong evidence that inclusion of the younger age group would significantly change the data.)

Anyways, on basically every issue, the perceived moral acceptability of an action saw a steady drop as the age of the respondent went up.

Old people were much more judgmental of private matters such as pornography, homosexual "relations," premarital sex, gambling, polygamy, and abortion. They were also more judgmental on matters of more public concern, such as out-of-wedlock births, human cloning, and animal cloning, and much more willing to allow animal testing and the death penalty.

But there were a few issues where I thought the age breakdowns were particularly interesting: in approving of embryonic stem cell research, the old fall between the young and middle aged, probably because the research has a good chance of helping them live longer. Likewise, the old are only slightly below the young and a bit above the middle age in approving of divorce. The years, they wear on...

Finally, while old people are the most approving of suicide generally (at 19%), they're the least approving of doctor-assisted suicide (43%). What's up with that?

Baker's Odd Calculus

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Stewart Baker, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, apparently thinks that 0.00004 is a large number. That is the fraction of alleged terrorists apparently wrongly admitted to the US under a system of refugee asylum for Iraqis, and Baker thinks it's a big deal.

There have, according to Baker, been 50,000 refugees admitted through the program. Two have now been arrested and indicted by the FBI, and prior to entry, one of their fingerprints were in a database of prints taken from IEDs in Iraq.

Obviously, the system broke down here. The prints should have been tested, and these two excluded from the country. But what does Baker say about a 99.996% success rate?

All that raises serious questions. In my view, it suggests that the Iraq refugee program is misconceived – that we are taking too great a risk in bringing large numbers of Iraqi refugees to the United States whom we cannot vet properly.

Clearly. If 0.004% of a certain group of immigrants go on to commit crimes, we're taking too much of a risk by admitting that group to the country, and they should all be excluded. Something tells me it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a group classification that Stewart Baker belongs to that was only 99.996% lawful.

And, of course, let's not forget two important facts: like the faithful fear-mongerer he is, Baker ignores the presumption of innocence. These two men have been arrested and indicted. Absolutely nothing has been proven. And, it should be noted, they failed to pull of any attack: they were arrested by undercover FBI agents who they thought were working with them. Many people arrested in such undercover operations may have become legitimate threats if they ever actually gained the resources and skills to pull anything off, but undercover FBI agents give relatively harmless individuals everything they need to turn tough talk into almost-action.

In summary, this is where we're at: percentage of Iraqi refugees arrested on terrorism charges? 0.004%. Number of deaths or injuries caused by terrorists admitted through the Iraqi refugee program? 0. Value of damage done by terrorists admitted through the Iraqi refugee program? $0.

But obviously, there are "serious questions" about whether the program is "misconceived."

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: First Glance (3)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

UPDATE (6/9): Some changes to the notes on Ron Paul's civil rights record. No change in rating.

Part 1: Herman Cain & Newt Gingrich
Part 2: Gary Johnson & Fred Karger
Part 3: Tom Miller & Ron Paul (this post)
Part 4: Andy Martin & Jimmy McMillan
Part 5: Tim Pawlenty & Buddy Roemer
Part 6: Mitt Romney & Rick Santorum
Part 7: Michele Bachmann & Jon Huntsman
Part 8: Thad McCotter & Roy Moore (upcoming)
Part 9: Vern Wuensche (upcoming)

I think it's time to take a first look at the potential candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. I'm pulling from a source list here. I'm going to look at each candidate on four main topics: Civil Rights, National Security, Economy, Constitutional Vision. I'll rate them on a four point scale (from best to worst): Strong, Acceptable, Weak, Unacceptable. I'll also include a brief justification, so if I miss something relevant (which I probably will, with so many candidates to consider) feel free to leave a note in the comments section and I may adjust the ratings. Most of my information is going to be pulled from the candidates' websites, for those that already have them.

This post will address Tom Miller and Ron Paul. Look at the top for links to other posts in this series, and watch for more new posts to come.

Tom Miller
Civil Rights: Unacceptable
Miller opposes marriage equality and the right to end one's own pregnancy. He also opposes any civil rights for detainees held without trial or proof of guilt.

National Security: Weak
Miller admits to an unjustified preference for Israel over other allies (who he thinks should defend themselves, while Israel receives all of our aid). He also supports a level of disengagement with international politics that will lower America's stature in the international community over the long run.

Economy: Unacceptable
Failing to recognize that there are some necessary services that cannot be successfully or appropriately provided by a free market that favors wealth over basic needs, Miller would return all nationalized services to the private sector. He also supports a stultifying consumption-based tax, and would end the federal minimum wage.

Constitutional Vision: Unacceptable
Miller's vision for America is one based on cultural homogeneity (in the Christian faith) and the supremacy of capital over all other values. It also includes a disavowal of our responsibility to our retired citizens and those struggling to survive in a weak economy.

Ron Paul
Civil Rights: Weak
Paul voted to defund support for adoptions by homosexual couples in DC. (It's been suggested that this vote was only because he opposes federal funding for things. However, that rationale doesn't seem to stand given the discriminatory nature of the defunding. Comment below if you disagree, or if you have a link to the amendment in question.) He supports the "right" of property owners to engage in racial or gender discrimination in their provision of services or hiring of employees. He supports federal discrimination against homosexual couples and discriminatory policies against homosexuals in the military. He not only supports the establishment of religion in the Pledge of Allegiance, he voted to prevent a non-partisan judicial resolution to the question. On other issues, such as the PATRIOT [sic] Act, flag desecration, and ending the War on Drugs, Paul has taken positions more consistent with civil liberties.

National Security: Acceptable
While Ron Paul is much more isolationist than I would like to see in a President, and I think his desire to withdraw America from the international stage will be harmful in the long run, his disavowal of interventionism is at least consistent.

Economy: Weak
Ron Paul's disavowal of unbacked currency is incompatible with modern economic realities: he seems to forget that we no longer live in the 18th century. Paul also has a somewhat blind faith that adherence to what (he sees as) constitutional principles will be good for our economy, as though the founders he venerated knew anything about a 21st century economy.

Constitutional Vision: Weak
Paul adheres to a very flawed version of originalism that justifies everything by the suggestion that the founders were interested in a minimal government. In reality, America was designed to adapt to a changing world, and we have done so. Paul would reverse that progress and apply old, outdated solutions to new problems.

---

Now, cumulatively speaking, we have (ranked in best-to-worst order, with scores in the following order: Strong - Acceptable - Weak - Unacceptable):

Karger: 1 - 3 - 0 - 0
Roemer: 1 - 1 - 1 - 0
Johnson: 0 - 2 - 2 - 0
Huntsman: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Paul: 0 - 1 - 3 - 0
Romney: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Gingrich: 0 - 1 - 1 - 2
Bachmann: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Miller: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Pawlenty: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3
Santorum: 0 - 0 - 1 - 3

Rights-Principles

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Oftentimes, conservatives and "libertarians" act as though there's some magic line between government and business. We need strong controls on government power, they argue, but absolute deregulation of business. What these people miss (or ignore) is that corporations can accumulate a huge amount of control over our daily lives: in some ways, more than government.

Because of this, we must apply the same principles that call for limiting government to businesses, although the results will often look different. The main factor accounting for this difference is, of course, choice. If there are fifteen grocery stores in your town, it doesn't really matter if one of them discriminates against black customers. If there is only one grocery store, it matters a lot.

As businesses develop more and more of a monopoly over our activities, we have to be careful to examine the principles behind the rights we hold dear (free speech, democratic accountability, due process, equal protection, etc) and see how those principles apply to these new sources of power.

Ari Waldman, guest blogging at Concurring Opinions, gets the basic idea. In a post on cyberharassment, he acknowledges (rightfully) that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies who control access to various parts of the Internet, but says that we must still align our laws governing those companies with the principles underlying the First Amendment's restrictions on government.

However, Waldman errs by suggesting that such companies should be examined in the tradition of "intermediaries" to speech, such as publishers, stores, schools, and workplaces. "Traditional intermediaries have the power to regulate content consistent with the First Amendment, especially when not doing so would interfere with their and their users’ ability to participate in civil society." He then concludes: "And, like schools and workplaces, which can regulate their members’ speech in order to fulfill the institutions’ purposes, so too can online intermediaries like Facebook."

This analogy misses the crucial element of choice. There are many book publishers, many stores, many schools, many workplaces. Restrictions on speech by them individually thus has little chilling effect on speech, and a significant benefit in terms of other institutional goals.

However, when we look at a company like Facebook (or, say, Google) censorship is much more scary. Specifically because they control so much communication and information, huge companies have the power to significantly damage free speech values by instituting censorship measures in the interests of other institutional goals.

Online censorship is even more dangerous because it can be automated and hidden. If a publisher chooses not to publish a book, the author realizes and can talk to others about. Systematic discrimination in publishing decisions will probably be recognized sooner or later. However, if Google starts (whether deliberately or through its hidden algorithms) to downgrade conservative sites in search results, who's going to notice? If Facebook starts to show someone's posts to fewer and fewer people, how is that person going to realize? So much of how these sites work is hidden that censorship can easily remain hidden — possibly forever.