All of us who have come to love and depend upon ebooks know that they frequently are rife with errors of grammar, punctuation and spelling. This problem seems to be most common with books that are in the public domain, but the problem isn't limited exclusively to them. Fortunately, it does seem to me that, as ebooks claim a greater share of the market, the problem is diminishing.
I recently purchased an ebook from Amazon with, I thought, a reasonable expectation that it wouldn't have many of these egregious errors since it had a 2010 copyright. I was irritated to find the word "003s" on the very first page. I didn't even try to puzzle it out using the context; because it was on the first page, I went to a different edition of the same book on Amazon, looked at the first page and saw the real word.
Despite this inauspicious beginning, I haven't encountered any other errors in the book. But I have encountered the original error over and over again. "003" represents a string of letters, and throughout the book, whenever that string of letters is part of the text, they are replaced in this ebook by "003."
So far I have encountered: 003s, 003t, 003ted, 003ts, 003e, 003ing and 003ting. Your task is to determine what string of letters I have to substitute in my mind when I run into 003 in the book. Possibly there is more than one letter string which could be substituted. If so, you will get credit for solving the puzzle, even if it isn't what I'm looking for.
I have also found three hyphenated words that include 003, but the answer would become obvious if I were to give them to you here. Possibly you can make of that a clue.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
I Wish They'd Hurry Up. I Ain't Gonna Live Forever
It was always a long shot, but the reason I held out some hope that the Supremes might just maybe issue a broad ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is because of the problems that will grow out of the existing patchwork arrangement.
My thinking never went much beyond the obvious conflict that will arise when a couple married in one state moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, to a state which maybe even has a constitutional ban against gay marriage.
What I never considered was the effect of overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and the variety of ways that Federal agencies recognize marriage for the purpose of determining benefits. Some agencies use a "place of celebration" standard and recognize all marriages that were legally entered anywhere in the world. Other agencies (IRS and Social Security) adhere to a "place of residence" standard.
Consider this: the Dept. of Defense has a place of celebration standard for all active-duty personnel. But the Dept. of Veterans Affairs has a place of residence standard.
Fortunately the administration has the power to change most of these standards by executive action. But in any situation where these place of residence standards are "baked into law," we are probably s.o.l. because of the impossibility of getting any corrective action through this Republican House.
I don't know how fast the next case can make it to the Supreme Court. If not by next term, there will almost certainly be a case waiting for the Supremes on the first Monday in October of 2014 I would think. And they will keep coming until the Court finally faces the inevitable.
In 1967! the Supremes determined that state bans on interracial marriage were illegal when a Virginia couple were married out of state and then returned to Virginia which, along with several other southern states, did not recognize their marriage. Now it is just a question of how fast can a similar case involving gay marriage make it to the court?
My thinking never went much beyond the obvious conflict that will arise when a couple married in one state moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, to a state which maybe even has a constitutional ban against gay marriage.
What I never considered was the effect of overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and the variety of ways that Federal agencies recognize marriage for the purpose of determining benefits. Some agencies use a "place of celebration" standard and recognize all marriages that were legally entered anywhere in the world. Other agencies (IRS and Social Security) adhere to a "place of residence" standard.
Consider this: the Dept. of Defense has a place of celebration standard for all active-duty personnel. But the Dept. of Veterans Affairs has a place of residence standard.
Fortunately the administration has the power to change most of these standards by executive action. But in any situation where these place of residence standards are "baked into law," we are probably s.o.l. because of the impossibility of getting any corrective action through this Republican House.
I don't know how fast the next case can make it to the Supreme Court. If not by next term, there will almost certainly be a case waiting for the Supremes on the first Monday in October of 2014 I would think. And they will keep coming until the Court finally faces the inevitable.
In 1967! the Supremes determined that state bans on interracial marriage were illegal when a Virginia couple were married out of state and then returned to Virginia which, along with several other southern states, did not recognize their marriage. Now it is just a question of how fast can a similar case involving gay marriage make it to the court?
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Hypocrisy Continued
Following up on the point I made yesterday about the hypocrisy of the conservatives on the Supreme Court, this is taken verbatim from a story by Ari Berman in The Nation, called "The Supreme Court's Constitutional Hypocrisy." It deserves to be read.
In his dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case today, Justice Scalia wrote: “We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.”
Justice Roberts wrote in his concurrence: “I agree with Justice Scalia that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the courts below… I also agree with Justice Scalia that Congress acted constitutionally in passing the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Yet that reasoning didn’t stop Justices Roberts and Scalia from striking down the centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act yesterday, a hugely important civil rights law that has been passed by Congress five times with overwhelming bipartisan approval. Why didn’t the court defer to Congress on the VRA, which has a far more robust Congressional history/mandate than DOMA? And how did Roberts and Scalia reach such contradictory conclusions in the different cases?
It doesn’t seem like the Chief Justice has a very sound grasp of the Constitution when it comes to the VRA. Richard Posner, an esteemed conservative legal theorist at the University of Chicago and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote in Slate that Roberts struck down Section 4 of the VRA for violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty,” which, as Posner writes “is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that…there is no such principle…The opinion rests on air.” The extensive record developed by Congress, most recently in 2006, Posner writes, “should have been the end of this case.”
David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center made a similar point to Steve Benen of MSNBC’s MaddowBlog yesterday:
Justice Roberts has been opposed to the VRA
for three decades, ever since he was a young lawyer in the Reagan
Justice Department. His sweeping and radical decision yesterday was more
about ideology than the law, constitutional principles or congressional
deference be damned.
In his dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case today, Justice Scalia wrote: “We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.”
Justice Roberts wrote in his concurrence: “I agree with Justice Scalia that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the courts below… I also agree with Justice Scalia that Congress acted constitutionally in passing the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Yet that reasoning didn’t stop Justices Roberts and Scalia from striking down the centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act yesterday, a hugely important civil rights law that has been passed by Congress five times with overwhelming bipartisan approval. Why didn’t the court defer to Congress on the VRA, which has a far more robust Congressional history/mandate than DOMA? And how did Roberts and Scalia reach such contradictory conclusions in the different cases?
It doesn’t seem like the Chief Justice has a very sound grasp of the Constitution when it comes to the VRA. Richard Posner, an esteemed conservative legal theorist at the University of Chicago and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote in Slate that Roberts struck down Section 4 of the VRA for violating the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty,” which, as Posner writes “is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that…there is no such principle…The opinion rests on air.” The extensive record developed by Congress, most recently in 2006, Posner writes, “should have been the end of this case.”
David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center made a similar point to Steve Benen of MSNBC’s MaddowBlog yesterday:
The Court strikes down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional without ever explaining what provision of the Constitution commands this result. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the conservative majority argued that the Voting Rights Act provision was inconsistent with the ‘letter and spirit of the Constitution,’ but he never really explained why.
His majority opinion emphasized that the Voting Rights Act diminished the sovereignty of states, ignoring that the Fifteenth Amendment expressly gives to Congress broad power to prevent all forms of racial discrimination in voting by the states. As Justice Ginsburg’s powerful dissent demonstrates, the Court’s opinion cannot be squared with the text, history, and meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment.Voting rights historian Steven Lawson, author of numerous books about the VRA and its impact, shared his like-minded conclusion with me. Writes Lawson:
Apparently the first amendment and the 14th amendment are meant to protect corporations and states but not the folks for whom it was designed. This is an activist court that decreed the coverage formula was outdated even though Congress held numerous hearings and found evidence that proved otherwise. So much for the conservative principle of judicial deference…This is an ideological, ahistorical decision.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Not the Best and Not the Worst
My first reaction to today's rulings on gay marriage was a slight disappointment. It was expected that they were going to kill the Defense of Marriage Act so, while welcome, it wasn't a surprise. The disappointment grew out of the fact that I had still held out some small hope that on the California case, they would issue a broad ruling that there was no constitutional basis for denying same sex marriage anywhere in the U.S. Alas, it was always a long shot.
I think there were three possible outcomes, and while we didn't get the best one, we also avoided the worst...which would have been a narrow ruling on the California case that upheld the Appeals Court, but pointedly did not find a broader constitutional right to same sex marriage.
It seems like this ruling that the plaintiffs in the California case did not have standing will reverberate favorably as the rest of the state dominoes continue falling. It will discourage groups who would otherwise be inclined to challenge court findings. While the Supremes didn't rule on the merits of the case, I would think it might also discourage groups in other states from trying to put their own versions of Prop. 8 on the ballot.
Hypocrisy note: in his dissent, Scalia snarled about the majority having " an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society" because of their willingness to ignore the will of Congress. This comes on the heals of the ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act in which he was part of the majority. The VRA has had over 50 years of congressional support, having been renewed four times after its initial passage in 1965. There is a hell of a lot more will of the congress in the VRA than there ever was in DOMA.
Scalia increasingly seems to be just another angry old white guy who sees the world passing him by.
I think there were three possible outcomes, and while we didn't get the best one, we also avoided the worst...which would have been a narrow ruling on the California case that upheld the Appeals Court, but pointedly did not find a broader constitutional right to same sex marriage.
It seems like this ruling that the plaintiffs in the California case did not have standing will reverberate favorably as the rest of the state dominoes continue falling. It will discourage groups who would otherwise be inclined to challenge court findings. While the Supremes didn't rule on the merits of the case, I would think it might also discourage groups in other states from trying to put their own versions of Prop. 8 on the ballot.
Hypocrisy note: in his dissent, Scalia snarled about the majority having " an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society" because of their willingness to ignore the will of Congress. This comes on the heals of the ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act in which he was part of the majority. The VRA has had over 50 years of congressional support, having been renewed four times after its initial passage in 1965. There is a hell of a lot more will of the congress in the VRA than there ever was in DOMA.
Scalia increasingly seems to be just another angry old white guy who sees the world passing him by.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Supremes-Another of Their Biggest Hits
The Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act today was not unexpected, but it is still disappointing.
The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006 by votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. It has a fifty-year record of effectiveness. As recently as the last election this law allowed the Justice department to challenge and block attempts by three states to implement discriminatory laws. But Roberts writes as if the changes made in the past fifty years have completely remade the country, as if racism and attempts to restrict voting rights were a thing of the past. During oral arguments, Scalia dismissed the VRA as a "racial entitlement."
To be accurate, the Court did not strike down the VRA. It merely gutted, by a 5-4 vote, its most important provision which required certain state and local governments to get federal "preclearance" before making any changes in their voting procedures. The Court did not rule on the requirement for preclearance, but struck down the formula by which it was determined when preclearance was required. This requirement, overwhelmingly re-approved by Congress, even by the Senators and Representatives in affected areas, was to Roberts' thinking "an undue burden on the states."
Congress could still write a different formula to determine when preclearance is needed, and I'm sure efforts will be made. But good luck trying and get anything through this particular House of Representatives.
The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized in 2006 by votes of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. It has a fifty-year record of effectiveness. As recently as the last election this law allowed the Justice department to challenge and block attempts by three states to implement discriminatory laws. But Roberts writes as if the changes made in the past fifty years have completely remade the country, as if racism and attempts to restrict voting rights were a thing of the past. During oral arguments, Scalia dismissed the VRA as a "racial entitlement."
To be accurate, the Court did not strike down the VRA. It merely gutted, by a 5-4 vote, its most important provision which required certain state and local governments to get federal "preclearance" before making any changes in their voting procedures. The Court did not rule on the requirement for preclearance, but struck down the formula by which it was determined when preclearance was required. This requirement, overwhelmingly re-approved by Congress, even by the Senators and Representatives in affected areas, was to Roberts' thinking "an undue burden on the states."
Congress could still write a different formula to determine when preclearance is needed, and I'm sure efforts will be made. But good luck trying and get anything through this particular House of Representatives.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
No Respect for the Fallen
From a bathroom reader, Weird Things Customers Say in Bookshops.
CUSTOMER: Can you point me to your military history section, please?
BOOKSELLER: I’m afraid we’re such a small shop that we don’t actually have one.
CUSTOMER: WHAT? No war section AT ALL? Have you no respect for the fallen?
BOOKSELLER: I can order in any title you’re after. Or you’ll find a decent selection of war poetry and novels inspired by war.
CUSTOMER (ignoring this): You mean to tell me you have no shelf on weaponry?
BOOKSELLER: I’m afraid not.
CUSTOMER: Are you a pacifist or something?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Bureaucrats Rule the World
I have been thinking recently about the concept of conscientious objector status as it was applied during the years when there was a draft. Why should my opposition to the war in Vietnam, based on what might loosely be called reason, be any less valid than the opposition of someone who was against it because of his, ipso facto, illogical religious belief?
The Supreme Court decision in Welsh v. United States in 1970 upheld the concept of a non-religious-based conscientious objection to war. But still I ask why a conscientious objection to war in general is valid, but a reasoned objection to a particular war is not?
The following is from the Daily Kos, and should piss off most people, I would think. It seems to be a clear violation of what the court decided 43 years ago, aside from the illogic of expecting a 64-year old woman to take up arms.
Margaret Doughty, a 64-year-old woman from the U.K., has lived in the United States for 30 years. Now that she has applied for U.S. citizenship, the Department of Homeland Security might deny her because she's an atheist.
On her application, Margaret declined to “take up arms to defend the United States”—due to her moral opposition to violence. The U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (a division of DHS) replied that only religious-based objections are valid—instructing her to submit proof of her religion on “official church stationery” by June 21, or they will deny her U.S. citizenship.Requiring proof of religion on citizenship applications is clearly unconstitutional. There is a petition you can sign if you wish to protest this stupidity.
At Least It´s Not Boring
Last night after posting about the demonstrations/protests in São Paulo, I walked downstairs and the first words out of Heitor´s mouth were that the bus fare increase had been rescinded.
Now we will see what happens, but I fear we might have an out-of-control situation.
Tonight I had a long session with my principal English student and I had only arrived home in time for about 10 minutes to talk with Heitor before he left to watch the NBA Finals with Pedrão. But it was long enough to learn that there were as many people in the streets today as ever, with a lot of right-wing and skin head violence and a general incoherence to the whole event. Heitor described one participant who was interviewed by a TV reporter. The list of things he was pissed about covered the full political spectrum from left to right.
This may have morphed into just a lot of vaguely pissed off, but basically inarticulate and not very thoughtful people taking to the streets.
One lesson of history I´m afraid is that thoughtful people lose when it comes to who has the most muscle in the streets. Wasn´t that one of Lenin´s rules?
Now we will see what happens, but I fear we might have an out-of-control situation.
Tonight I had a long session with my principal English student and I had only arrived home in time for about 10 minutes to talk with Heitor before he left to watch the NBA Finals with Pedrão. But it was long enough to learn that there were as many people in the streets today as ever, with a lot of right-wing and skin head violence and a general incoherence to the whole event. Heitor described one participant who was interviewed by a TV reporter. The list of things he was pissed about covered the full political spectrum from left to right.
This may have morphed into just a lot of vaguely pissed off, but basically inarticulate and not very thoughtful people taking to the streets.
One lesson of history I´m afraid is that thoughtful people lose when it comes to who has the most muscle in the streets. Wasn´t that one of Lenin´s rules?
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Where´s Bob Dylan These Days?
Something is happening here but you don't know what it is do you, Mr. Jones?
I'm feeling a lot like Mr. Jones in Brazil nowadays.
The protests in various cities here have been going on for more than a week now. They started as a reaction to an increase in city bus fares. (I'm not sure how it is that São Paulo, Rio, Recife and other cities all happened to announce fare increases at the same time.) The actual fare increases are minimal in a U.S. context, less than ten cents. But this increase is just the latest in a long series. Bus and subway fares have increased over 30% in the time I have lived here. The fares were already considered oppressive by many poor people when I moved here and, of course, they are the part of the population most dependent on public transportation. When Heitor and I were living downtown and arranging with a woman to clean our apartment, she asked for a certain price...plus transportation costs.
The protests have morphed into something else, as people are venting their outrage about a number of social issues (e.g. wanton destruction of favelas and the construction of huge expensive stadiums for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in Rio in 2016 while public education and healthcare are a disgrace. Yes healthcare. Annual inflation of 5-6 % driving up the cost of living faster than wages and salaries.) And the right / center-right political parties have tried to co-opt the demonstrations and turn them into an anti-federal government, anti-corruption campaign. As if the center-left invented corruption and inefficiency, and as if the government of São Paulo city and state were not in the hands of the center-right.
I knew about the protests, but only became acutely and personally aware of them when Heitor´s best friend from the university, Pedrão, a journalist covering the protests last Tuesday, was beaten by the police and arrested. Two nights later I learned that there was live coverage on TV and I began to watch. What I saw was a police riot, with cops beating people with nightsticks, and firing tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately. Apparently other people saw the same thing. The TV reporters as well as the local newspapers started out by supporting the police and pretending the protests were violent. As reporters were beaten, gassed, arrested and even in one case shot in the eye with a rubber bullet, the media turned against the police, and the police then dropped their unnecessary swat team tactics. Heitor told me about one TV studio announcer who did a 180 in the middle of his show. When the public response to a call-in question showed that viewers were opposed to the police over-reaction, the announcer switched his position then and there. He announced he was on the side of the people. (Someone who knows which side of the street his bread is buttered on.)
Last night I believe a new element of anarchy was introduced with destruction of some public and private property and the swat teams have been brought out again. Whether they will act with a bit more restraint I don´t know, or haven´t heard. I admit that I am not trying to keep up with this daily, as it is too complicated, and the actual protests are occuring in the center of the city, which is nowhere close to where we now live so I have no first-hand knowledge. If we still lived in our old apartment, we would be right in the heart of the action.
As to where this is going, and what will come of it, I´m surely not the only Mr. Jones.
Pedrão, by the way, was released around mid-day on Friday. Until his case goes before a judge (almost certainly to be dismissed for lack of evidence) he is confined to his house at night.
In the meanwhile, Heitor and another friend, skipped an international soccer match in Rio that they had been anticipating for six months or more, ever since they had won tickets to it. The game was last weekend, and they cancelled to remain in São Paulo in support of Pedrão. Friends!
I'm feeling a lot like Mr. Jones in Brazil nowadays.
The protests in various cities here have been going on for more than a week now. They started as a reaction to an increase in city bus fares. (I'm not sure how it is that São Paulo, Rio, Recife and other cities all happened to announce fare increases at the same time.) The actual fare increases are minimal in a U.S. context, less than ten cents. But this increase is just the latest in a long series. Bus and subway fares have increased over 30% in the time I have lived here. The fares were already considered oppressive by many poor people when I moved here and, of course, they are the part of the population most dependent on public transportation. When Heitor and I were living downtown and arranging with a woman to clean our apartment, she asked for a certain price...plus transportation costs.
The protests have morphed into something else, as people are venting their outrage about a number of social issues (e.g. wanton destruction of favelas and the construction of huge expensive stadiums for the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in Rio in 2016 while public education and healthcare are a disgrace. Yes healthcare. Annual inflation of 5-6 % driving up the cost of living faster than wages and salaries.) And the right / center-right political parties have tried to co-opt the demonstrations and turn them into an anti-federal government, anti-corruption campaign. As if the center-left invented corruption and inefficiency, and as if the government of São Paulo city and state were not in the hands of the center-right.
I knew about the protests, but only became acutely and personally aware of them when Heitor´s best friend from the university, Pedrão, a journalist covering the protests last Tuesday, was beaten by the police and arrested. Two nights later I learned that there was live coverage on TV and I began to watch. What I saw was a police riot, with cops beating people with nightsticks, and firing tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately. Apparently other people saw the same thing. The TV reporters as well as the local newspapers started out by supporting the police and pretending the protests were violent. As reporters were beaten, gassed, arrested and even in one case shot in the eye with a rubber bullet, the media turned against the police, and the police then dropped their unnecessary swat team tactics. Heitor told me about one TV studio announcer who did a 180 in the middle of his show. When the public response to a call-in question showed that viewers were opposed to the police over-reaction, the announcer switched his position then and there. He announced he was on the side of the people. (Someone who knows which side of the street his bread is buttered on.)
Last night I believe a new element of anarchy was introduced with destruction of some public and private property and the swat teams have been brought out again. Whether they will act with a bit more restraint I don´t know, or haven´t heard. I admit that I am not trying to keep up with this daily, as it is too complicated, and the actual protests are occuring in the center of the city, which is nowhere close to where we now live so I have no first-hand knowledge. If we still lived in our old apartment, we would be right in the heart of the action.
As to where this is going, and what will come of it, I´m surely not the only Mr. Jones.
Pedrão, by the way, was released around mid-day on Friday. Until his case goes before a judge (almost certainly to be dismissed for lack of evidence) he is confined to his house at night.
In the meanwhile, Heitor and another friend, skipped an international soccer match in Rio that they had been anticipating for six months or more, ever since they had won tickets to it. The game was last weekend, and they cancelled to remain in São Paulo in support of Pedrão. Friends!
Monday, June 17, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
More People Still Blaming Bush Instead of Accepting Responsibility
Report: Many Iraqis Still Holding Petty Grudge About U.S. Invasion
WASHINGTON—In spite of the rest of the world long having agreed to move on with their lives, a new report issued Monday reveals that many Iraqi citizens apparently still hold some sort of petty grudge over the U.S.-led invasion of their country.
According to research conducted by the U.S. Department of State, a startling number of Iraqis aren’t willing to just grow up and let go of the Iraq War, with many still crying their eyes out on a daily basis about the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, incalculable destruction, and lasting instability brought about by the conflict.
“While most of the world’s peoples have put the events of the war firmly behind them, our findings show that a significant number of Iraqi civilians would evidently rather trot out the same old sob story about having their country torn apart,” said State Department official and chief author of the study Arthur Manchin, who observed that these same individuals seemingly are more interested in dwelling on one little eight-year occupation than just letting bygones be bygones. “To hear these Iraqis tell it, you’d think they were the only people in the history of mankind to be invaded by a heavily armed aggressor and then turned over to violent militias and ineffectual police.”
“Yeah, the U.S. deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to their homeland, toppled their government without providing a functional replacement, and then abandoned the country, leaving it vulnerable for insurgent forces to terrorize indefinitely,” Manchin continued. “We get it. Stop living in the past.”
The report confirmed that a remarkable percentage of Iraqis refuse to be adults about the complete disruption of their way of life and instead are nursing bitter, childish grudges over the mass rocket bombardment, human rights abuses, political turmoil, and general chaos brought about by the war.______________________________________________________________________________
It´s tragic, not funny. But since this is from The Onion and nothing is sacred........
Monday, June 10, 2013
The Oboogy Man
I almost feel sorry for the extreme Obama haters. They can´t decide whether he´s most like Hitler, Stalin or Nixon. Or, for that matter, on so-called national security issues, George W. Bush.
And this on top of their long-standing inability to decide if he is an incompetent bumbler or the architect of a master plan to take away all of our liberties.
And this on top of their long-standing inability to decide if he is an incompetent bumbler or the architect of a master plan to take away all of our liberties.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Pick Your Poison
Americans have to choose their
priorities, security or civil liberties. President Obama thinks we
have struck the proper balance. I would disagree, as do most people
at the moment, judging from the current brouhaha about the collection
of domestic phone data.
As the NYT stresses in an editorial yesterday that calls for a drastic scaling back or outright
elimination of the Patriot Act, any executive branch is going to push
the limits, if not outright overreach the limits, of its authority.
The particular outrage President Obama, a constitutional scholar, is
committing is that he is continuing the Bush-Cheney policies, after
campaigning against them. And, one might say, knowing better.
But on the other hand, is it any wonder
this is the case? For example, I have no doubt that many of the same
people who were hyper-critical of the FBI and the Justice Department
for having let the elder of the Boston bombers slip through their
fingers are now incensed at the collection of phone data. And they no
doubt don't see any hypocrisy, or even irony in that. If we are
going to react with partisan outrage to every breakdown in national
security, then we can expect executives to continue using these
tools, if only to cover their asses.
Just as Obama recently asked Congress
to refine or totally take back the blank check it gave to the office
of the President in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force,
he should also ask for a re-examination or retraction of the Patriot
Act.
Nobody who supported the Patriot Act or
its partial re-authorization has much right to complain about how it
is working out in practice.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Sympathy (for the Devil?)
I'm not quite as agitated by the IRS scandal (the original one, before the one about extravagant convention spending) as some folks; I even have some sympathy for them.
Imagine having 70,000 applications piled up from organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status and a staff of somewhere between 150 to 200 people to sort through them and make a decision in each case. What does that decision entail? It means deciding which applicants spend 49% of their resources on political activities and which ones spend 51%.
Imagine knowing for a fact that there are groups bent on gaming the system, pretending to be social welfare groups when their only reason for existence is politics, and nothing but politics. I can't even begin to imagine what sort of social welfare organization Karl Rove would head up. Perhaps a program to educate the public about the evils of the socialistic Democrats?
If I was one of those IRS decision makers, I would certainly consider looking first at organizations which have criticism of federal tax policy at their very core. Why not search for groups with Tea Party in their name, when you know that the movement of that name grew directly out of the extreme right wing of the anti-tax Republican party?
Passing this job off to the IRS without giving them the necessary resources is as ridiculous as putting the IRS in the position of having to determine what is and what is not a tax-exempt religion. Hence, that sympathy I mentioned.
Imagine having 70,000 applications piled up from organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status and a staff of somewhere between 150 to 200 people to sort through them and make a decision in each case. What does that decision entail? It means deciding which applicants spend 49% of their resources on political activities and which ones spend 51%.
Imagine knowing for a fact that there are groups bent on gaming the system, pretending to be social welfare groups when their only reason for existence is politics, and nothing but politics. I can't even begin to imagine what sort of social welfare organization Karl Rove would head up. Perhaps a program to educate the public about the evils of the socialistic Democrats?
If I was one of those IRS decision makers, I would certainly consider looking first at organizations which have criticism of federal tax policy at their very core. Why not search for groups with Tea Party in their name, when you know that the movement of that name grew directly out of the extreme right wing of the anti-tax Republican party?
Passing this job off to the IRS without giving them the necessary resources is as ridiculous as putting the IRS in the position of having to determine what is and what is not a tax-exempt religion. Hence, that sympathy I mentioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)