Category: Politics

Picking Your Battles

The last couple of week shave really demonstrated what media blitzes are capable of. Before Chick-Fil-A’s owner, Dan Cathy, publicly stated his opposition to gay marriage I had never heard of his restaurant. Shortly after his statement the Internet was alive with people praising and denouncing the man and his business. Those opposing gay marriages cheered Cathy’s statement and vowed to frequent his restaurant and those who support gay marriages decried the man and encouraged everybody to boycott the restaurant. What happened? People reacted:

Chick-fil-A restaurants in cities across southern states of the US, where the majority of the chain’s outlets are located, were reported to be bustling with customers who turned out in support of the chain on Wednesday.

How did this happen? Is the United States so bigoted towards homosexuals that far more will set out to support a restaurant owned by a man who is publicly opposed to gay marriages than will boycott it? To answer this question we need to do a bit of analysis.

First and foremost the reaction by the supporters of gay marriage was, to say the least, inflammatory. Mayors of Boston and Chicago both threatened to ban the restaurant from their cities while many other supporters of gay marriage loudly referred to Cathy and his supporters as bigots and homophobes. Screams about boycotting the establishment were made, Facebook boycott events were created, and angry rants were posted across the Internet. Needless to say Cathy’s supporters were receiving a great deal of hatred and decide to counter the hatred with their own plans.

Let’s look at the factions in the gay marriage debate. Only two factions have an actual stake in this debate: homosexuals who want to receive the same treatment in marriage as heterosexuals and deeply religious individuals who believe God his tasked them with bringing his word and morality to the masses. Other factions have various interests in the debate but no real stake, they won’t be personally affected. Of the two factions with a stake in this debate the deeply religious factions is by far the largest. The golden rule when confronting a much larger force is not to engage in a head-on attack. Unfortunately that’s what the proponents of gay marriage did, they engaged their smaller force in a head-on attack against a much larger force. In addition to that their move alienated them from other potential supporters.

The most intelligent move would have been to ignore Cathy’s statement and continue to fight for gay rights. Such a move would have given opponents to gay marriage nothing to rally their troops behind and such a move wouldn’t have alienated potential supporters. Instead demands for a boycott were made and two groups ran to the support of Chick-Fil-A: opponents of gay marriage and proponents of free speech. Bravo guys, you managed to give common cause to two extremely large groups. The motivation of the opponents of gay marriage was obvious, they don’t support legalized gay marriages and see Cathy as a spokesperson. What about the supporters of free speech, what was their motivation? Free speech. When the mayors of Boston and Chicago came out and threatened Chick-Fil-A with a ban from their cities they may as well have said they were punishing the establishment because its owner decided to exercise his freedom of speech. It was a stupid and devastating move.

The stupidity didn’t end there. In a move that one could believe was custom crafted to further create opposition to gay marriage supporters started slinging mud. They started referring to people who ate at Chick-Fil-A or otherwise agreed with Cathy’s statement bigots, homophobes, haters, and disgusting individuals. Insulting people is not how you build popular support for your movement. Many people who were on the fence or uninvolved suddenly had reason to support Chick-Fil-A. Why help a group of people who are calling you names even though you didn’t really have a stake in the game? Others who were on the fence but leaning towards supporting gay marriage also started backing away because few people want to work with individuals who are acting in an unprofessional manner.

To put it bluntly, advocates of gay marriage really fucked up this time. What could have been an absolute nonissue turned into a giant political fiasco. Chick-Fil-A found its stores packed with supporters, which sent a signal to other businesses informing them that opposing gay marriage may be rewarded with additional patronage. Free speech advocates, who had no reason to support Chick-Fil-A, sudden had a reason to support the restaurant. Opponents to gay marriage found themselves with a massive media platform to use to rally support to their cause. Basically every unintended consequence came to fruition.

I now see why constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage have succeeded in every state they’ve been pushed in. Getting prohibitions against gay marriage off of the books requires appealing to public opinion, it requires building support, it requires smart maneuvering. All of those things are jeopardized when a single individual is able to rile up supporters of gay marriage in such a way that they act against their own goal. You have to keep your emotions under control if you want to win public support.

Dissenters Will be Punished

It still amazes me that anybody believes the government hires the best and brightest to ensure food, drugs, and other consumer products are safe for public consumption. That’s not how government works, government works by hiring people who agree with the state hive mind. You’re unlikely to get a position in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unless you believe in man-made global warming, you’re unlikely to get a job in the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) unless you believe people should have violence brought against them for using drugs not approved by the state, and you’re unlikely to to get a job in the Department of Agriculture unless you’ve sided entirely with Monsanto. The state also watches those in its employ to ensure they don’t dissent, which is what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was caught doing:

A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.

[…]

Moving to quell what one memorandum called the “collaboration” of the F.D.A.’s opponents, the surveillance operation identified 21 agency employees, Congressional officials, outside medical researchers and journalists thought to be working together to put out negative and “defamatory” information about the agency.

[…]

The extraordinary surveillance effort grew out of a bitter dispute lasting years between the scientists and their bosses at the F.D.A. over the scientists’ claims that faulty review procedures at the agency had led to the approval of medical imaging devices for mammograms and colonoscopies that exposed patients to dangerous levels of radiation.

A confidential government review in May by the Office of Special Counsel, which deals with the grievances of government workers, found that the scientists’ medical claims were valid enough to warrant a full investigation into what it termed “a substantial and specific danger to public safety.”

Scientists working for the FDA became a hinderance to granting approval for medical devices because they had credible concerns about the safety tests being inadequate. Instead of investigating these claims, as an organization supposedly tasked with protecting the safety of individuals would, the FDA moved against the dissenting scientists but putting them under surveillance and, in some cases, outright firing them. We cannot rely on the government to protect us because they have no interest in protecting us. They hold their beliefs and nothing, including credible evidence, and shake their faith in those beliefs. Often their beliefs are based on monetary or political gain and I’m guessing the manufacturers of the mammogram and colonoscopy devices in question have some very good connections high up in the FDA.

The Proper Reaction to Terrorism

After 9/11 the United States government reacted by turning this county into more of a police state than it already was. The PATRIOT Act was hurried into law, National Security Letters commanded companies to hand over customer information and threatened prison time for even revealing that the letter was received, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) turned flying into a fiasco, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan began because those countries had oil and lithium respectively been accused of assisting Al Qaeda. How did Norway react to last year’s terrorist attack on their country? As Bruce Schneier points out, sensibly:

“The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation,” he said.

A year later it seems the prime minister has kept his word.

There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists.

On the streets of Oslo, CCTV cameras are still a comparatively rare sight and the police can only carry weapons after getting special permission.

Even the gate leading to the parliament building in the heart of Oslo remains open and unguarded.

“It is still easy to get access to parliament and we hope it will stay that way, ” said Lise Christoffersen, a Labour party MP.

She is convinced people do not want laws passed which would curtail their basic rights and impinge on their privacy despite the relative ease with which Breivik was able to plan and carry out his attacks.

If only the United States government had reacted the same way. Instead of sinking trillions of dollars into security theater and war we may have actually been able to redirect those squandered resources into something productive.

Audit the Fed Bill Passes in the House

Persistance does pay off as Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill has finally passed in the house:

At long last, Ron Paul has his day.

The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the Texas Republican’s bill to increase the transparency of the Federal Reserve. With bipartisan support, the measure passed 327-98.

For Paul, the path to getting his bill approved in the House has been a long, and often lonely one. He first introduced the bill to a skeptical House a decade ago. While his efforts were ignored at the time, the call to audit the Fed” has gained support from mainstream Republicans and Democrats.

While this is good news and there is obvious massive support for the bill Harry Reid has made it clear that he intends to block the bill from being voted on in the Senate:

While Wednesday’s passage in the lower chamber is a victory for Paul and his supporters, the bill is considered dead on arrival in the Senate. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to put it to a vote.

Needless to say I’m not surprised. The last thing the state wants to do is audit the organization that makes the endless wars and entitlement programs possible.

The More You Fight the Enemy the More You Become the Enemy

I’m starting to think it’s a universal law that the more you fight an enemy the more you become the enemy. In Russia the Bolsheviks fought the Imperial Czars only to become imperialists themselves. Spanish anarchists fought the state only to become a state themselves, going as far as executing anybody who used money. The United States fought against the British monarchy to gain independence only to have the presidency turn into a practical monarchy. Now Occupy New Hampshire appears to have finally fought corporations long enough that they’ve become a corporation:

On Monday, a small number of Occupy New Hampshire members incorporated the movement as a nonprofit in order to boot their former bedfellows: the Free Staters. Also prohibited from future Occupy events are gun owners who openly carry.

[…]

Membership in Occupy New Hampshire will now require signing statements of solidarity and respect, according to the corporation papers filed with the Secretary of State’s office. And the Occupy members supporting Provost have concluded there is “no place” in Occupy New Hampshire for the Free State Project or guns, according to minutes of a recent meeting.

Although the various Occupy movements claim to hate corporations and restrictions on free speech the movement in New Hampshire has finally fought against both long enough that they’ve incorporated and are restricting free speech (openly carrying a firearm for political reasons is an act of free speech). It’s funny watching a movement that was built on political dissidence become a movement that crushes political dissidence. Now members are required to sign, what amounts to, an oath of loyalty to Occupy New Hampshire.

This is why I don’t fight the state, I merely ignore it and encourage others to follow suit.

The Cost of Political Conventions

Previously on Politics: The Reality Television Show for Suckers supporters of Ron Paul’s campaign sued the Republican National Convention (RNC) for helping Romney in his quest to get the presidential nomination. Paul’s supporters claim that the RNC’s rules requiring delegates to sign pledges to support certain candidates violates federal election rules. Paul’s opponents claim that the RNC is able to run elections however the please because the RNC is a private organization. Clearly both sides cannot be right.

In today’s episode of Politics questions about the RNC’s status as a private organization are raised as they receive money from the state for their nomination process:

Congress has given Tampa — and Charlotte, the location of the Democratic National Convention — $50 million each in taxpayer money to try to ensure everyone is safe for the political gatherings that crown each party’s presidential candidate every four years.

Tax victims are wondering how an organization can claim to be private and still receive state funds. They are also left wondering why the presidential nomination process costs so much money. Will the RNC respond to the tax victim’s concerns? Will the state’s courts side with the Paul supporters or the RNC? Join us next episode to find out!

EDIT: 2012-07-23: 13:23: Apparently I can’t use words as Bruce pointed out in the comments. I mean to say “violates federal election rules.” not “violents federal election rules.” I’ve correct this mistake and my compliments go to Bruce for pointing it out.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

My feeling about voting for Romney or Obama can be summed up by paraphrasing Snake Plissken, “I vote for Mitt Romney, you win they lose. I vote for Barack Obama, they win, you lose. The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

For those of use confused about my unwillingness to support Romney in “The most important election of our lifetime!” (that isn’t) let me just say that Romney’s victory merely means you win, they lose. On the other hand if Obama wins it merely means they win, you lose. I’m not a member of either team, I have no interest in either presidential candidate winning. Regardless who wins I lose.

Who’s to Blame if Obama Gets Reelected

The presidential election is fast approaching and that means everybody is setting up their list of people to blame if their guy isn’t occupying the White House next year. Even though the Republican Party has tried everything in the book to prevent Ron Paul from getting on the nomination list at the National Convention (RNC) he managed to get enough states to be listed:

The Republican National Convention is quickly approaching (August 26th). For over the past year, avid Ron Paul supporters have won delegate spots in various state conventions across the country. Through this hard-work, Ron Paul will officially be allowed to be nominated for the nominee of the Republican Party.

As I’ve been pointing out the Republican Party’s shenanigans many drones in the party have been making excuses for the party’s actions. The most common excuse has been the claim that Ron Paul is unelectable and that allowing him to be the presidential nominee will give Obama the election. What if Obama manages to get reelected, who will be to blame? Party drones are already trying to blame the Paul supporters but the truth is the responsible organization will be the Republican Party itself. Why? Because they’ve managed to pick the one presidential nominee that even hardcore Republican drones hate, Mitt Romney.

Paul is a dividing figure in the Republican Party but not nearly as dividing as Romney. Listening to Paul’s words and looking at his voting record leads one to realize that he supports many of the things the Republican Party claims to. Paul is pro-gun, he opposes the Affordable Healthcare Act, he wants to secure the borders, and he’s fiscally conservative. Romney, on the other hand, has a history that opposes the ideals many Republican Party members uphold. During his time as governor of Massachusetts Romney signed a permanent ban on “assault weapons” and state-wide legislation that Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act mimicked . It’s easy to see why many hardcore members of the Republican Party have expressed hatred of Romney.

While the drones within the party are getting behind Romney because that’s who their masters want, others are looking away in disgust. The most scorn members of the party are those who wanted Rick Santorum. I’ve let me absolute hatred of Santorum be known but I must admit that he’d get wider support inside of the Republican Party than Romney. There would have actually been a chance of uniting the party with Santorum whereas no such chance exists with Romney. I’ve heard numerous hardcore Republican Party members say they won’t vote for Romney but would have gladly voted for Santorum and begrudgingly voted for Paul. Romney is poison and everybody knows it. When hardcore party members won’t support the candidate he’s truly sunk. With such a wide fissure within the party it’ll be possible for Obama to win even though his approval rating is almost zilch.

What if Paul wins the nomination? Would the Republican Party still be at blame if Obama ended up winning the election? Yes. In their zealous crusade to get Romney picked as the nominee the bigwigs in the Republican Party have entirely demonized Paul. This presents a problem because a Paul victory could alienated the drones. The drones are in it to win popularity contests. It’s not ideology that motivates their current support of Romney, it’s their desire to be on the winner’s side so they can brag about how all their hard work paid off. When the bigwigs in the Republican Party say they want Romney the drones support Romney because they believe whoever is picked by the bigwigs is destined to win (and the drones are probably right about that). Their support for Romney is most publicly displayed by their hatred for Paul and their hatred of Paul is most publicly displayed by their regurgitation of anti-Paul talking points given to them by their masters. Needless to say if Romney loses the drones lose and if the drones lose they’re likely to get up and leave. They wanted to win, they obeyed their masters because their mastered guaranteed victory, and if they aren’t victorious they’ll storm out. Their vanishing act won’t be due to ideological differences with the nominee (as with the Paul supporters) but due being sore losers.

The Republican Party has done this to themselves. They managed to split the party through their zealous attempt to ensure Romney’s victory. Obama’s approval rating is in the toilet, somebody could probably run an openly racists drunk womanizer against him and win. Yet the presidential election result isn’t known because the Republican Party managed to create division within their party. If they can’t even manage to unite their party there is almost no hope of uniting enough of the nation to get their guy into office.

Oh well, whether Romney wins the election or Obama is irrelevant, we the people lose either way. When the choice is between a fascist or a fascist the only possible outcome is getting a fascist.

What Happens When You Play by the Rules

It seems that the Republican National Convention (RNC) is pissed that the Ron Paul supporters have figured out its rules and procedures and are planning to use them to their advantage. Even though the RNC has selected Romney as their candidate the Paul supporters are planning on using ever rule, procedure, and trick to fight the good fight, which has made higher ups in the Republican Party very nervous:

Security at the state Republican convention has been tightened this summer in case turmoil breaks out as it did in other states where Ron Paul and Mitt Romney supporters clashed over control.

[…]

The executive director of the state Republican Party, Jordan McGrain, told Nebraska Watchdog in addition to its usual sergeant at arms committee, the party hired additional security for the first time in convention history, to his knowledge. Party officials are preparing for potential for trouble caused by Paul supporters.

[…]

McGrain said Paul’s supporters are trying to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.”

He has been warned by Republican officials in Nevada and Louisiana to be prepared for “Paulistas” to try to seize control of the convention through endless votes, amendments, re-votes and parliamentary delays aimed at wearing out establishment Republicans.

I love the last part where they say the Paul supporters are planning to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.” In other words the Paul supporters are planning on playing by the very rules setup by the Republican Party itself. The only obvious way for the establishment to fight this is to go outside of the rules. Of course they can’t just blatantly do that and maintain their appearance of a democracy. I’m betting the RNC hired additional security, not because they’re afraid the Paul supporters will become violent but, because they want to demonize the Paul supporters. Look at how they’re justifying the additional security, they are implying the Paul supporters warrant such a response because of their potential for harm. With such a justification in place the establishment in the Republican Party can easily have the Paul supporters removed if it appears they’re gaining an advantage and public opinion will side with the decision. If you can’t win by the rules you need to build public support for your side so you can play outside of the rules.

This is why I believe the strategy of “reforming” the Republican Party is foolish. The Republican Party doesn’t want to be reformed, they’re quite happy promoting war, cronyism, and destroying any rights listed in the Constitution. Anybody who believes the Republican Party is run by the people is entirely mistaken, it’s run by a few power players who generally rely on their sheep mindlessly going where they’re told but have no issue playing outside of the rules if some of the sheep begin dissenting. When such hostilities to change become openly apparent it’s time to move on to something else.

The Futility of Arguing Constitutionality

We all like to argue about the true meaning of the Constitution. Arguments regarding constitutionality fall into two camps generally referred to as left and right. The left usually argue that the language in the Constitution grants vast authority to the federal government or will bring up the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” whose interpretation can change over time (of course this idea is patently absurd as that would mean the Constitution is the only piece of legislation that can be interpreted differently over time). On the other side we have the right who generally argue that the Constitution grants very limited powers to the federal government. Both sides use the same text to argue in favor of their positions. Unfortunately arguments based on constitutionality are meaningless because the Constitution itself grants the power to arbitrate such disagreements to a branch of the federal government.

Article 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The part I’m mainly referring to is “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” In arguing against arguments based on constitutionality I’m going to make a constitutional argument (how messed up is that?). The reason for this is that I’m concerned with how the excerpt is used today in law, not my interpretation on how it should be used.

The power of the judiciary extends to all cases arising under the Constitution itself. Effectively this grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution by being the ultimate arbitrator in disagreements regarding the document. If one group says the Commerce Clause doesn’t allow the federal government to regulate goods manufactured and sold for exclusive use in one individual state while another groups says the opposite they may find their disagreement going to the Supreme Court. At that point the Supreme Court will rule in favor of one side. As the Supreme Court works on a majority vote and has nine judges the legal interpretation of constitutional language is decided by five individuals. No matter what you and I say, no matter what anybody outside of the Supreme Court says, those five guys are the only people who get to decide what the Constitution really means.

An example of this is the Commerce Clause. This seemingly minor entry in the list of Congressional powers has been used to justify numerous laws that were later challenged by upheld by the Supreme Court. One such case was Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court decided the Commerce Clause granted the federal government the authority to prevent an individual from growing more than an the state allowed amount of wheat even though the wheat was intended for personal use. The Supreme Court’s logic basically revolved around the fact that a farmer who grew his own wheat wouldn’t buy wheat on the market and therefore would effect wheat prices. Many people would say that such a ruling was bullshit, that the Founding Fathers never meant for the Commerce Clause to mean that, but the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ultimate authority in arbitrating such debates so, through their ruling, the Commerce Clause means the federal government can regulate wheat production for private use.

The catch-22 of arguing constitutionality is the fact that the Constitution itself makes such arguments pointless.