A Plague On Both Your Houses

Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy was a lot of things.  He was human, he had his failings like all humans have.  Like a long line of old style Irish politicians from Massachusetts those failings and that humanity defined him and made him truly superb at the business of legislation and politics.  He treated others like human beings and in that he was able to deal with them, listen to them and concede to them when necessary as human beings, not as the evil representatives of an opposing ideology.  So many people do not treat their opponents, behind the closed doors where deal-making is done, with that humanity and respect.  So many are not able to make compromises because they do not see people as people.  They only see them as competitors, opponents, and ultimately enemies.  Kennedy was not like that.  Possibly because of his own humanity, his own tragedies and his own failings, he did not judge others harshly.  He recognized that treating the opposition with respect, making deals, creating compromises, being a friend to the people with whom he dealt, and getting things done, were not signs of weakness or a signs that he lacked toughness.  He wanted to get things done.  His life as a public servant was not defined by high principal and lofty ideals, although he certainly espoused and fought for them.  In the end his public service and his life was defined, as ultimately all of ours are defined, by his accomplishments.  No matter what you say about him, you can not deny his accomplishments.  As many have said, he accomplished more for the elderly, the poor and the infirm in the United States than probably any other person, ever.  That is his legacy and our politicians and pundits and bloggers and all the ranters and ravers about principal and ideals should take a step back and say to themselves, “With all of my anger and vitriol and animosity, what am I accomplishing?”  What they will find is that they are no Ted Kennedy.

Barack Obama Needs to Step Up.

President Obama needs to be a leader, not a rationalizing academic.  We need it now.  And that doesn’t mean just slamming Health Care reform through the legislature without a care for the Republican side. That means sitting down with both sides, playing James Madison, and hammering out a compromise that, although it may not be exciting to either side, is acceptable to both.

Many Democrats, the administration included will ask why.  Why should they compromise when they are able to push through the legislation they want?  The answer, for the good of the country.

We are tired of polarization Americans can see that it permeates all aspects of our lives.  People no longer listen, they scream.  People no longer attempt to understand other views or even allow them to be given, they shout them down.  Young people seem to believe there are only two ways to view the world – as us or them.  Gone are the days when people said “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  Now all words are fighting words, unless they are our words.

Why is this insidious?  We are becoming a great big Jonestown (or should I say two Jonestowns).  Drink the cool aide or you are an outcast.  Drink the cool aide or no one will love you.  Drink the cool aide or you are evil and won’t make it to heaven.  Drink the cool aide or you are a traitor to everything for which we stand.

I am no Cool Aide drinker.  I want to hear what “they” have to say.  I will shout till I am blue in the face that the Emperor has no clothes, no matter the prevailing “wisdom” that says its a “new outfit.” President Obama, you need to lead us back to a better place, and you need to do it by defying your own party as well as the opposition.

Technorati Tags: Politics,Republicans,Democrats,Obama,Health Care,Health Care Reform,Congress,Administration,Liberals,Conservatives,Political Parties,James Madison,President

Squeaky Fromme Should not be Released

Manson follower 'Squeaky' Fromme out of prison - washingtonpost.com

The consequence for attempting to assasinate the President is life in Prison, pure and simple.  You do the crime, you do the time.  It is not an outrageous punishment, there is no sense of injustice or outrage had she remained behind bars.  So why release her? Our justice system may be a mess and overtaxed, but this makes no sense.

Health-Care Reform

Paul Begala - A Health-Care Goal for Progressives: Progress Not Perfection - washingtonpost.com .

I commented on this post as follows:

You say you don't think bipartisanship should be so lauded, yet isn't that term just another term for compromise? You cite the Constitutuion's phrase "more perfect union" in recognition that we are not perfect, yet you use the Social Security Act as an example of imperfection. Why not use the Constitution itself as your example? One of the more eloquent explanations of the merits of compromise comes in fact from Ben Franklin in his address to the Constitutional Convention:

"I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong….. In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such…. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?... Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good."

The problem with the far right and the far left in the debate over health care and other debates is that they are like the Catholic Church and the Church of England. One is infallible and the other is never wrong. The truth is that nobody has perfection on their side and neither is right absolutely all the time. The Republicans' return to their roots of Anti-Big Government and reduced spending follows eight years of Republican increases in the size and intrusiveness of Government and huge spending deficits. On the flip side the Democrats/Progressives have whined for the last eight years about profligacy, earmarks and outrageous republican spending only to turn around and throw money at problems as if they could print it from no until kingdom come and in the mean time do arrogant and insensitively idiotic things like attempt to buy extra private jets for a Pentagon that said they didn't need them (when was the last time that happened?).

I believe that bipartisanship is and was something very important to the American people. "Change You Can Believe In" was a slogan based on reforming the way Washington worked. Obama had opportunities to take leadership on bipartisanship and failed. Now, "Progressives" (democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call the democratic party base) like Begala are minimizing bipartisanship and compromise. Why? Because they have the power, just like the Republicans had the power when they ruled the Senate not too long ago. Same arrogance, different party. I now have no faith that the democratic party will change the the way Washington works, just like their counterparts didn't change it. Politicians are all the same and they wonder why we have no faith in Government.

Which brings us to the current debate. Americans of whatever stripe are passionate and angry about health care. It costs too much. The care is not that good. There is fraud and waste at all levels. People pay for health insurance and find they are not covered. People pay for health insurance and then, if they have the misfortune to need it, must spend three quarters of their waking hours dealing with the Insurance beauraucracy. And you wonder why they are worried that the Government will be involved?

The fact is that the system needs a complete and total overhaul. Regulation, payment, tort reform, information gathering and dissemination, costs and delivery systems are all in need of fixing. The Republican idea of "free enterprise" doing the job is as silly as the Democrats' idea that the government can fix it. Free enterprise, in the form of a bunch of bookies, now runs the Healthcare system in America for all intents and purposes. Since when did your bookie have your best interests at heart?

Why bookies? Because that is what an Insurance company is. Insurance was invented at a Coffee House on the docks of London. The name of that Coffee House was Lloyd's and Ship owners would go down to the docks to have coffee and watch the ships come in. They would bet on whether particular ships would come in and they came up with the great idea of betting against themselves to "insure" that they would not lose too much if their ship didn't make it. Insurance companies for everything from cars to Healthcare are the same. You are betting against yourself. They calculate the odds, they take your bets, they lay them off (no called re-insurance) and they figure out ways to make sure that if you "win" you don't win too much or too often. Those are the people in charge of the Health Care industry and we have handed them the keys. Obama's solution is to make the Government and competitive bookie. Wow, there's change we can believe in.

Clearly this is not the answer, but at this point it may be the best we get. The bookies want the system not to change (obviously) and they are mostly behind the anti-reform rhetoric. For that reason alone I will have to take Ben Franklin's approach. I consent to this Health Care reform bill because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.

Tags: Politics, Healthcare+reform, Healthcare, Constitution, Ben+Franklin, Democrats, Republicans, Begala, Washington+Post, Progressives, Conservative, Liberal, bipartisanship, Obama, Washington, Progressive, Insurance, Change

Child Pornography - A Reluctant Rebellion

A Reluctant Rebellion

A Reluctant Rebellion | ABA Journal - Law News Now.

“Laws are tough on child pornography. But some federal judges think the time isn’t fitting the crime.”

This is an excellent, comprehensive and well thought out Article but it misses some key points.  Those who argue against the long sentences give versions of the same story:

“The problem with the guidelines, according to Stabenow [A Study, “Deconstructing the Myth of Careful Study” (PDF) was conducted by Troy Stabenow, a former military prosecutor, and alleges serious flaws in the US Sentencing guidelines] and a growing chorus of critics, begins with the severity of the penalties. Possessing even one illegal image is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Receipt, transportation, distribution and production all carry a mandatory minimum five-year sentence and are punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Some of those penalties have been increased in an effort to go after what the commission called the “most dangerous” offenders, a group it has defined as repeat sexual offenders and producers of child porn. But according to Stabenow’s analysis, nearly 80 percent of all child porn defendants in 2006 had no prior felonies of any kind, let alone a history of sexually abusing or exploiting a child. And only 5 percent of all child porn defendants in 2007 had been charged with production.”

The problem, however, is that the purchasers, downloaders and traders of pornographic images, by their actions are soliciting and paying for truly horrific acts.  Think of it this way.  If one of these upstanding citizens walked into a room and paid to have someone else perform a live sex show with a child, how would you punish them?  And that is the key.  Where do people think these “images” come from?  This is not a victimless crime.  When someone pays for porn the are not merely “supporting” the “industry” they are essentially pooling their money to pay all of the costs and profits for that “image” to be produced. They are soliciting and purchasing the crime, not just the image.  When viewed from that perspective the punishment is understandable and merely because the criminal doesn’t see it that way is not a reason for society to view it differently.

Now, that being said, there are levels of “intent” recognized by our justice system that should rightly be taken into account.  A person who downloads images of people who look like adults, but turn out not to be, may be “less guilty” than another downloading more heinous material.  A person who downloads a single image and shows remorse may be less guilty than one who has hundreds of images, distributes as well as downloads and shows little real remorse.  But this is not about a consenting adult in the privacy of their own home viewing another consenting adult.  Children do not consent to pornography.

There is also great emphasis on the fact that the guidelines for sentencing of child porn are influenced by political pressure and that this causes injustice.  The problems with the Sentencing Guidelines are generally well documented, but the political pressure on the guidelines comes from both sides of the argument and is generated by real concerns.  On one side the problems outlined in the article generate concern, along with the prosecutorial excess that the guidelines often encourage or tacitly condone.  Prosecutors make points by “throwing the book” at people who may be merely foolish, sad addicts with no evil intent.  On the other hand the political pressure that generated the guidelines in the first place, not that long ago, arose because many judges were failing to give just punishment to people who were committing worse and worse offenses after getting lenient sentences.  Political pressure on the law does not arise in a vacuum.

It would be a mistake to discount and reduce sentences based on the argument that repeat sexual offenders and producers are the “real” criminals. In the context of Child Porn – the customers are guilty too and most of them know what they are buying.

Tags: Law, Politics, Crime, Pornography